iTunes is not really a rental system (nor is it trying to), so I don't see why you suggest it is a substitute. For $15/mo one can easily rent 8-16 DVDs from Netflix. Or "buy" one (or 1.5) iTunes movie(s). That is an enormous expense trade-off for on demand.
The problem with buying TV shows through that model is that expenses rack up very quickly. It is probably a workable alternative for an individual, but if you watch one TV episode a night, that's still more than basic cable. A household would be a lot better off with cable/sat + PVR.
I'm trying to say that, at least the way i see it, this is the right vision of the future of this stuff. Right now its not 100% there, so you supplement it with whatever else you need in your situation. If you rent a lot of movies, you're gonna need your dvd player, cause you don't want to have to buy them. If you have kids/family etc that ech watch different stuff, then it might get expensive buying season passes for all of them. Everyone's needs and economics are gonna be different. If there's demand for more of a "rental" type transaction where the file expires or something, then i'm sure this will be added. If the economics turn out to be prohibitive for common family usage, i'm sure that will get addressed as well. The vision is right - the details will find a balance.
The way i consume media, however, its almost there. Season pass for the couple shows I watch - check. Live sports ( i don't watch much ) i usually go the bar and watch with friends over a couple beers - check. I do expect to start seeing some live stuff through iTunes and others pretty soon tho. Movies we need lots more to get added to the catalog before this is really viable even for me, so that part isn't ready, I keep my dvd player for now, or use the one on the mac. Music is great. Granted I don't like drm any more than anyone else, but its still worth the convenience, so - check. So for me, the cable box and the dvr are definitely going away. As far as that occasional jeopardy episode and the local news...it's tough...but i think i will live.
My point is lets see the forest rather than the trees or the trees rather...If it falls and noone's there...ah hell yo know what i mean ;->
A quick answer to why DVR and not buy from iTunes. Because for $12.95 a month, I can DVR any number of shows with my Tivo. If I watch more than 7 episodes of anything in a month, I've iTunes beat for value right there. And it's more on demand then iTunes (well for me, with my 3Kbits cable modem connection), I have to wait at least 10 minutes before I could start watching the show.
Ok now you're nitpicking. A little more expensive? I'm ok with that because of the convenience and simplicity. If you're not, then you're right. You don't like the buffer time? thats your connection speed which is not what we're talking about. Like i said its looking in the right direction. Is it perfect for everyone or even anyone? Not quite...yet.
If you look for things to disagree about you will find them. I think this is the right vision for the future.
The two things that will make the Apple TV a success is content and ease of use. On the content side they are working in the right direction. They need to update their library to 720p and add more, especially new releases. It would be great if they at least partnered with someone like NetFlix to offer a rental model, but they would need to change their DRM to allow for that since I don't think it is currently available. It would be better if they came out with a DRM licensing scheme for other content providers to use as well which includes a rental/subscription model. Rental in the video world is BIG business, and if they are going to take on the DVD as Mr Cook said then they need to support movie rental or loose out on a lot of business.
As to ease of use, with Front Row my 5 year old son had trailers playing without assistance on my iMac in just a few minutes so they have that taken care of. Sure it could be better, and I'm sure it will be. It would be even better if they added a cable tuner so that could use a single interface to control that as well. Add in a DVR, even if it were a separate device, and they have everything working with one simple to use UI. Of course the UI and remote would probably have to grow to allow for this, but it is what most people here would want.
In the end I can't say if Apple TV will succeed or not. I know that I want one and now that I have a TV that will play 720p video as soon as I have the money for one I will place my order. Hopefully I will be able to buy 720p content at the iTMS when that time comes, if not it sounds like there are a few other ways to get what I have now into a usable format. I really don't want it to be a DVR just something that my son can pull up a library of video and choose the show/movie that I want to watch and hit play without help from me or my wife.
Another thought on the video of the future front. There looks to be an online distribution revolution coming up. In a way it is already here with pod casting and youtube. More is coming with internet TV distribution. At the same time there is a new format war in the HD DVD/Blue Ray front, and now online distribution. Apple TV is a start for Apple, but it is just a start. It is a bit limited in respect to all these distribution methods, but it is a fairly simple hardware platform with software that should be able to be upgraded to allow for future flexibility. No it won't be a DVR by itself but adding support for a new codec should not be too hard, nor adding support for a new method of online viewing via HTML such as YouTube. I would have hoped that Apple would have started with the proven plug-in model that has allowed for companies to add on such successful abilities as Flash, Shockwave, DIVIX, and other software that has enriched the internet as well as other digital media distribution. Maybe that is to come, if it is then great it will help Apple to succeed in this new arena, if not then we will see if Apple can find a business model for that meets the consumers needs and can hold its own in this new market.
I personally prefer the Apple TV to DVD's, I've had 3 go out on me in as many years and I rarely ever watch any of the special features. I would prefer to have a video library that isn't taking up shelf space, and I can browse through on the TV to choose what I want to watch. But at the same time the lack of a rental service and support for other online distribution is a bit of a problem. Hopefully the down sides of the software will be addressed before it is released or soon after and Apple can hold their own with this. If not then that is the risk of being in the business, sometimes your product has the right stuff to succeed sometimes it doesn't.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
Only if they don't release 720p movies...
Plus the video docks are running around $70 I think and the high end ones (Marantz was it?) I recall being even more pricey than aTV.
With respect to bandwidth the baby bells are sinking a ton of cash into fiber builds to compete with cable. From verizon you can get FIOS with no landline and use VOIP (which is what I do). AT&T has a IPTV offering that currently sucks price/feature vs cable but really is a limited trial run.
Whether iTunes can compete price wise with IPTV based VOD depends. Whether programming funded via commercial ad revenues survives the next decade should also be interesting. It should also be interesting to see which is ultimately more successful: pay as you go like iTunes or subscription VOD.
I know that I would pay as you go for specific shows. If there were 2M viewer of say Firefly that were willing to cough up $4 or so per episode that would cover the $2M for an average episode with some profits. Meager ones though and there wouldn't be any DVD revenues to add to the pot.
I also know that I would pay for certain channels and watch whatever happens to be on (History, Discovery, etc) and VOD beats DVR when it works.
I'm leaning more towards the belief that there will be 720P content.
So far the new functionality introduced in the iPod has had corresponding iTunes content to make use of it.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i. Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
You are correct, you will if the material is already on the Apple TV.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
My response to chabig, "don't count on it" was in response to a suggestion that you might be able to play optical discs from your networked Mac through AppleTV.
You will be able to play stuff that's already on your AppleTV hard drive (in the right formats) – just not optical discs of any kind, anywhere, that I know of.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i.
If they were working under throughput constraints to meet decent streaming performance, it is possible that 720p/24 was the best that they could do with H.264 Main Profile. Similarly there could have been processor/price performance constraints that that imposed a target bit rate, although this is less likely since the Main Profile is the most processor-intensive.
Remember that 720p/60 and 1080i/30 only have equivalent bit rates because 1080i is broadcast at half the frame rate. So if the design was throughput constrained, the best they could possibly be able to output is 1080i/12... That's 12 frames per second, which is absolutely horrid video quality.
I don't know all the specifics of H.264 codec, but I also wonder if it has problems with interlaced video quality at lower bit rates. MPEG-2 and VC-1 have problems with interlaced video, and AFAIK interlacing is only supported at the highest quality profiles of VC-1.
In any case you'll probably not notice a difference in quality from the HDTV (or the AppleTV) upscaling the video to 1080i for display on your TV. ABC, FOX, and ESPN are currently broadcast in 720p and I'm sure you probably didn't notice the difference. (Note that ESPN is transmitted in 720p because doubling the frame rate improves picture quality for fast action and sports.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
I have the exact same use as this user!! Obviously there is a huge market for this product. the only hiccup would be the wireless feature. I have hundreds of HQ, 5.1 audio movies, ripped from HandBrake that I would love to be able to watch on my TV. Imaging the money I would save in not having to replace broken or scratched DVDs because of child use!
Plus this thing will play my iTunes music as well, so I now have a house wide sound sytem instead of just in front of my computer. For 300 bucks, this thing is the exact answer i was looking for and cheaper than the mac mini, plus better ouput to the TV. sold, Sold, and SOLD!!!!
And for those of you out there thinking this is a "cause its a mac" purchase, had Microsfot made a product like this, with the same capabilities, I would have bought it form them as well. Good product is good product, regardless of manufacturing company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJW
Finally - I've been waiting for someone to make this point. It seems to me that the market for AppleTV right now isn't necessarily for streaming videos or movies from iTS (yet). In my case, I have 7 years worth of digital photos, my entire music collection in iTunes, and an increasingly large collection of video content (video podcasts, the odd TV show, movies ripped using Handbrake etc.) that I'd like to access via my TV, in a way the entire family can use easily. AppleTV is perfect for this (and certainly better than the POS Linksys WMA11B I have to babysit constantly at the moment).
Also, my AppleTV will be wired into my network (I don't have 802.11n yet, and I'm not sure g will be fast enough based on the location of my access point), so no issues there. All in all, it seems to be the perfect fit for my needs currently. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'm leaning more towards the belief that there will be 720P content.
So far the new functionality introduced in the iPod has had corresponding iTunes content to make use of it.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i. Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
1080i would be awesome. I shoot and edit with FCPro in 1080i with material from Sony FX1 and would love to be able to see this via ATV on my 55" Sony HD without conversion and that is also my reason for the need for ATV to support HD. I will live with 720p but I will have to export as such to watch, which is an extra step.
Remember that 720p/60 and 1080i/30 only have equivalent bit rates because 1080i is broadcast at half the frame rate. So if the design was throughput constrained, the best they could possibly be able to output is 1080i/12... That's 12 frames per second, which is absolutely horrid video quality.
Yes that is possible, but that should be more of a self imposed limitation rather than a true limitation of the hardware.
Quote:
I will live with 720p but I will have to export as such to watch, which is an extra step.
1080i isn't really that much better than 720P. 1080i progressive is 540P.
Yes that is possible, but that should be more of a self imposed limitation rather than a true limitation of the hardware.
1080i isn't really that much better than 720P. 1080i progressive is 540P.
No shit Sherlock! :lol.
That's not the issue, I would have 1080i already, no rendering. To make 720p is a big time job to re render. Well I suppose it's an excuse to get an 8 Core Mac Pro
My real hope is ... and just maybe this is the case, Leopard may output directly whatever is on the Mac screen to an ATV. In which case maybe, just maybe FCPro could send video while previewing HD without re rendering ??? Oh well I can dream right?
If they were working under throughput constraints to meet decent streaming performance, it is possible that 720p/24 was the best that they could do with H.264 Main Profile.
Streaming and download requirements. If the majority of HD content will be from iTunes then bandwidth considerations on the server end probably rank equally high as streaming performance. The movies have to sell for a reasonable cost and download less than glacially. 720p24 seems like a reasonable compromise between quality and size.
Comments
iTunes is not really a rental system (nor is it trying to), so I don't see why you suggest it is a substitute. For $15/mo one can easily rent 8-16 DVDs from Netflix. Or "buy" one (or 1.5) iTunes movie(s). That is an enormous expense trade-off for on demand.
The problem with buying TV shows through that model is that expenses rack up very quickly. It is probably a workable alternative for an individual, but if you watch one TV episode a night, that's still more than basic cable. A household would be a lot better off with cable/sat + PVR.
I'm trying to say that, at least the way i see it, this is the right vision of the future of this stuff. Right now its not 100% there, so you supplement it with whatever else you need in your situation. If you rent a lot of movies, you're gonna need your dvd player, cause you don't want to have to buy them. If you have kids/family etc that ech watch different stuff, then it might get expensive buying season passes for all of them. Everyone's needs and economics are gonna be different. If there's demand for more of a "rental" type transaction where the file expires or something, then i'm sure this will be added. If the economics turn out to be prohibitive for common family usage, i'm sure that will get addressed as well. The vision is right - the details will find a balance.
The way i consume media, however, its almost there. Season pass for the couple shows I watch - check. Live sports ( i don't watch much ) i usually go the bar and watch with friends over a couple beers - check. I do expect to start seeing some live stuff through iTunes and others pretty soon tho. Movies we need lots more to get added to the catalog before this is really viable even for me, so that part isn't ready, I keep my dvd player for now, or use the one on the mac. Music is great. Granted I don't like drm any more than anyone else, but its still worth the convenience, so - check. So for me, the cable box and the dvr are definitely going away. As far as that occasional jeopardy episode and the local news...it's tough...but i think i will live.
My point is lets see the forest rather than the trees or the trees rather...If it falls and noone's there...ah hell yo know what i mean ;->
A quick answer to why DVR and not buy from iTunes. Because for $12.95 a month, I can DVR any number of shows with my Tivo. If I watch more than 7 episodes of anything in a month, I've iTunes beat for value right there. And it's more on demand then iTunes (well for me, with my 3Kbits cable modem connection), I have to wait at least 10 minutes before I could start watching the show.
Ok now you're nitpicking. A little more expensive? I'm ok with that because of the convenience and simplicity. If you're not, then you're right. You don't like the buffer time? thats your connection speed which is not what we're talking about. Like i said its looking in the right direction. Is it perfect for everyone or even anyone? Not quite...yet.
If you look for things to disagree about you will find them. I think this is the right vision for the future.
cheers.
As to ease of use, with Front Row my 5 year old son had trailers playing without assistance on my iMac in just a few minutes so they have that taken care of. Sure it could be better, and I'm sure it will be. It would be even better if they added a cable tuner so that could use a single interface to control that as well. Add in a DVR, even if it were a separate device, and they have everything working with one simple to use UI. Of course the UI and remote would probably have to grow to allow for this, but it is what most people here would want.
In the end I can't say if Apple TV will succeed or not. I know that I want one and now that I have a TV that will play 720p video as soon as I have the money for one I will place my order. Hopefully I will be able to buy 720p content at the iTMS when that time comes, if not it sounds like there are a few other ways to get what I have now into a usable format. I really don't want it to be a DVR just something that my son can pull up a library of video and choose the show/movie that I want to watch and hit play without help from me or my wife.
I personally prefer the Apple TV to DVD's, I've had 3 go out on me in as many years and I rarely ever watch any of the special features. I would prefer to have a video library that isn't taking up shelf space, and I can browse through on the TV to choose what I want to watch. But at the same time the lack of a rental service and support for other online distribution is a bit of a problem. Hopefully the down sides of the software will be addressed before it is released or soon after and Apple can hold their own with this. If not then that is the risk of being in the business, sometimes your product has the right stuff to succeed sometimes it doesn't.
I think I was hoping I missed the point.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
Only if they don't release 720p movies...
Plus the video docks are running around $70 I think and the high end ones (Marantz was it?) I recall being even more pricey than aTV.
With respect to bandwidth the baby bells are sinking a ton of cash into fiber builds to compete with cable. From verizon you can get FIOS with no landline and use VOIP (which is what I do). AT&T has a IPTV offering that currently sucks price/feature vs cable but really is a limited trial run.
Whether iTunes can compete price wise with IPTV based VOD depends. Whether programming funded via commercial ad revenues survives the next decade should also be interesting. It should also be interesting to see which is ultimately more successful: pay as you go like iTunes or subscription VOD.
I know that I would pay as you go for specific shows. If there were 2M viewer of say Firefly that were willing to cough up $4 or so per episode that would cover the $2M for an average episode with some profits. Meager ones though and there wouldn't be any DVD revenues to add to the pot.
I also know that I would pay for certain channels and watch whatever happens to be on (History, Discovery, etc) and VOD beats DVR when it works.
Vinea
So far the new functionality introduced in the iPod has had corresponding iTunes content to make use of it.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i. Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
Don't count on it.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
You are correct, you will if the material is already on the Apple TV.
I am not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. I thought that's what the hard drive, and Front Row, was for. I was under the impression that you'd be able to play content from the Apple TV without a computer around.
My response to chabig, "don't count on it" was in response to a suggestion that you might be able to play optical discs from your networked Mac through AppleTV.
You will be able to play stuff that's already on your AppleTV hard drive (in the right formats) – just not optical discs of any kind, anywhere, that I know of.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i.
If they were working under throughput constraints to meet decent streaming performance, it is possible that 720p/24 was the best that they could do with H.264 Main Profile. Similarly there could have been processor/price performance constraints that that imposed a target bit rate, although this is less likely since the Main Profile is the most processor-intensive.
Remember that 720p/60 and 1080i/30 only have equivalent bit rates because 1080i is broadcast at half the frame rate. So if the design was throughput constrained, the best they could possibly be able to output is 1080i/12... That's 12 frames per second, which is absolutely horrid video quality.
I don't know all the specifics of H.264 codec, but I also wonder if it has problems with interlaced video quality at lower bit rates. MPEG-2 and VC-1 have problems with interlaced video, and AFAIK interlacing is only supported at the highest quality profiles of VC-1.
In any case you'll probably not notice a difference in quality from the HDTV (or the AppleTV) upscaling the video to 1080i for display on your TV. ABC, FOX, and ESPN are currently broadcast in 720p and I'm sure you probably didn't notice the difference. (Note that ESPN is transmitted in 720p because doubling the frame rate improves picture quality for fast action and sports.)
Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
Quoted For Truth
Plus this thing will play my iTunes music as well, so I now have a house wide sound sytem instead of just in front of my computer. For 300 bucks, this thing is the exact answer i was looking for and cheaper than the mac mini, plus better ouput to the TV. sold, Sold, and SOLD!!!!
And for those of you out there thinking this is a "cause its a mac" purchase, had Microsfot made a product like this, with the same capabilities, I would have bought it form them as well. Good product is good product, regardless of manufacturing company.
Finally - I've been waiting for someone to make this point. It seems to me that the market for AppleTV right now isn't necessarily for streaming videos or movies from iTS (yet). In my case, I have 7 years worth of digital photos, my entire music collection in iTunes, and an increasingly large collection of video content (video podcasts, the odd TV show, movies ripped using Handbrake etc.) that I'd like to access via my TV, in a way the entire family can use easily. AppleTV is perfect for this (and certainly better than the POS Linksys WMA11B I have to babysit constantly at the moment).
Also, my AppleTV will be wired into my network (I don't have 802.11n yet, and I'm not sure g will be fast enough based on the location of my access point), so no issues there. All in all, it seems to be the perfect fit for my needs currently. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'm leaning more towards the belief that there will be 720P content.
So far the new functionality introduced in the iPod has had corresponding iTunes content to make use of it.
Outside of iTunes providing 720P content there is little reason for AppleTV to support 720P and not 1080i. Actually outside of iTunes content there is little reason for AppleTV to support HD at all.
1080i would be awesome. I shoot and edit with FCPro in 1080i with material from Sony FX1 and would love to be able to see this via ATV on my 55" Sony HD without conversion and that is also my reason for the need for ATV to support HD. I will live with 720p but I will have to export as such to watch, which is an extra step.
Remember that 720p/60 and 1080i/30 only have equivalent bit rates because 1080i is broadcast at half the frame rate. So if the design was throughput constrained, the best they could possibly be able to output is 1080i/12... That's 12 frames per second, which is absolutely horrid video quality.
Yes that is possible, but that should be more of a self imposed limitation rather than a true limitation of the hardware.
I will live with 720p but I will have to export as such to watch, which is an extra step.
1080i isn't really that much better than 720P. 1080i progressive is 540P.
Yes that is possible, but that should be more of a self imposed limitation rather than a true limitation of the hardware.
1080i isn't really that much better than 720P. 1080i progressive is 540P.
No shit Sherlock! :lol.
That's not the issue, I would have 1080i already, no rendering. To make 720p is a big time job to re render. Well I suppose it's an excuse to get an 8 Core Mac Pro
My real hope is ... and just maybe this is the case, Leopard may output directly whatever is on the Mac screen to an ATV. In which case maybe, just maybe FCPro could send video while previewing HD without re rendering ??? Oh well I can dream right?
If they were working under throughput constraints to meet decent streaming performance, it is possible that 720p/24 was the best that they could do with H.264 Main Profile.
Streaming and download requirements. If the majority of HD content will be from iTunes then bandwidth considerations on the server end probably rank equally high as streaming performance. The movies have to sell for a reasonable cost and download less than glacially. 720p24 seems like a reasonable compromise between quality and size.
Vinea