You keep saying that but i can't help but disagree?? What do you have to back this up?? What other video format is the standard for downloadable content?? dude you are completely right. DivX is massive.
Admittedly I'm not one of the people downloading lots of pirated content. But I do download video and I feel I rarely download a DivX video.
I would say the far majority of the video I watch on the internet is streamed Flash Video. The majority of the downloaded video is probably split between QT and Windows Media.
The rare times I get something from DivX I get a reminder that I have an outdated DivX player. Which I'd forgotten I even had because I never use it.
Come to think of it most people I know don't know anything about DivX and have not downloaded the player.
Admittedly I'm not one of the people downloading lots of pirated content. But I do download video and I feel I rarely download a DivX video.
I would say the far majority of the video I watch on the internet is streamed Flash Video. The majority of the downloaded video is probably split between QT and Windows Media.
The rare times I get something from DivX I get a reminder that I have an outdated DivX player. Which I'd forgotten I even had because I never use it.
Come to think of it most people I know don't know anything about DivX and have not downloaded the player.
that's true. I think that video downloads in general are not very popular around most of the world as yet, because relatively few have hi speed connections, which are, so far, mostly limited to the richer countries.
Even there, while millions use bit torrents for music, video is still in it's infancy.
I download Lost using a torrent application because we don't have it available in the UK iTunes store. All the episodes that I have downloaded over the past 3 seasons have been in DivX. I really hope that Apple TV will support the codec (officially or unofficially).
It seems that most who use DivX here admit they are using it to obtain content they did not pay for or received from a distributor who had no legal right to distribute.
If AppleTV did support DivX it would also support this activity. Which isn't beneficial to the content creators, ultimately what benefit is that for Apple?
It seems that most who use DivX here admit they are using it to obtain content they did not pay for or received from a distributor who had no legal right to distribute.
If AppleTV did support DivX it would also support this activity. Which isn't beneficial to the content creators, ultimately what benefit is that for Apple?
That's one of the points I'm trying to make.
But, even though we have both stated this, as have a couple of others, it seems as though these Divx posters aren't bothering to read any of the older posts, and so keep posting the same thing.
They just don't seem to understand that with Apple's leading position in the downloadable content industry, and with them attempting to convince other companies to sell them their content as well, Apple can't be seen as supporting pirated content.
Apple was soundly whipped for the original "rip and burn" ads before the iTunes store came online. Apple was forced to explain over and over that they weren't encouraging pirated music, but the burning of their own collections.
They would just give the studios another excuse to refuse them their content.
Other players, who are either small, or who have little sales of others content, can more afford to supply Divx to their customers.
Some of us do understand your points but they don't negate equally valid points that you might exclude or discredit if they don't support your own arguments. I don't think anyone is immune from that sort of selective exclusion that we sometimes accuse others of having, explicitly or implicitly.
Even though I understand and often agree with much of what you write it sometimes leaves little room for others (myself included) to express their own ideas and opinions without being eaten alive if they happen to contradict you or buried alive by your prolific presence.
I kind of doubt your blunt remarks about "DivX posters" will convince them to read more or dissuade any myopic stubbornness about the issues though you certainly can, and possibly will, keep trying.
The last thing we want is another Hitler in Europe.
Q: And how is a moronic good-ol boy equivalent to a psychopath that decided that he was the best person to rule the entirety of a continent and explicitly ordered the murder of over 6 million people?
A: He's not on any scale. Period.
You just tarnish your credibility by throwing around obviously ridiculous statements meant to inflame.
Yes, he's a moron. But he's not a megalomaniacal psychopathic genocidal murderer.
Some of us do understand your points but they don't negate equally valid points that you might exclude or discredit if they don't support your own arguments. I don't think anyone is immune from that sort of selective exclusion that we sometimes accuse others of having, explicitly or implicitly.
Even though I understand and often agree with much of what you write it sometimes leaves little room for others (myself included) to express their own ideas and opinions without being eaten alive if they happen to contradict you or buried alive by your prolific presence.
I kind of doubt your blunt remarks about "DivX posters" will convince them to read more or dissuade any myopic stubbornness about the issues though you certainly can, and possibly will, keep trying.
Again, from Mr. Know It All, I'm speaking about the majority of people. No matter what you may say, Divx users are a small minority, even though you might like to think otherwise. Have I left wiggle room? No. because there isn't any.
If you can show that the vast mass of people out there use Divx, I will change my tune. But, remember that I'm talking about people who watch Tv, not those who spend their time downloading movies and whatnot.
What I've been saying, and I haven't been alone on this, is that it's the Divx users who will likely not be interested in this product, and that there aren't enough of them to change Apple's metrics.
So, what DO you think? Are Divx users the majority of those consuming content (not downloading it for free), and will they be customers of this product in significant ways?
Personally, I don't care if aTV supports DivX since until earlier today (for brief Toast testing) I didn't have even a single DivX file on my Macs, which also disqualifies me as a "DivX poster" here.
I see several reasons why Apple has chosen (for now) to limit the video formats aTV supports, including not wanting to be perceived as catering to piracy as you mentioned earlier. They want to focus on H.264, especially with it already being the primary video iPod format. And maybe there's even something to Cringley's recent H.264 hardware encoder speculation, although a few of the comments have reasonable doubts of that. Plus they reduce support overhead of trying to figure out why Billy's supposedly supported files, with unknown and suspicious origins, won't play with aTV. But I'm betting they'll get a few people wondering why files they've imported into iTunes that play with iTunes don't play with aTV.
Still, I care that aTV is useless to any customers who'd consider one if it were compatible with more of whatever content is available to them (ignoring Windows Media, which the iPod has already set expectations that Apple won't support even for Windows users). That's really my main point rather than focusing on specific incompatible formats, with any sympathy I've shown for DivX content "owners" in this thread seen in that more general context. I'd rather give people the benefit of doubt that they already or will have legitimately obtained content that aTV won't support, some who've even dabbled in video piracy and chosen not to anymore (like with audio piracy).
Regardless of the reasons right now I'm disappointed how Apple has limited aTV after they'd originally been more liberal and generous with the iPod even though it supported illegally obtained MP3 (mostly) content. And certainly there could be things that eventually change my mind and feelings.
So, that's my indirect response rather than directly addressing what you said that I essentially agree with.
Personally, I don't care if aTV supports DivX since until earlier today (for brief Toast testing) I didn't have even a single DivX file on my Macs, which also disqualifies me as a "DivX poster" here.
I see several reasons why Apple has chosen (for now) to limit the video formats aTV supports, including not wanting to be perceived as catering to piracy as you mentioned earlier. They want to focus on H.264, especially with it already being the primary video iPod format. And maybe there's even something to Cringley's recent H.264 hardware encoder speculation, although a few of the comments have reasonable doubts of that. Plus they reduce support overhead of trying to figure out why Billy's supposedly supported files, with unknown and suspicious origins, won't play with aTV. But I'm betting they'll get a few people wondering why files they've imported into iTunes that play with iTunes don't play with aTV.
Still, I care that aTV is useless to any customers who'd consider one if it were compatible with more of whatever content is available to them (ignoring Windows Media, which the iPod has already set expectations that Apple won't support even for Windows users). That's really my main point rather than focusing on specific incompatible formats, with any sympathy I've shown for DivX content "owners" in this thread seen in that more general context. I'd rather give people the benefit of doubt that they already or will have legitimately obtained content that aTV won't support, some who've even dabbled in video piracy and chosen not to anymore (like with audio piracy).
Regardless of the reasons right now I'm disappointed how Apple has limited aTV after they'd originally been more liberal and generous with the iPod even though it supported illegally obtained MP3 (mostly) content. And certainly there could be things that eventually change my mind and feelings.
So, that's my indirect response rather than directly addressing what you said that I essentially agree with.
So that's good. We actually do agree.
By the way, I don't always agree with what Apple does. I'm on record too many times in disagreement, to have people who have been here for a while to think that.
I also don't want to be thought of as insulting a portion of the readership. I just write what is known, and written about elsewhere about these numbers. They can be looked up by anyone.
These are the specs for anyone who doesn't know:
Video formats supported: H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): 640 by 480, 30 fps, LC version of Baseline Profile; 320 by 240, 30 fps, Baseline profile up to Level 1.3; 1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile. MPEG-4: 640 by 480, 30 fps, Simple Profile
• Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps); protected AAC (from iTunes Store); MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps); MP3 VBR; Apple Lossless; AIFF; WAV
But, even though we have both stated this, as have a couple of others, it seems as though these Divx posters aren't bothering to read any of the older posts, and so keep posting the same thing.
They just don't seem to understand that with Apple's leading position in the downloadable content industry, and with them attempting to convince other companies to sell them their content as well, Apple can't be seen as supporting pirated content.
Apple was soundly whipped for the original "rip and burn" ads before the iTunes store came online. Apple was forced to explain over and over that they weren't encouraging pirated music, but the burning of their own collections.
They would just give the studios another excuse to refuse them their content.
Other players, who are either small, or who have little sales of others content, can more afford to supply Divx to their customers.
I wish these posters would understand that.
I accept you're making fair points, and that Apple is leading the way with regards to video content and so it's right they use their model. But this is only in America. One nation out of the entire world. And while other countries scramble to get their content online, they're not all selling their stuff to iTunes.
The BBC recently decided they wanted their own model, and I'm sure whatever codec they use won't be compatible with iTV. End of the day the DivX/Xvid codec is brilliant for what it does, which is encode a video in as good a quality as possible at the smallest possible file size, which has been proven over and over again by most, it not all DVD authoring sites. If I was to back up all my DVD's today, I'd want to do it in XviD. If I wanted to lend a film to a friend, all I'd have to do is burn the AVI onto a Disc and they can watch it on their Sony/Panasonic/Pioneer/Samsung DVD player. They wouldn't if it was in h264.
In all honesty, this is a win/win situation for Apple, coz if it came down to it, I wouldn't buy the iTV for £200. I'd get a used Mac Mini off ebay for the same and a 500gb ministack and use that as a media centre, with front row. I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
So let's just agree to disagree as it really is pointless continuing this debate. But one thing is certain there are millions upon millions of DivX files being traded over P2P, torrents, IRC, newsgroups, Rapidshare etc etc. Every single film, tv show, documentary aired on US television is available on the Internet and it is available in XviD. And personally for me who does download this content, if the iTV supported it they'd have got my money.
I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
Yeah, if Sony (et.al.) can sell DivX-compatible devices what's Apple's real reason not to do it with aTV? Surely it can't be a licensing cost issue because much smaller companies provide DivX support for their products. For example, Elgato's discontinued EyeHome supports these video formats:
And its audio support is mostly a superset of aTV:
? MPEG-1 Layers 1, 2, 3 (.mp3)
? AAC (.m4a, iTunes Music Store tracks are currently unsupported)
? AIFF
? WAV
? WMA (unencrypted)
? PLS (Internet Radio)
? Ogg Vorbis
? Dolby Digital sound through an S/PDIF port
No Apple Lossless.
EyeHome doesn't support HDTV, the Sigma Designs chip is old, and the UI is weak. But it lets you browse video content under your Movies folder (following links to other folders); aTV seems crippled in comparison without that capability (heck, put it in an Advanced menu or something).
These kinds of aTV limitations aren't technical. Wish I were more enthusiastic about what it can do than disappointed by what it can't.
Quote:
But one thing is certain there are millions upon millions of DivX files being traded over P2P, torrents, IRC, newsgroups, Rapidshare etc etc. Every single film, tv show, documentary aired on US television is available on the Internet and it is available in XviD. And personally for me who does download this content, if the iTV supported it they'd have got my money.
Seems you're not the kind of aTV customer Apple wants.
Maybe they're sell a few to folks who've ripped DVDs to H.264.
I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
You have to understand giant companies like Sony. Often the right arm has no idea what the left arm is doing. Sony Electronics and Sony Pictures are two different divisions run by different people. Sony Pictures is attempting to make as much money as possible from its content. Sony Electronics is attempting to sell as much of its products as possible. The two divisions don't have a cohesive plan.
Apple would negotiate with Sony Pictures for content. Sony Pictures is likely not be too happy about DivX and within that negotiation it doesn't matter what Sony Electronics is doing.
You have to understand giant companies like Sony. Often the right arm has no idea what the left arm is doing. Sony Electronics and Sony Pictures are two different divisions run by different people. Sony Pictures is attempting to make as much money as possible from its content. Sony Electronics is attempting to sell as much of its products as possible. The two divisions don't have a cohesive plan.
At one time there was - for too long, complaints by the music division prevented the electronics division from allowing their portable audio file players from playing MP3 audio. They wanted to force users to convert all of their music so they can place their own DRM wrapper around it. I think we all know in general terms how well that went.
Comments
You could elect George Bush as Prime Minister, he will cut your taxes for you.
I wish someone would offer him the job. Maybe he would leave here early.
There's always hope.
You keep saying that but i can't help but disagree?? What do you have to back this up?? What other video format is the standard for downloadable content?? dude you are completely right. DivX is massive.
Admittedly I'm not one of the people downloading lots of pirated content. But I do download video and I feel I rarely download a DivX video.
I would say the far majority of the video I watch on the internet is streamed Flash Video. The majority of the downloaded video is probably split between QT and Windows Media.
The rare times I get something from DivX I get a reminder that I have an outdated DivX player. Which I'd forgotten I even had because I never use it.
Come to think of it most people I know don't know anything about DivX and have not downloaded the player.
Admittedly I'm not one of the people downloading lots of pirated content. But I do download video and I feel I rarely download a DivX video.
I would say the far majority of the video I watch on the internet is streamed Flash Video. The majority of the downloaded video is probably split between QT and Windows Media.
The rare times I get something from DivX I get a reminder that I have an outdated DivX player. Which I'd forgotten I even had because I never use it.
Come to think of it most people I know don't know anything about DivX and have not downloaded the player.
that's true. I think that video downloads in general are not very popular around most of the world as yet, because relatively few have hi speed connections, which are, so far, mostly limited to the richer countries.
Even there, while millions use bit torrents for music, video is still in it's infancy.
If AppleTV did support DivX it would also support this activity. Which isn't beneficial to the content creators, ultimately what benefit is that for Apple?
It seems that most who use DivX here admit they are using it to obtain content they did not pay for or received from a distributor who had no legal right to distribute.
If AppleTV did support DivX it would also support this activity. Which isn't beneficial to the content creators, ultimately what benefit is that for Apple?
That's one of the points I'm trying to make.
But, even though we have both stated this, as have a couple of others, it seems as though these Divx posters aren't bothering to read any of the older posts, and so keep posting the same thing.
They just don't seem to understand that with Apple's leading position in the downloadable content industry, and with them attempting to convince other companies to sell them their content as well, Apple can't be seen as supporting pirated content.
Apple was soundly whipped for the original "rip and burn" ads before the iTunes store came online. Apple was forced to explain over and over that they weren't encouraging pirated music, but the burning of their own collections.
They would just give the studios another excuse to refuse them their content.
Other players, who are either small, or who have little sales of others content, can more afford to supply Divx to their customers.
I wish these posters would understand that.
I wish these posters would understand that.
Okay, Mr. Know-It-All.
Some of us do understand your points but they don't negate equally valid points that you might exclude or discredit if they don't support your own arguments. I don't think anyone is immune from that sort of selective exclusion that we sometimes accuse others of having, explicitly or implicitly.
Even though I understand and often agree with much of what you write it sometimes leaves little room for others (myself included) to express their own ideas and opinions without being eaten alive if they happen to contradict you or buried alive by your prolific presence.
I kind of doubt your blunt remarks about "DivX posters" will convince them to read more or dissuade any myopic stubbornness about the issues though you certainly can, and possibly will, keep trying.
You could elect George Bush as Prime Minister, he will cut your taxes for you.
The last thing we want is another Hitler in Europe.
Just got notice that I may see my Apple TV by the 23rd, any other reports?
I heard the same, you will. Personally I'm waiting for the Apple TV with a huge hard drive and a 40" display.
The last thing we want is another Hitler in Europe.
Q: And how is a moronic good-ol boy equivalent to a psychopath that decided that he was the best person to rule the entirety of a continent and explicitly ordered the murder of over 6 million people?
A: He's not on any scale. Period.
You just tarnish your credibility by throwing around obviously ridiculous statements meant to inflame.
Yes, he's a moron. But he's not a megalomaniacal psychopathic genocidal murderer.
Okay, Mr. Know-It-All.
Some of us do understand your points but they don't negate equally valid points that you might exclude or discredit if they don't support your own arguments. I don't think anyone is immune from that sort of selective exclusion that we sometimes accuse others of having, explicitly or implicitly.
Even though I understand and often agree with much of what you write it sometimes leaves little room for others (myself included) to express their own ideas and opinions without being eaten alive if they happen to contradict you or buried alive by your prolific presence.
I kind of doubt your blunt remarks about "DivX posters" will convince them to read more or dissuade any myopic stubbornness about the issues though you certainly can, and possibly will, keep trying.
Again, from Mr. Know It All, I'm speaking about the majority of people. No matter what you may say, Divx users are a small minority, even though you might like to think otherwise. Have I left wiggle room? No. because there isn't any.
If you can show that the vast mass of people out there use Divx, I will change my tune. But, remember that I'm talking about people who watch Tv, not those who spend their time downloading movies and whatnot.
What I've been saying, and I haven't been alone on this, is that it's the Divx users who will likely not be interested in this product, and that there aren't enough of them to change Apple's metrics.
So, what DO you think? Are Divx users the majority of those consuming content (not downloading it for free), and will they be customers of this product in significant ways?
I see several reasons why Apple has chosen (for now) to limit the video formats aTV supports, including not wanting to be perceived as catering to piracy as you mentioned earlier. They want to focus on H.264, especially with it already being the primary video iPod format. And maybe there's even something to Cringley's recent H.264 hardware encoder speculation, although a few of the comments have reasonable doubts of that. Plus they reduce support overhead of trying to figure out why Billy's supposedly supported files, with unknown and suspicious origins, won't play with aTV. But I'm betting they'll get a few people wondering why files they've imported into iTunes that play with iTunes don't play with aTV.
Still, I care that aTV is useless to any customers who'd consider one if it were compatible with more of whatever content is available to them (ignoring Windows Media, which the iPod has already set expectations that Apple won't support even for Windows users). That's really my main point rather than focusing on specific incompatible formats, with any sympathy I've shown for DivX content "owners" in this thread seen in that more general context. I'd rather give people the benefit of doubt that they already or will have legitimately obtained content that aTV won't support, some who've even dabbled in video piracy and chosen not to anymore (like with audio piracy).
Regardless of the reasons right now I'm disappointed how Apple has limited aTV after they'd originally been more liberal and generous with the iPod even though it supported illegally obtained MP3 (mostly) content. And certainly there could be things that eventually change my mind and feelings.
So, that's my indirect response rather than directly addressing what you said that I essentially agree with.
Personally, I don't care if aTV supports DivX since until earlier today (for brief Toast testing) I didn't have even a single DivX file on my Macs, which also disqualifies me as a "DivX poster" here.
I see several reasons why Apple has chosen (for now) to limit the video formats aTV supports, including not wanting to be perceived as catering to piracy as you mentioned earlier. They want to focus on H.264, especially with it already being the primary video iPod format. And maybe there's even something to Cringley's recent H.264 hardware encoder speculation, although a few of the comments have reasonable doubts of that. Plus they reduce support overhead of trying to figure out why Billy's supposedly supported files, with unknown and suspicious origins, won't play with aTV. But I'm betting they'll get a few people wondering why files they've imported into iTunes that play with iTunes don't play with aTV.
Still, I care that aTV is useless to any customers who'd consider one if it were compatible with more of whatever content is available to them (ignoring Windows Media, which the iPod has already set expectations that Apple won't support even for Windows users). That's really my main point rather than focusing on specific incompatible formats, with any sympathy I've shown for DivX content "owners" in this thread seen in that more general context. I'd rather give people the benefit of doubt that they already or will have legitimately obtained content that aTV won't support, some who've even dabbled in video piracy and chosen not to anymore (like with audio piracy).
Regardless of the reasons right now I'm disappointed how Apple has limited aTV after they'd originally been more liberal and generous with the iPod even though it supported illegally obtained MP3 (mostly) content. And certainly there could be things that eventually change my mind and feelings.
So, that's my indirect response rather than directly addressing what you said that I essentially agree with.
So that's good. We actually do agree.
By the way, I don't always agree with what Apple does. I'm on record too many times in disagreement, to have people who have been here for a while to think that.
I also don't want to be thought of as insulting a portion of the readership. I just write what is known, and written about elsewhere about these numbers. They can be looked up by anyone.
These are the specs for anyone who doesn't know:
Video formats supported: H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): 640 by 480, 30 fps, LC version of Baseline Profile; 320 by 240, 30 fps, Baseline profile up to Level 1.3; 1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile. MPEG-4: 640 by 480, 30 fps, Simple Profile
• Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps); protected AAC (from iTunes Store); MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps); MP3 VBR; Apple Lossless; AIFF; WAV
• Photo formats supported: JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF, PNG
• Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz
That's one of the points I'm trying to make.
But, even though we have both stated this, as have a couple of others, it seems as though these Divx posters aren't bothering to read any of the older posts, and so keep posting the same thing.
They just don't seem to understand that with Apple's leading position in the downloadable content industry, and with them attempting to convince other companies to sell them their content as well, Apple can't be seen as supporting pirated content.
Apple was soundly whipped for the original "rip and burn" ads before the iTunes store came online. Apple was forced to explain over and over that they weren't encouraging pirated music, but the burning of their own collections.
They would just give the studios another excuse to refuse them their content.
Other players, who are either small, or who have little sales of others content, can more afford to supply Divx to their customers.
I wish these posters would understand that.
I accept you're making fair points, and that Apple is leading the way with regards to video content and so it's right they use their model. But this is only in America. One nation out of the entire world. And while other countries scramble to get their content online, they're not all selling their stuff to iTunes.
The BBC recently decided they wanted their own model, and I'm sure whatever codec they use won't be compatible with iTV. End of the day the DivX/Xvid codec is brilliant for what it does, which is encode a video in as good a quality as possible at the smallest possible file size, which has been proven over and over again by most, it not all DVD authoring sites. If I was to back up all my DVD's today, I'd want to do it in XviD. If I wanted to lend a film to a friend, all I'd have to do is burn the AVI onto a Disc and they can watch it on their Sony/Panasonic/Pioneer/Samsung DVD player. They wouldn't if it was in h264.
In all honesty, this is a win/win situation for Apple, coz if it came down to it, I wouldn't buy the iTV for £200. I'd get a used Mac Mini off ebay for the same and a 500gb ministack and use that as a media centre, with front row. I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
So let's just agree to disagree as it really is pointless continuing this debate. But one thing is certain there are millions upon millions of DivX files being traded over P2P, torrents, IRC, newsgroups, Rapidshare etc etc. Every single film, tv show, documentary aired on US television is available on the Internet and it is available in XviD. And personally for me who does download this content, if the iTV supported it they'd have got my money.
I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
Yeah, if Sony (et.al.) can sell DivX-compatible devices what's Apple's real reason not to do it with aTV? Surely it can't be a licensing cost issue because much smaller companies provide DivX support for their products. For example, Elgato's discontinued EyeHome supports these video formats:
? MPEG-1 (.mpg)
? MPEG-2 (including unencrypted .vob)
? ISMA MPEG-4 (.mp4)
? DivX (including DIVX, DX50, XVID, DivX 3.x, 3ivX 4 codecs)
No H.264.
And its audio support is mostly a superset of aTV:
? MPEG-1 Layers 1, 2, 3 (.mp3)
? AAC (.m4a, iTunes Music Store tracks are currently unsupported)
? AIFF
? WAV
? WMA (unencrypted)
? PLS (Internet Radio)
? Ogg Vorbis
? Dolby Digital sound through an S/PDIF port
No Apple Lossless.
EyeHome doesn't support HDTV, the Sigma Designs chip is old, and the UI is weak. But it lets you browse video content under your Movies folder (following links to other folders); aTV seems crippled in comparison without that capability (heck, put it in an Advanced menu or something).
These kinds of aTV limitations aren't technical. Wish I were more enthusiastic about what it can do than disappointed by what it can't.
But one thing is certain there are millions upon millions of DivX files being traded over P2P, torrents, IRC, newsgroups, Rapidshare etc etc. Every single film, tv show, documentary aired on US television is available on the Internet and it is available in XviD. And personally for me who does download this content, if the iTV supported it they'd have got my money.
Seems you're not the kind of aTV customer Apple wants.
Maybe they're sell a few to folks who've ripped DVDs to H.264.
I just find it ironic when you say Apple can't be seen to support pirate DVD's by supplying DivX on their machines, when every consumer electronics company that sells a DVD player already does it, including Sony, one of the major film producers.
You have to understand giant companies like Sony. Often the right arm has no idea what the left arm is doing. Sony Electronics and Sony Pictures are two different divisions run by different people. Sony Pictures is attempting to make as much money as possible from its content. Sony Electronics is attempting to sell as much of its products as possible. The two divisions don't have a cohesive plan.
Apple would negotiate with Sony Pictures for content. Sony Pictures is likely not be too happy about DivX and within that negotiation it doesn't matter what Sony Electronics is doing.
You have to understand giant companies like Sony. Often the right arm has no idea what the left arm is doing. Sony Electronics and Sony Pictures are two different divisions run by different people. Sony Pictures is attempting to make as much money as possible from its content. Sony Electronics is attempting to sell as much of its products as possible. The two divisions don't have a cohesive plan.
At one time there was - for too long, complaints by the music division prevented the electronics division from allowing their portable audio file players from playing MP3 audio. They wanted to force users to convert all of their music so they can place their own DRM wrapper around it. I think we all know in general terms how well that went.