Apple ready to flick switch on Apple TV revolution

13468913

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 259
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Yes -- honestly -- I can seriously not see.



    Look, I am as passionate about Apple as anyone. But I can't take something "seriously" just because Apple decides to dish it out.



    I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. It's like we aren't aren't talking about the same thing: I post other media extenders on the market for comparison and you rebuttal with a question about the hard drive?



    If you have no desire to stream your media from your computer to you home entertainment center then the AppleTV is not for you. I'll be glad to finally get rid of the Mac mini connected to my entertainment center as it's definitely overkill. The only reason I may keep is if I can't get the AppleTV to play my AVIs in some way shape of form the way that FrontRow for OS X can with the right codecs in QT.
  • Reply 102 of 259
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    That's an extra few hundred dollars on top of the already high price of the iTV alone.



    Oh yeah? Then someone should tell Elgato that there prices are too low. Funny how a TiVo plus subscription service plus XBOX is many times the cost of my USB 2.0 DVR and (soon to be delivered) AppleTV.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).



    DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?



    Have you used one?



    You really think the AppleTV would make a good DVR in its current configuration, yet you say that your TiVo was a whooping 40GB 5 years ago. *sigh* You probably keep expecting Apple to add DVRs to the default builds of their computers, too. It amazes me how you can't see how this is counterintuitive to iTS TV Show sales.
  • Reply 103 of 259
    dcqdcq Posts: 349member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @homenow View Post


    One of Apple's goals with Apple TV is to get you to buy one of these instead of a HD DVD or Blue Ray player.



    Really? I didn't know that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @homenow View Post


    They figure that most people that would buy one already have a DVD player hooked up to their TV, so they don't really need one in the Apple TV unless it was HD DVD which they don't want you to buy so why include it in the Apple TV when it would just make it more expensive than the HD DVD player?



    Actually, I'll stop being coy. I just think you're wrong. While I don't claim to know what's going on inside Apple, I'll go out on a limb and say that Apple is not trying to compete with HDDVD players or BR players. Why? Because Apple doesn't offer any HD content. And if the only reason to get an HDDVD or BR player is to get HD content, well then Apple hardly seems a real competitor. That would be like someone who wants wine buying grape juice on the chance that it'll ferment at some point in the future.



    The only way the @TV becomes a vehicle in the near future for HD content is if Apple has figured out some way to tap into the huge potential of MMC (the policy of allowing owners of HDDVDs or BRDs to make legitimate digital copies of their private collection of disks). In that case, Apple would not only want you to buy an HDDVD or BR player, they'd bank on the fact that you had one.



    Anyone hoping for Apple to offer 720p movies at even remotely the same price they charge right now has no clue about several things (bandwidth costs, broadband penetration in the US, movie studio politics, etc.). Hell, I'm just hoping for actual DVD resolution from the iTS.
  • Reply 104 of 259
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    Very nice desk setup.



    Thanks! It's a custom workspace designed and assembled by SMED (now Haworth).
  • Reply 105 of 259
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It amazes me how you can't see how this is counterintuitive to iTS TV Show sales.



    I do see how in fantasy land this would help sales for iTV, but in reality it is not practical for 98% of the TV watching population. If you watch more than 2-3 shows, you'll blow your budget - and for what....for the same price of that I could've had a full 150+ cable channels 24/7.



    Without a full-time subscription service for iTunes's TV shows, which would basically be just Apple Cable, it's totally illogical to think that this will happen. On the other hand, they could've made it coexist with cable -- at least until they get an affordable and useful TV strategy and infrastructure in place. Being a fictional futurist is one thing, living on Earth is another. In theory it would all be great. In practice, there's no way it is cost effective and no way the majority of users are going to start paying that much money for a single TV show, if that is their only source of TV. If they have cable to supplement it, then that's the DVR philosophy. But it's missing, and sorry but Apple/iTunes isn't going to take over flat-fee cable anytime soon [unless they go the Apple Cable subscription route as mentioned].
  • Reply 106 of 259
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    In which case, we all should shut up about any Apple product before it is introduced, and not reasonably speculate based on information and insight provided by tons of intelligent people?



    Its fine to speculate, as long as we don't delude ourselves into thinking its anything more than speculation. Apple has long term plans with the ATV, none of us have access to that knowledge, therefore none of us can really know what is going to happen.



    I haven't really had much of an opinion on the Apple TV. Other than I can see it serves a purpose and it is possible it can build a market. I don't know if it will be successful or not. I don't know if I will buy one or not. We'll have to be patient and see.
  • Reply 107 of 259
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCQ View Post


    Really? I didn't know that.







    Actually, I'll stop being coy. I just think you're wrong. While I don't claim to know what's going on inside Apple, I'll go out on a limb and say that Apple is not trying to compete with HDDVD players or BR players. Why? Because Apple doesn't offer any HD content. And if the only reason to get an HDDVD or BR player is to get HD content, well then Apple hardly seems a real competitor. That would be like someone who wants wine buying grape juice on the chance that it'll ferment at some point in the future.



    The only way the @TV becomes a vehicle in the near future for HD content is if Apple has figured out some way to tap into the huge potential of MMC (the policy of allowing owners of HDDVDs or BRDs to make legitimate digital copies of their private collection of disks). In that case, Apple would not only want you to buy an HDDVD or BR player, they'd bank on the fact that you had one.



    Anyone hoping for Apple to offer 720p movies at even remotely the same price they charge right now has no clue about several things (bandwidth costs, broadband penetration in the US, movie studio politics, etc.). Hell, I'm just hoping for actual DVD resolution from the iTS.



    There was a quote the other day, I believe from Apple's CFO, stating that they saw the competition for the Apple TV as the DVD and not the DVR. It is a little hard for them to compete today with a $299 device against DVD players that sell for $49 or less so I assume that he was talking about the newer HD DVD and Blue Ray devices. Based on that and the specs for Apple TV I would guess that 720p content is coming very soon to iTMS, and they are banking on successful sales of that content to help them gain leverage to get more content just as they did with music and TV shows. Given Apple's model with activating content on a limited number of computers and linking to an Apple TV the average consumer does not need to make copies of the file other than for back up since it can be activated on a number of computers and viewed on Apple TV remotely without the hassle of burning a copy of the disk.
  • Reply 108 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?



    Portable digital players were a relatively small market until the iPod came along. It has been said numerous times over the years that the iPod, and later iTunes, legitimized the field.



    The same can be said for the video playback of the 5G. Handleld video players sold slowly. The 5G legitimized that as well.



    The fact that the MPC's haven had much impact, or that the media extenders haven't either, isn't a good predictor of ATv sales.



    If you've ever used an MPC or a media extender, you would see that it isn't for everyone. The setup is still confusing. There are still many incompatibilities. You have to download software, scripts, and other nonsense.



    While some of that may be fine for some people here, it isn't for the general public. They want to plug it in, and use it. The same way they now use a Tv, or audio system.



    Ot seems that people are forgetting that most people couldn't program their VCR's. That's why TIVO sprang up, as well as the other digital set-top boxes that make it simple.



    That's what theis product will offer. Most people don't give a crap about 720p yet. They arte used to watching most of their shows in 480i on their Hd Tv's.



    Truhtfully, high quality 480p content looks fine properly upscales to 720p, and even 1080p. I do it all the time with DVD's, which have only a bit more vertical rez. Most people who watych it think they are looking at Hi Def.



    Unless you sit much closer to the Tvthan you are used to, you can't see the difference anyway.



    Check this site, It's very good. Bookmark it if you are interested in HD and other video issues.



    The home page is here:



    http://www.carltonbale.com/



    Hi def viewing charts are here:



    http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/



    http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006...vs-resolution/



    Test your own acuity:



    http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006...-for-yourself/
  • Reply 109 of 259
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    I do see how in fantasy land this would help sales for iTV, but in reality it is not practical for 98% of the TV watching population. If you watch more than 2-3 shows, you'll blow your budget - and for what....for the same price of that I could've had a full 150+ cable channels 24/7.



    I don't know where you live, but I wish I was living in your neighborhood. Where I live in San Diego, it would cost me approximately $55 a month for that many stations. (The lowest digital package available.) Adding DVR Service would bring the monthly cost to $65 month.



    I receive all the local broadcast networks in HD for free OTA. Here's the list of shows that I would actually pay to watch:



    19.99 Aqua Teen Hunger Force (per season)

    34.99 Battlestar Galactica (per season)



    For my girlfriend:

    22.99 Project Runway (per season)

    23.99 America's Top Chef (per season)



    Nonseasonal fees:

    9.99 Daily Show (per 16 episodes)

    9.99 Colbert Report (per 16 episodes)



    I figure there are probably 150-160 episodes per year taking into account vacations and reruns.



    Seasonal shows come to $102/year which is less than $10/month.

    Nonseasonal fees will be around $16/month



    That's $26/month-- much less than $65/month for the same 6 shows (with DVR capability). I've saved approximately $480 dollars and the AppleTV has already paid for itself. Every year after that is just icing on the cake.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    Without a full-time subscription service for iTunes's TV shows, which would basically be just Apple Cable, it's totally illogical to think that this will happen. On the other hand, they could've made it coexist with cable -- at least until they get an affordable and useful TV strategy and infrastructure in place. Being a fictional futurist is one thing, living on Earth is another. In theory it would all be great. In practice, there's no way it is cost effective and no way the majority of users are going to start paying that much money for a single TV show, if that is their only source of TV. If they have cable to supplement it, then that's the DVR philosophy. But it's missing, and sorry but Apple/iTunes isn't going to take over flat-fee cable anytime soon [unless they go the Apple Cable subscription route as mentioned].



    Truthfully there's no reason to be interested in AppleTV if you already have cable and a DVR. But if you're in a position like me (hardly a fictional futurist) it can be cost effective. I could subscribe to 5 additional television seasons and STILL break even.



    With local television stations broadcasting digitally, there's no reason to pay my cable company to re-broadcast them down the cable network. The cable company doesn't even carry all of them in HD.
  • Reply 110 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorya View Post


    That would be storage space not memory -- I would be surprised if the iPhone has more than 256MB of memory.



    The Apple TV has 40GB of storage space, so wins that one



    Amorya



    That's true. I was thinking more of the running room in RAM that the OS requires rather than the HD storage. I suspect that the OS in the iPhone requires much more of that than does whatever is in the ATv. The iPhone, no matter what Jobs may say, is far more of a computer than the ATv is, and so needs a more complex OS to run it. As we know, a Mac needs at least 1 Gb to run well. The iPhone can do with less, but needs more than the ATv. I suspect that the 4 GB FLASH can be used as virtual RAM much better than the HD in the ATv. OS X requires a good virtual memory model to work well.
  • Reply 111 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That's a good point. Seeing as most of us are likely using Macs, we cannot use the XBox 360, and the option would cost us considerably more than Apple TV.



    Of course, this product is aimed at the PC user as much, or even more so, than us.



    Seeing the MPC-X Box combination at work at a friends home, didn't give me much of a feeling of the ease and sophistication that the average user will need.



    Apple feels that this product will.
  • Reply 112 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).



    DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?



    Have you used one?



    I see no reason why both can't exist at the same time, in the same system.



    My DVR gets me my cable. The ATv might be able to stream whatever I'm getting from the internet.



    Perhaps, I can go to the CNN website and view it from my HD Tv, and watch the videos it offers. We'll see.



    At this point, we know some of what it will do. But do we know all that it will do? Jobs was somewhat nebulous about some of that. Perhaps, as they were having software problems even to the last minute, he couldn't mention features that weren't as yet set in stone.



    I also get the feeling that some other software might be able to be downloaded to this device. It's just a feeling from what I've been reading of what various Apple officials have said. But it's intriguing.
  • Reply 113 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Oh yeah? Then someone should tell Elgato that there prices are too low. Funny how a TiVo plus subscription service plus XBOX is many times the cost of my USB 2.0 DVR and (soon to be delivered) AppleTV.



    HD Tivo - $800.



    Plus monthly fee of $12.95 to $15.95.



    On top of cable costs.
  • Reply 114 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taco Underpants View Post


    I don't know where you live, but I wish I was living in your neighborhood. Where I live in San Diego, it would cost me approximately $55 a month for that many stations. (The lowest digital package available.) Adding DVR Service would bring the monthly cost to $65 month.



    I receive all the local broadcast networks in HD for free OTA. Here's the list of shows that I would actually pay to watch:



    19.99 Aqua Teen Hunger Force (per season)

    34.99 Battlestar Galactica (per season)



    For my girlfriend:

    22.99 Project Runway (per season)

    23.99 America's Top Chef (per season)



    Nonseasonal fees:

    9.99 Daily Show (per 16 episodes)

    9.99 Colbert Report (per 16 episodes)



    I figure there are probably 150-160 episodes per year taking into account vacations and reruns.



    Seasonal shows come to $102/year which is less than $10/month.

    Nonseasonal fees will be around $16/month



    That's $26/month-- much less than $65/month for the same 6 shows (with DVR capability). I've saved approximately $480 dollars and the AppleTV has already paid for itself. Every year after that is just icing on the cake.







    Truthfully there's no reason to be interested in AppleTV if you already have cable and a DVR. But if you're in a position like me (hardly a fictional futurist) it can be cost effective. I could subscribe to 5 additional television seasons and STILL break even.



    With local television stations broadcasting digitally, there's no reason to pay my cable company to re-broadcast them down the cable network. The cable company doesn't even carry all of them in HD.



    I'm amazed that some people can actually say that they only watch two or three series a year. It's actually unbelievable.



    So, you watch no news, no specials. Don't get the itch to see whats on that's different. Never check out other channels. That amazing. Such restraint!



    What a limited field of interest! As I said, it's unbelievable.



    The average American watches 4 and one half hours of Tv a night. That's from a recent NYTimes article.



    While you may be a Tv hermit, few others are. Watching Tv the way you would want to, would cost far more than cable would ever charge.
  • Reply 115 of 259
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What a limited field of interest! As I said, it's unbelievable.



    The average American watches 4 and one half hours of Tv a night. That's from a recent NYTimes article.



    Now that's what I consider to be two extremes. 4.5 hours a night is such a staggering number, and that's supposed to be an average?
  • Reply 116 of 259
    The problem with this box isn't that it COULD be useful, it is that there is not the cohesion that there was with CDs, .mp3, iTunes, and the iPod.



    If I could rip my DVDs and have them "on demand" queued up on my desktop/laptop pc or in an external drive on my Airport basestation, plus augmentation of the impulse buy from the iTunes store, this could be useful. Unfortunately, right now we can do everything except for one important aspect of the chain. It's the ripping of the DVDs onto a digital medium that is easily stored and accessed! If it was not for the DMCA preventing ANY sort of ripping including into another format I would LOVE to get an AppleTV ASAP. Unfortunately, the product is missing a key feature that made the iPod so popular, the ability to use your old format on the device in a convenient way!



    In the future, when there is a universal high-def video format that is available to store the digital media in I can imagine this kind of product doing very well. This is not the case today, people have physical media and some digital downloads. If you can not put both of these formats in an accessible device it is going to be hard to justify buying either this device or a large number of digital downloads just for putting your digital media on the TV.



    At least that's what I think.
  • Reply 117 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Now that's what I consider to be two extremes. 4.5 hours a night is such a staggering number, and that's supposed to be an average?



    Yes, average. Some people watch as much as seven hours a day, though, to be fair, that could be more than one person in the household.



    But for payment purposes, it's the same thing.



    It's not much worse than spending the several hours a day on these things that we do.
  • Reply 118 of 259
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ferazel View Post


    The problem with this box isn't that it COULD be useful, it is that there is not the cohesion that there was with CDs, .mp3, iTunes, and the iPod.



    If I could rip my DVDs and have them "on demand" queued up on my desktop/laptop pc or in an external drive on my Airport basestation, plus augmentation of the impulse buy from the iTunes store, this could be useful. Unfortunately, right now we can do everything except for one important aspect of the chain. It's the ripping of the DVDs onto a digital medium that is easily stored and accessed! If it was not for the DMCA preventing ANY sort of ripping including into another format I would LOVE to get an AppleTV ASAP. Unfortunately, the product is missing a key feature that made the iPod so popular, the ability to use your old format on the device in a convenient way!



    In the future, when there is a universal high-def video format that is available to store the digital media in I can imagine this kind of product doing very well. This is not the case today, people have physical media and some digital downloads. If you can not put both of these formats in an accessible device it is going to be hard to justify buying either this device or a large number of digital downloads just for putting your digital media on the TV.



    At least that's what I think.



    There are programs to do that, but, of course, I would never recommend such a thing.
  • Reply 119 of 259
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Of course, this product is aimed at the PC user as much, or even more so, than us.



    This is true, but I think people mentioned the XBox so much it was being forgotten that most of us are using Macs and the XBox isn't an option.



    Even in the PC world I wonder how many people are actually actively using Media Center, own an XBox, and actually use the XBox as a media extender. I bet the number is pretty small.



    Quote:

    Truhtfully, high quality 480p content looks fine properly upscales to 720p, and even 1080p. I do it all the time with DVD's, which have only a bit more vertical rez. Most people who watych it think they are looking at Hi Def.



    Unless you sit much closer to the TV than you are used to, you can't see the difference anyway.



    Yes when we were all discussing iTunes movie resolution. There was a lot of argument from those with HDTV's that they deplored SD resolution. I said HD broadcast is better but you are still watching highly compressed video. Ultimately what broadcast HD gives you is the ability to have larger television screens.



    You really haven't seen HD until you've watched it uncompressed from the source. A lot of the luster is gone by the time its broadcast or on DVD.
  • Reply 120 of 259
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I'm amazed that some people can actually say that they only watch two or three series a year. It's actually unbelievable.



    So, you watch no news, no specials. Don't get the itch to see whats on that's different. Never check out other channels. That amazing. Such restraint!



    I get the daily news off the Internet, the "news" on TV these days consists mostly of product-placement advertisement and tabloid human interest stories. Brittany and Anna Nichole have little bearing to me in the realm I call "reality".



    I receive ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, and PBS for free Over-The-Air (in high definition). Broadcast TV has plenty of sitcoms, dramas, sports, and reality TV garbage... we watch maybe an hour or two (tops) each night. That leaves plenty of time for cooking dinner, chores, working out, reading...



    Quote:

    What a limited field of interest! As I said, it's unbelievable.



    Not sure whether I should be insulted or flattered by that remark.



    Frankly there isn't enough good original programming on cable to warrant a subscription.



    Once upon a time I had the DirecTV platinum package (free job perk) and I was able to watch every channel known to man. After I grew accustomed to it, I was mostly watching the broadcast networks just like everybody else does, premium movie channels, and not much else. Marathons of 'Law and Order' reruns just don't appeal to me. YMMV.
Sign In or Register to comment.