Why would I put stock in when you have an obvious bias. If it makes you feel any better, I don't trust anything Steve Jobs says about Blu-Ray either since he also has an obvious bias against with iTunes/AppleTV trying to compete against it.
Yes but Blu-ray licensing is unfriendly. I always thought it was a cash grab and Job's comments pretty much supported what a lot of people were saying. Between annual AACS licensing fees (mandatory) and per player licensing fees it's just ridiculous. Blu-ray attracted the studios who have a penchant for greed and paranoia (Disney and Fox of note)
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
It's not just about "safely" delivering movies. It's also about delivering them in a practical manner. I think the last statistic I saw showed a U.S. broadband adoption rate of about 60%. Do you really think the studios want to drop disc formats and in the process lose at least 40% of their potential customers. And the term broadband covers all sorts of speeds so even the 768kbps/1.5Mbps DSL speeds still qualify as broadband and at those speeds a downloaded movie could take days to download.
I don't think anyone's said it's an either/or prop. I'm a more technical consumer who has a decent broadband connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Last time I checked, 1TB drives were averaging $100, so your 8TB system would currently cost around $800. And for all that money, what have you ended up with? Basically a bunch of empty shelves. For that much money, you could bury the axe and buy a Blu-Ray player and around 25 movies. Which seems like a better investment? But feel free to sit around and wait for those 2TB drives to come out and then wait even longer for them to be sold at affordable prices.
Correct which is why I said "scant few years" where a 2TB Western Digital Green drive will likely be selling for $100 which makes 8TB $400 and that is a steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
And it's also been shown that trying to compress a movie into that small a space has required downgrading video and/or audio quality (for example, the inability to fit a lossless audio track on the Transformers HD DVD even using a 30GB disc). And it seems like most HD DVD's came on 30GB discs so I'm not really sure how much stock I put in your 15GB comment.
Consumers don't care about audio. I don't have one friend with a 5.1 setup. The Transformers disc never got panned for audio . I don't take audio advice from anyone that hasn't tested in a double blind setup. I'm tired of people that think resolution is some immutable law where more megapixels = sharper picture and more bits equals =better sound or video. I've never complained about my HD DVD Transformers disc's audio.
In 3-4 years the successor to h.264 will hit. It may be h.265 (which is actually a whole new CODEC) and its target is a further reduction of data by %50. Which means a 2GB 720p file at the same or better quality than today.
I'll gladly buy Blu-ray discs where the quality manifests itself nicely but I doubt I'll ever own more than 30.
I liked it when I bought it- I just don't like what it's become.
I just don't get this comment. Today's Apple TV is almost exactly like the one initially introduced. Its most fundamental change is the ability to rent/buy content directly from the device. It's focus is the same as it has been from day one - to be a jukebox of your iTunes content so it can be enjoyed in the comfort of your living room. Even the content you buy on the Apple TV is synched back to iTunes. The tight integration of the two is as strong as ever.
Could you (or someone else) elaborate on the fundamental changes that you see in Apple TV? What is it that you feel has changed?
My guess is that people had in impression that Apple TV would eventually grow into more of a general purpose media hub. Something that would tie DVD, Blu-ray, DVR, online movie rentals, Widgets and other bonus content into one small tidy package. I'll agree that's a great wish. I'd like that product too, but Apple TV was never promised to be such a product. It has always been sold as a way to get your iTunes content (and photos) into the living room. Judge it by those terms, not by what you wish it would be but what it actually is.
Yes but Blu-ray licensing is unfriendly. I always thought it was a cash grab and Job's comments pretty much supported what a lot of people were saying. Between annual AACS licensing fees (mandatory) and per player licensing fees it's just ridiculous. Blu-ray attracted the studios who have a penchant for greed and paranoia (Disney and Fox of note)
I don't think anyone's said it's an either/or prop. I'm a more technical consumer who has a decent broadband connection.
Correct which is why I said "scant few years" where a 2TB Western Digital Green drive will likely be selling for $100 which makes 8TB $400 and that is a steal.
Consumers don't care about audio. I don't have one friend with a 5.1 setup. The Transformers disc never got panned for audio . I don't take audio advice from anyone that hasn't tested in a double blind setup. I'm tired of people that think resolution is some immutable law where more megapixels = sharper picture and more bits equals =better sound or video. I've never complained about my HD DVD Transformers disc's audio.
In 3-4 years the successor to h.264 will hit. It may be h.265 (which is actually a whole new CODEC) and its target is a further reduction of data by %50. Which means a 2GB 720p file at the same or better quality than today.
I'll gladly buy Blu-ray discs where the quality manifests itself nicely but I doubt I'll ever own more than 30.
I've got 5.1, and I can tell the diff - A 1995 Panasonic 5.1 DTS system is what powers the speakers, still works. And I think that DVD's 480p is FINE by me. Compared to Tube TV's LCD's still have a long way to go when it comes to sports or am I the only one not ignoring the massive ghosting issue?
And it's 1gb for 720p but you got the point.
The trouble with this conversation is the theory that AppleTV was to or is to be the end all be all of living room entertainment. It was conceived as an extension to iTunes to get those movies and tv shows you overpaid for onto your new overpriced tv. At least that's the point I got from day one. Put it simply, you can't get content from iTunes over 480/720p yet the thing only has HDMI and Component outputs? S-Video does 480P as does a composite signal.
To end it all, AppleTV is one man's idea of perfection. Installing OS X is another. Installing Boxee is yet another. BUT if you don't like it the way it comes? Buy a Mini, you'll get the same thing with 5x's more power and a DVD drive that's expandable.
I just bought a Popcorn Hour last week and am already in love with it. The ability to play MKV's and the plethora of user scripts to automate the downloading and indexing process make it a dream solution for me (i.e. for the way I like consuming my entertainment). I would have loved to have gotten an AppleTV (because everything would have looked prettier), but the software just doesn't do the things I want it to do. Getting the software right doesn't sound that hard, especially for Apple. As an Apple stock holder: if anybody from Apple is reading this, please get on this ASAP, we're losing money, people!
I just don't get this comment. Today's Apple TV is almost exactly like the one initially introduced. Its most fundamental change is the ability to rent/buy content directly from the device. It's focus is the same as it has been from day one - to be a jukebox of your iTunes content so it can be enjoyed in the comfort of your living room. Even the content you buy on the Apple TV is synched back to iTunes. The tight integration of the two is as strong as ever.
Could you (or someone else) elaborate on the fundamental changes that you see in Apple TV? What is it that you feel has changed?
My guess is that people had in impression that Apple TV would eventually grow into more of a general purpose media hub. Something that would tie DVD, Blu-ray, DVR, online movie rentals, Widgets and other bonus content into one small tidy package. I'll agree that's a great wish. I'd like that product too, but Apple TV was never promised to be such a product. It has always been sold as a way to get your iTunes content (and photos) into the living room. Judge it by those terms, not by what you wish it would be but what it actually is.
It was not an iTunes Digital Jukebox when I bought it in May 2007.
You last paragraph hits the nail on the head by stating its purpose was to get my content on it not new iTunes purchases on it. Apple never promised that it was going to be turned into an iTunes jukebox either. If it had, I never would have bought it. iTunes quality sucks and back then was really terrible.
It has wireless access to the internet yet basically only toward iTunes. Youtube is OK but gimme a break- why am I so limited?
No survey but feedback form is still there. It is really poorly written and unsubstantial. Little is geared on it toward your files. It's all about iTunes purchases/rentals.
It was not an iTunes Digital Jukebox when I bought it in May 2007.
You last paragraph hits the nail on the head by stating its purpose was to get my content on it not new iTunes purchases on it. Apple never promised that it was going to be turned into an iTunes jukebox either. If it had, I never would have bought it. iTunes quality sucks and back then was really terrible.
It has wireless access to the internet yet basically only toward iTunes. Youtube is OK but gimme a break- why am I so limited?
From day one, Apple TV has never promised to be anything but an iTunes digital jukebox.. Whether it was your own content or purchased, it was an iTunes jukebox. The sole purpose of the device has been to bring iTunes content in the living room.. In fact the slogan used to be "iTunes now playing on your big screen."
Since then, nothing has been changed about how you put your own content on ATV.. The only thing that has changed is they allowed you to purchase directly from your couch by using the Apple TV box itself instead of having to purchase from your computer and then sync back to ATV.. The ability to rent has also been added..
For whatever reason, it seems like you think this is a bad thing? The iPhone/iPod touch didn't initially allow you to purchase directly from iTunes either, now they do.. Music/Videos/Apps all available directly from your phone/iPod. It doesn't mean you still can't put your own content on those devices.. Your point makes absolutely no sense. If you don't want to buy/rent from ATV, then don't. Stick to your own content, no big deal.
A iTunes jukebox, by definition, collects money to buy/rent iTunes content only - not your own.
Obviously, it doesn't collect coins and that is not what I'm saying.. The term iTunes jukebox means iTunes media player. "iTunes content on your bigscreen," whether it's your own or purchased.
You know, its getting ridiculous.. 4 pages of going back and forth and you haven't made a valid point yet. You obviously wanted Apple tv for something it was never promised to be.. That's unfortunate. The best you could do is sell it and connect your iPod to your living room tv, because as you said on page 2, "that is a better solution."
If you're still confused about what the purpose of ATV is/was, do a google search and re-watch the 2006 Showtime event or the 2007 Macworld keynote again. In both keynotes, ATV's purpose is explained quite well.
Obviously, it doesn't collect coins and that is not what I'm saying.. The term iTunes jukebox means iTunes media player. "iTunes content on your bigscreen," whether it's your own or purchased.
You know, its getting ridiculous.. 4 pages of going back and forth and you haven't made a valid point yet. You obviously wanted Apple tv for something it was never promised to be.. That's unfortunate. The best you could do is sell it and connect your iPod to your living room tv, because as you said on page 2, "that is a better solution."
If you're still confused about what the purpose of ATV is/was, do a google search and re-watch the 2007 Macworld keynote again. In the keynote, ATV's purpose is explained quite well.
No you'RE the one who hasn't made a point. The same thing over and over - like some daft mantra.
The whole pay to watch concept was not a feature on the original AppleTV- why can't you understand that? Stop re-writing history. Please!
The whole pay to watch concept was not a feature on the original AppleTV- why can't you understand that? Stop re-writing history. Please!
It absolutely was... If nothing else, watch the first 3 minutes of that link..
Steve Jobs clearly says " you can BUY all this great content from the iTunes store, movies, music, tv shows and you can PURCHASE and download it to your iPod and your computer" etc etc , "but what about that new big screen tv you bought last week?" now, "you can watch it on your big screen tv too."
Maybe there is something wrong with your tv then. I can definitely tell the difference between appletv HD rented movie and the blu-ray version. The rented version from Apple looks as good as a DVD... but no better.
WWhhaaattt??????
No way, that,s not true. I think you rent it on your computer and then transfer to your television.
On iTunes from the computer it's not a real HD but from the APPLE TV it's real HD like the one we see on Blue Ray
No way, that,s not true. I think you rent it on your computer and then transfer to your television.
On iTunes from the computer it's not a real HD but from the APPLE TV it's real HD like the one we see on Blue Ray
You are right that it's "HD" from Apple TV, but your wrong in that it's the same as Blu-Ray..
To put it simply, Apple TV HD is compressed 720p H.264 files, Blu-Ray is uncompressed 1080p files. Blu-Ray is definitely higher quality than ATV downloads.
You are right that it's "HD" from Apple TV, but your wrong in that it's the same as Blu-Ray..
To put it simply, Apple TV HD is compressed 720p H.264 files, Blu-Ray is uncompressed 1080p files. Blu-Ray is definitely higher quality than ATV downloads.
Not true. Blu-ray is indeed compressed just at a lower ratio. Uncompressed HD would be roughly 375MBps depending on framerate and bitrate.
Comments
Then maybe you should not have purchased a product that did not do the things you wanted? Just a thought..
Those were some of the reasons I didn't buy it. If someone doesn't like it, they should have returned it.
Those were some of the reasons I didn't buy it. If someone doesn't like it, they should have returned it.
I liked it when I bought it- I just don't like what it's become.
Why would I put stock in when you have an obvious bias. If it makes you feel any better, I don't trust anything Steve Jobs says about Blu-Ray either since he also has an obvious bias against with iTunes/AppleTV trying to compete against it.
Yes but Blu-ray licensing is unfriendly. I always thought it was a cash grab and Job's comments pretty much supported what a lot of people were saying. Between annual AACS licensing fees (mandatory) and per player licensing fees it's just ridiculous. Blu-ray attracted the studios who have a penchant for greed and paranoia (Disney and Fox of note)
It's not just about "safely" delivering movies. It's also about delivering them in a practical manner. I think the last statistic I saw showed a U.S. broadband adoption rate of about 60%. Do you really think the studios want to drop disc formats and in the process lose at least 40% of their potential customers. And the term broadband covers all sorts of speeds so even the 768kbps/1.5Mbps DSL speeds still qualify as broadband and at those speeds a downloaded movie could take days to download.
I don't think anyone's said it's an either/or prop. I'm a more technical consumer who has a decent broadband connection.
Last time I checked, 1TB drives were averaging $100, so your 8TB system would currently cost around $800. And for all that money, what have you ended up with? Basically a bunch of empty shelves. For that much money, you could bury the axe and buy a Blu-Ray player and around 25 movies. Which seems like a better investment? But feel free to sit around and wait for those 2TB drives to come out and then wait even longer for them to be sold at affordable prices.
Correct which is why I said "scant few years" where a 2TB Western Digital Green drive will likely be selling for $100 which makes 8TB $400 and that is a steal.
And it's also been shown that trying to compress a movie into that small a space has required downgrading video and/or audio quality (for example, the inability to fit a lossless audio track on the Transformers HD DVD even using a 30GB disc). And it seems like most HD DVD's came on 30GB discs so I'm not really sure how much stock I put in your 15GB comment.
Consumers don't care about audio. I don't have one friend with a 5.1 setup. The Transformers disc never got panned for audio . I don't take audio advice from anyone that hasn't tested in a double blind setup. I'm tired of people that think resolution is some immutable law where more megapixels = sharper picture and more bits equals =better sound or video. I've never complained about my HD DVD Transformers disc's audio.
In 3-4 years the successor to h.264 will hit. It may be h.265 (which is actually a whole new CODEC) and its target is a further reduction of data by %50. Which means a 2GB 720p file at the same or better quality than today.
I'll gladly buy Blu-ray discs where the quality manifests itself nicely but I doubt I'll ever own more than 30.
I liked it when I bought it- I just don't like what it's become.
I just don't get this comment. Today's Apple TV is almost exactly like the one initially introduced. Its most fundamental change is the ability to rent/buy content directly from the device. It's focus is the same as it has been from day one - to be a jukebox of your iTunes content so it can be enjoyed in the comfort of your living room. Even the content you buy on the Apple TV is synched back to iTunes. The tight integration of the two is as strong as ever.
Could you (or someone else) elaborate on the fundamental changes that you see in Apple TV? What is it that you feel has changed?
My guess is that people had in impression that Apple TV would eventually grow into more of a general purpose media hub. Something that would tie DVD, Blu-ray, DVR, online movie rentals, Widgets and other bonus content into one small tidy package. I'll agree that's a great wish. I'd like that product too, but Apple TV was never promised to be such a product. It has always been sold as a way to get your iTunes content (and photos) into the living room. Judge it by those terms, not by what you wish it would be but what it actually is.
Yes but Blu-ray licensing is unfriendly. I always thought it was a cash grab and Job's comments pretty much supported what a lot of people were saying. Between annual AACS licensing fees (mandatory) and per player licensing fees it's just ridiculous. Blu-ray attracted the studios who have a penchant for greed and paranoia (Disney and Fox of note)
I don't think anyone's said it's an either/or prop. I'm a more technical consumer who has a decent broadband connection.
Correct which is why I said "scant few years" where a 2TB Western Digital Green drive will likely be selling for $100 which makes 8TB $400 and that is a steal.
Consumers don't care about audio. I don't have one friend with a 5.1 setup. The Transformers disc never got panned for audio . I don't take audio advice from anyone that hasn't tested in a double blind setup. I'm tired of people that think resolution is some immutable law where more megapixels = sharper picture and more bits equals =better sound or video. I've never complained about my HD DVD Transformers disc's audio.
In 3-4 years the successor to h.264 will hit. It may be h.265 (which is actually a whole new CODEC) and its target is a further reduction of data by %50. Which means a 2GB 720p file at the same or better quality than today.
I'll gladly buy Blu-ray discs where the quality manifests itself nicely but I doubt I'll ever own more than 30.
I've got 5.1, and I can tell the diff - A 1995 Panasonic 5.1 DTS system is what powers the speakers, still works. And I think that DVD's 480p is FINE by me. Compared to Tube TV's LCD's still have a long way to go when it comes to sports or am I the only one not ignoring the massive ghosting issue?
And it's 1gb for 720p but you got the point.
The trouble with this conversation is the theory that AppleTV was to or is to be the end all be all of living room entertainment. It was conceived as an extension to iTunes to get those movies and tv shows you overpaid for onto your new overpriced tv. At least that's the point I got from day one. Put it simply, you can't get content from iTunes over 480/720p yet the thing only has HDMI and Component outputs? S-Video does 480P as does a composite signal.
To end it all, AppleTV is one man's idea of perfection. Installing OS X is another. Installing Boxee is yet another. BUT if you don't like it the way it comes? Buy a Mini, you'll get the same thing with 5x's more power and a DVD drive that's expandable.
I just don't get this comment. Today's Apple TV is almost exactly like the one initially introduced. Its most fundamental change is the ability to rent/buy content directly from the device. It's focus is the same as it has been from day one - to be a jukebox of your iTunes content so it can be enjoyed in the comfort of your living room. Even the content you buy on the Apple TV is synched back to iTunes. The tight integration of the two is as strong as ever.
Could you (or someone else) elaborate on the fundamental changes that you see in Apple TV? What is it that you feel has changed?
My guess is that people had in impression that Apple TV would eventually grow into more of a general purpose media hub. Something that would tie DVD, Blu-ray, DVR, online movie rentals, Widgets and other bonus content into one small tidy package. I'll agree that's a great wish. I'd like that product too, but Apple TV was never promised to be such a product. It has always been sold as a way to get your iTunes content (and photos) into the living room. Judge it by those terms, not by what you wish it would be but what it actually is.
It was not an iTunes Digital Jukebox when I bought it in May 2007.
You last paragraph hits the nail on the head by stating its purpose was to get my content on it not new iTunes purchases on it. Apple never promised that it was going to be turned into an iTunes jukebox either. If it had, I never would have bought it. iTunes quality sucks and back then was really terrible.
It has wireless access to the internet yet basically only toward iTunes. Youtube is OK but gimme a break- why am I so limited?
I had problems getting into the survey and then I checked this AM and they had taken it down. Guess they didn't really want our input after all.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html
No survey but feedback form is still there. It is really poorly written and unsubstantial. Little is geared on it toward your files. It's all about iTunes purchases/rentals.
I'm sure the survey was more of the same.
It was not an iTunes Digital Jukebox when I bought it in May 2007.
You last paragraph hits the nail on the head by stating its purpose was to get my content on it not new iTunes purchases on it. Apple never promised that it was going to be turned into an iTunes jukebox either. If it had, I never would have bought it. iTunes quality sucks and back then was really terrible.
It has wireless access to the internet yet basically only toward iTunes. Youtube is OK but gimme a break- why am I so limited?
From day one, Apple TV has never promised to be anything but an iTunes digital jukebox.. Whether it was your own content or purchased, it was an iTunes jukebox. The sole purpose of the device has been to bring iTunes content in the living room.. In fact the slogan used to be "iTunes now playing on your big screen."
Since then, nothing has been changed about how you put your own content on ATV.. The only thing that has changed is they allowed you to purchase directly from your couch by using the Apple TV box itself instead of having to purchase from your computer and then sync back to ATV.. The ability to rent has also been added..
For whatever reason, it seems like you think this is a bad thing? The iPhone/iPod touch didn't initially allow you to purchase directly from iTunes either, now they do.. Music/Videos/Apps all available directly from your phone/iPod. It doesn't mean you still can't put your own content on those devices.. Your point makes absolutely no sense. If you don't want to buy/rent from ATV, then don't. Stick to your own content, no big deal.
If you want hacks, then go for it:
http://www.appletvjunkie.com/?page_id=1128
from day one, apple tv has never promised to be anything but an itunes digital jukebox.
Wrong! Prove that Bogus claim.
A iTunes jukebox, by definition, collects money to buy/rent iTunes content only - not your own.
Wrong! Prove that Bogus claim.
A iTunes jukebox, by definition, collects money to buy/rent iTunes content only - not your own.
Obviously, it doesn't collect coins and that is not what I'm saying.. The term iTunes jukebox means iTunes media player. "iTunes content on your bigscreen," whether it's your own or purchased.
You know, its getting ridiculous.. 4 pages of going back and forth and you haven't made a valid point yet. You obviously wanted Apple tv for something it was never promised to be.. That's unfortunate. The best you could do is sell it and connect your iPod to your living room tv, because as you said on page 2, "that is a better solution."
If you're still confused about what the purpose of ATV is/was, do a google search and re-watch the 2006 Showtime event or the 2007 Macworld keynote again. In both keynotes, ATV's purpose is explained quite well.
Obviously, it doesn't collect coins and that is not what I'm saying.. The term iTunes jukebox means iTunes media player. "iTunes content on your bigscreen," whether it's your own or purchased.
You know, its getting ridiculous.. 4 pages of going back and forth and you haven't made a valid point yet. You obviously wanted Apple tv for something it was never promised to be.. That's unfortunate. The best you could do is sell it and connect your iPod to your living room tv, because as you said on page 2, "that is a better solution."
If you're still confused about what the purpose of ATV is/was, do a google search and re-watch the 2007 Macworld keynote again. In the keynote, ATV's purpose is explained quite well.
No you'RE the one who hasn't made a point. The same thing over and over - like some daft mantra.
The whole pay to watch concept was not a feature on the original AppleTV- why can't you understand that? Stop re-writing history. Please!
Wrong! Prove that Bogus claim.
A iTunes jukebox, by definition, collects money to buy/rent iTunes content only - not your own.
Here is the youtube link for the Apple showtime event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_oz3DdLkG4
The whole pay to watch concept was not a feature on the original AppleTV- why can't you understand that? Stop re-writing history. Please!
It absolutely was... If nothing else, watch the first 3 minutes of that link..
Steve Jobs clearly says " you can BUY all this great content from the iTunes store, movies, music, tv shows and you can PURCHASE and download it to your iPod and your computer" etc etc , "but what about that new big screen tv you bought last week?" now, "you can watch it on your big screen tv too."
Maybe there is something wrong with your tv then. I can definitely tell the difference between appletv HD rented movie and the blu-ray version. The rented version from Apple looks as good as a DVD... but no better.
WWhhaaattt??????
No way, that,s not true. I think you rent it on your computer and then transfer to your television.
On iTunes from the computer it's not a real HD but from the APPLE TV it's real HD like the one we see on Blue Ray
Wrong! Prove that Bogus claim.
A iTunes jukebox, by definition, collects money to buy/rent iTunes content only - not your own.
WWhhaaattt??????
No way, that,s not true. I think you rent it on your computer and then transfer to your television.
On iTunes from the computer it's not a real HD but from the APPLE TV it's real HD like the one we see on Blue Ray
You are right that it's "HD" from Apple TV, but your wrong in that it's the same as Blu-Ray..
To put it simply, Apple TV HD is compressed 720p H.264 files, Blu-Ray is uncompressed 1080p files. Blu-Ray is definitely higher quality than ATV downloads.
You are right that it's "HD" from Apple TV, but your wrong in that it's the same as Blu-Ray..
To put it simply, Apple TV HD is compressed 720p H.264 files, Blu-Ray is uncompressed 1080p files. Blu-Ray is definitely higher quality than ATV downloads.
Not true. Blu-ray is indeed compressed just at a lower ratio. Uncompressed HD would be roughly 375MBps depending on framerate and bitrate.