As long as you can also stream movies from a local computer running iTunes like the current AppleTV can then this sounds exactly the product Apple needs to release.
The next question is input devices. Standard remotes (eg the Apple remote) are lousy for for Apps and web surfing. GoogleTV failed to solve this problem simply going with a pointing device + keyboard. Can Apple provide a better solution? (preferably not requiring that everyone also owns an iPod touch / iPhone).
Agreed. I think, the obvious answer though, is iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad.
Which is why they can price it this cheap. They expect you to own another Apple device.
What has always seemed to me to be a logical extension of the AppleTV functionality is to allow it to control your lights and appliances in your house. It has to be plugged into the wall in the first place.
I was thinking this too.
I think people are forgetting that if the AppleTV is running iPhone OS and it's plugged into your home network that there are all kinds of home automation tasks that become no-brainers. There are already apps in the app store by the major players in the field, and Apple has tons of patents on exactly these kinds of ideas.
This could be waaaay bigger than "GoogleTV" (which won't actually fly very far without content agreements). This could be the same thing, *with* the content agreements, and also home automation and a bunch of other stuff as well. Any vendor of furnaces, stoves, fridges, lighting etc. will jump at the chance to include a network interface and an iPhone app, all of which you will also be able to access remotely from your phone.
IMO this is not just Apple selling you some movies or even some games, this is the beginning of Apple taking over your entire house.
There will be a subscription service and it will have ads (iAds) for probably ~$50/month. The most likely reason for no significant storage is probably for reducing any concerns of the content providers about piracy. Apple will distribute iAds over the air give a significant portion of the revenues to the networks and studios. You will be able to interact with the ads through the Apple Remote and you iPhone/iPod. The iDevice can also act as a controller for games but I would be surprised to see a dedicated controller or gamepad that the iPhone is inserted in.
This seems like the potential game changer that everyone was hoping for. Google TV was a joke because it never solved the main problem that everyone wanted; to get rid of the cable box and middleman fees. I think that Apple is willing to make little money on this service or the the box itself so that they can push along the transition to web. Along with the iPad, it seems that Apple has is pushing another low-margin, high-volume product.
And it depends on how they sell the device. Google TV is not a box. It's an operating system that will sooner or later be on a vast majority of cable boxes out there. The boxes that people rent from the cable/satellite service provider will have Google TV. The TVs people buy will run on the Google TV "OS". Etc. To compete with that, Apple has to start selling their boxes through non-Apple channels like Best Buy or maybe even the Cable/Satellite Cos. themselves.
Other than that, there has to be good content. What's on iTunes at the moment is not sufficient. To make me want to ditch cable, this new service has to offer the convenience of cable. I should be able to get the latest shows at a reasonable price, in high def.
As for the Google TV vs. Apple TV contest. I don't see how they are related yet, other than that they are playing in the same pool. Google TV is basically a search widget and broswer slapped on to existing STBs. Apple TV is supposed to be altogether different box on its own, offering a different service (streamed content from Apple). I fail to see how Google copied anything when the concepts behind each are so different. Google's going after TiVo. Apple is trying to get you to ditch cable and satellite altogether.
But it's free. People will be hard pressed to spend even $100 on a device whose main function is a storefront for renting and buying content.
I think you're reaching a bit.
100 bucks is like dinner for four at an average restaurant. lots of people spend multiple hundreds of dollars on going to sporting events on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. buying a tshirt and a pair of pants is more expensive than this.
You had me until that last little bit. I don't think that streaming will replace a physical medium (Blu-ray) for some time to come. Some people will always want something they can possess---not just stream. There will always be people who don't want to be connected to the internet to enjoy a movie. There will always be people who can't get a wide enough broadband connection to stream.
Blu-ray is backed by some huge players in electronics and entertainment. It is not going anywhere for quite some time. Apple may be smart not to adopt it (pushing people towards iTunes), but it is also frustrating.
I think people who say Blu-ray is dead don't have it or don't appreciate the awesome picture quality. I own AppleTV but I bought a Blu-ray player because it played my DVD's, the picture and sound was better, I ran out of disk space ripping my DVD's for AppleTV, I didn't want to pay so much for higher internet speed and many movies on Blu-ray are cheaper on Amazon. I think these are some of the things that would prevent most people from moving from disc to downloads.
I'm hoping an Apple TV relaunch means Apple will have the content deals worked out to provide a TV subscription package.
I would dump Comcast in a heartbeat for a $50-$75/month plan that looks something like this:
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
It was "free" in that consumers go shopping for a good tv and, because almost all mid and high-end HDTVs now include streaming services, they got the internet capabilities whether they wanted them or not. Of course the cost is accounted for somewhere, but the consumer isn't opting to pay extra for netflix, amazon, or blockbuster streaming in their television; if you pick a tv based on picture quality, you get that stuff to boot because the better tvs just come with it. Likewise for bluray players; most of them include streaming services as a bonus to their main functionality.
As the owner of 2 Apple TVs ... I feel your pain.. however given this price point (if its true) why would you hold on to the Apple TV if you could get a turbo-charged monster such as what is described above for less than it cost for a month of a deluxe cable tv package + internet or 5 bluray movies?
Not too sure I'll be posting my ATVs up on ebay given this one lone rumor but I sure hope I'm not a sucker for not jumping now while I had the chance.
Even if and when the $99 device is out you will still be able to sell your ATV's more for then $99. People use them as webservers and other items and those uses will not be devalued by the new A4 based ATV.
Yes, BYO storage definitely sounds like a better way to go.
If you mean attach an external hard drive directly to AppleTV, I didn't mean that, though it's not a bad idea. I meant that the standard AppleTV supposedly plays media from local computers running iTunes just fine. Dropping the internal hard drive might have been enough to get the price at $199, simplify the product, maybe make it run a bit cooler. Apple has said in the past that $199 was a "magic" price point for iPods, nano and Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I completely agree with Cory's previous post on the iPad...yeah, it's selling really well, but i think that if what Cory wants (as do i) in future iPad (a standalone device) doesn't come to fruition soon, like in the Gen2 or Gen4, then sales will be flat for the next couple years. the people that buy new ones will be either previous iPad owners wanting to blow another 800 bucks for the latest and greatest or people (like me) who are finally giving in (which i haven't on the Apple TV yet)...mainly because we want one and don't see anything more compelling (i.e. settling for now).
I think it almost goes without saying that future generations of iPads will be more capable. Apple seems to add features on its own time, not when everyone else thinks they should.
why leak to these guys? the story makes some basic sense. but the writer doesn't seem to be able to think on his own.
ATV already can stream media content from your LAN or iTunes (and YouTube) in "the cloud" to your TV. nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
the real importance of running the iPad OS on ATV would be putting its amazing apps on your TV screen - that would be something entirely new and remarkable. their display will work fine - there is no scaling issue as the writer suggests to present their 4:3 768p screen image on an HDTV. the real question/issue he misses totally tho is what will be the new UI for such an ATV?
the current ATV remote just won't work with the iPad's OS. so ... does your iPhone/touch/iPad become the remote instead?
very likely. and then a $100 price for this ATV makes sense, because it will really just be an accessory peripheral to one of those mobile Apple products you also have to buy to use it. the cheapest package would be a $200 touch plus a $100 ATV for $300 total. not bad at all. of course Apple really wants to sell you iPads at a significantly higher price.
btw, this would also turn the ATV into a potentially very important new home game console, unified with the mobile iPad platform. hello Nintendo!
Another product in the pipeline. Apple should just stick this inside an Aluminum 30" - 40" screen, then we will have a real AppleTV.
No more set top box. Give us a real TV. I gave my Sony TV away, because I have been waiting for an AppleTV.
I am not sure if anyone remembers the announced $500M? LG TV screen deal sometime last year or 2008, I think. I thought they were finally going to revamp the Apple TV project. But nothing further was reported.
I was not really as enthused that the deal was made with LB, because I did not like their phones; worst experience I had, when I was forced to be given one when my phone broke while I was on trip in Louisiana in 2007. It was dropping calls like every few minutes while I was there. It was embarrasing to those I was talking to,
The LG TV I saw in Best Buy, were cheap but they were not really at par with some of the usual Japanese or even South Korean brands.
Anyway, when Apple rushed the North Carolina facility, I thought they were finally becoming serious with their push to cloud computing, as speculated by the media at the time. Other areas where the facility may be useful for Apple, was the Maps project, especially after they bought the Maps start up company.
I use the Google satellite maps right now, as we are screening facilities and areas around California for a business project. The Bird's Eye view of Bing, I found very useful much more than the satellite view or in conjunction wi the satellite maps. I like to rotate the Bird's Eye view from Bing to get a 360 perspectives of a building. What I also found was that there were more errors in identifying the actual building sometimes when I use the Google maps vs the Bing maps.
The 360 views are useful for prelimary site plans to share with architects, they could be used to prepare concept designs before the actual site visit, especially if the person is abroad. The database for thuse images are enormous.
I hope now that every component is in place. Cloud computing is one area where Apple lags behind other companies.
I hope they go beyond the Apple TV though. This would also apply for all the Apple iPhone OS mobile computing devices -- iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, for now. These devices would be more truly portable if cloud computing comes to Apple.
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
Live streaming can be handled on Apple's end. It is not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. They've already been using the HTTP Live stereaming protocol on Akamai for the iPhone for live events. The main difference now is Apple can serve ads for more revenue to on par with cable and OTA.
$50/month for a subscription service and $75 for broadband would sound like a good price to me. It's about the same as a normal Triple Play subscription package without any premium channels. If you have multiple boxes, it costs more. So does DVR through cable. I live in NY and there is competition going on between different cable companies which will help to keep prices low.
DSL users may be screwed but, if they're living in a region where tat is the only option, they've been getting screwed for awhile now.
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
I agree. I have 1.5 Mbps DSL which was great for general internet use but was such a pain when I got my AppleTV. And I wasn't going to switch and pay more for faster internet just so I could download movies, especially when I already had Netflix.
How fast would my home Internet need to be to download 1080p?
I was at blockbuster yesterday. Found myself thinking that if I never walked into the store again I'd be fine with that. And I don't want to buy a BR player. Give me 1080 streaming and I'm yours.
h.264 is now getting professional blu ray encodes down to 15 mbps or so. so figure that would give you "blu ray quality" (as if that is some standard).
1/2 that, about 7-8 mbps and you could have some really high quality streaming media.
this sounds good to me, as i just switched from verizon's crappy 3 mbps dsl+ phone for $90 a month to comcast's 20 mbps cable + comcast phone (it was required) for $55 a month - and saved myself $35 per month in the process!! (not an ad, it is just ridiculous how verizon is raping its dsl subscribers) i only switched because the "premium" 3 mbps DSL was set to go up to $119 a month (including phone) as my 12 month discount was up.
why leak to these guys? the story makes some basic sense. but the writer doesn't seem to be able to think on his own.
ATV already can stream media content from your LAN or iTunes (and YouTube) in "the cloud" to your TV. nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
the real importance of running the iPad OS on ATV would be putting its amazing apps on your TV screen - that would be something entirely new and remarkable. their display will work fine - there is no scaling issue as the writer suggests to present their 4:3 768p screen image on an HDTV. the real question/issue he misses totally tho is what will be the new UI for such an ATV?
the current ATV remote just won't work with the iPad's OS. so ... does your iPhone/touch/iPad become the remote instead?
very likely. and then a $100 price for this ATV makes sense, because it will really just be an accessory peripheral to one of those mobile Apple products you also have to buy to use it. the cheapest package would be a $200 touch plus a $100 ATV for $300 total. not bad at all. of course Apple really wants to sell you iPads at a significantly higher price.
btw, this would also turn the ATV into a potentially very important new home game console, unified with the mobile iPad platform. hello Nintendo!
Very insightful. And yes, Nintendo should be worried.
100 bucks is like dinner for four at an average restaurant. lots of people spend multiple hundreds of dollars on going to sporting events on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. buying a tshirt and a pair of pants is more expensive than this.
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.
Comments
As long as you can also stream movies from a local computer running iTunes like the current AppleTV can then this sounds exactly the product Apple needs to release.
The next question is input devices. Standard remotes (eg the Apple remote) are lousy for for Apps and web surfing. GoogleTV failed to solve this problem simply going with a pointing device + keyboard. Can Apple provide a better solution? (preferably not requiring that everyone also owns an iPod touch / iPhone).
Agreed. I think, the obvious answer though, is iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad.
Which is why they can price it this cheap. They expect you to own another Apple device.
But it's free. People will be hard pressed to spend even $100 on a device whose main function is a storefront for renting and buying content.
The biggest reason the iPad can't sell like hotcakes
Your predictions on what people will buy seem to be a little shaky. Based on later posts, even you bought an iPad.
Ouch.
+1
What has always seemed to me to be a logical extension of the AppleTV functionality is to allow it to control your lights and appliances in your house. It has to be plugged into the wall in the first place.
I was thinking this too.
I think people are forgetting that if the AppleTV is running iPhone OS and it's plugged into your home network that there are all kinds of home automation tasks that become no-brainers. There are already apps in the app store by the major players in the field, and Apple has tons of patents on exactly these kinds of ideas.
This could be waaaay bigger than "GoogleTV" (which won't actually fly very far without content agreements). This could be the same thing, *with* the content agreements, and also home automation and a bunch of other stuff as well. Any vendor of furnaces, stoves, fridges, lighting etc. will jump at the chance to include a network interface and an iPhone app, all of which you will also be able to access remotely from your phone.
IMO this is not just Apple selling you some movies or even some games, this is the beginning of Apple taking over your entire house.
There will be a subscription service and it will have ads (iAds) for probably ~$50/month. The most likely reason for no significant storage is probably for reducing any concerns of the content providers about piracy. Apple will distribute iAds over the air give a significant portion of the revenues to the networks and studios. You will be able to interact with the ads through the Apple Remote and you iPhone/iPod. The iDevice can also act as a controller for games but I would be surprised to see a dedicated controller or gamepad that the iPhone is inserted in.
This seems like the potential game changer that everyone was hoping for. Google TV was a joke because it never solved the main problem that everyone wanted; to get rid of the cable box and middleman fees. I think that Apple is willing to make little money on this service or the the box itself so that they can push along the transition to web. Along with the iPad, it seems that Apple has is pushing another low-margin, high-volume product.
And it depends on how they sell the device. Google TV is not a box. It's an operating system that will sooner or later be on a vast majority of cable boxes out there. The boxes that people rent from the cable/satellite service provider will have Google TV. The TVs people buy will run on the Google TV "OS". Etc. To compete with that, Apple has to start selling their boxes through non-Apple channels like Best Buy or maybe even the Cable/Satellite Cos. themselves.
Other than that, there has to be good content. What's on iTunes at the moment is not sufficient. To make me want to ditch cable, this new service has to offer the convenience of cable. I should be able to get the latest shows at a reasonable price, in high def.
As for the Google TV vs. Apple TV contest. I don't see how they are related yet, other than that they are playing in the same pool. Google TV is basically a search widget and broswer slapped on to existing STBs. Apple TV is supposed to be altogether different box on its own, offering a different service (streamed content from Apple). I fail to see how Google copied anything when the concepts behind each are so different. Google's going after TiVo. Apple is trying to get you to ditch cable and satellite altogether.
But it's free. People will be hard pressed to spend even $100 on a device whose main function is a storefront for renting and buying content.
I think you're reaching a bit.
100 bucks is like dinner for four at an average restaurant. lots of people spend multiple hundreds of dollars on going to sporting events on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. buying a tshirt and a pair of pants is more expensive than this.
You had me until that last little bit. I don't think that streaming will replace a physical medium (Blu-ray) for some time to come. Some people will always want something they can possess---not just stream. There will always be people who don't want to be connected to the internet to enjoy a movie. There will always be people who can't get a wide enough broadband connection to stream.
Blu-ray is backed by some huge players in electronics and entertainment. It is not going anywhere for quite some time. Apple may be smart not to adopt it (pushing people towards iTunes), but it is also frustrating.
I think people who say Blu-ray is dead don't have it or don't appreciate the awesome picture quality. I own AppleTV but I bought a Blu-ray player because it played my DVD's, the picture and sound was better, I ran out of disk space ripping my DVD's for AppleTV, I didn't want to pay so much for higher internet speed and many movies on Blu-ray are cheaper on Amazon. I think these are some of the things that would prevent most people from moving from disc to downloads.
I'm hoping an Apple TV relaunch means Apple will have the content deals worked out to provide a TV subscription package.
I would dump Comcast in a heartbeat for a $50-$75/month plan that looks something like this:
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
How do you figure it was free?
It was "free" in that consumers go shopping for a good tv and, because almost all mid and high-end HDTVs now include streaming services, they got the internet capabilities whether they wanted them or not. Of course the cost is accounted for somewhere, but the consumer isn't opting to pay extra for netflix, amazon, or blockbuster streaming in their television; if you pick a tv based on picture quality, you get that stuff to boot because the better tvs just come with it. Likewise for bluray players; most of them include streaming services as a bonus to their main functionality.
As the owner of 2 Apple TVs ... I feel your pain.. however given this price point (if its true) why would you hold on to the Apple TV if you could get a turbo-charged monster such as what is described above for less than it cost for a month of a deluxe cable tv package + internet or 5 bluray movies?
Not too sure I'll be posting my ATVs up on ebay given this one lone rumor but I sure hope I'm not a sucker for not jumping now while I had the chance.
Even if and when the $99 device is out you will still be able to sell your ATV's more for then $99. People use them as webservers and other items and those uses will not be devalued by the new A4 based ATV.
Yes, BYO storage definitely sounds like a better way to go.
If you mean attach an external hard drive directly to AppleTV, I didn't mean that, though it's not a bad idea. I meant that the standard AppleTV supposedly plays media from local computers running iTunes just fine. Dropping the internal hard drive might have been enough to get the price at $199, simplify the product, maybe make it run a bit cooler. Apple has said in the past that $199 was a "magic" price point for iPods, nano and Touch
I completely agree with Cory's previous post on the iPad...yeah, it's selling really well, but i think that if what Cory wants (as do i) in future iPad (a standalone device) doesn't come to fruition soon, like in the Gen2 or Gen4, then sales will be flat for the next couple years. the people that buy new ones will be either previous iPad owners wanting to blow another 800 bucks for the latest and greatest or people (like me) who are finally giving in (which i haven't on the Apple TV yet)...mainly because we want one and don't see anything more compelling (i.e. settling for now).
I think it almost goes without saying that future generations of iPads will be more capable. Apple seems to add features on its own time, not when everyone else thinks they should.
ATV already can stream media content from your LAN or iTunes (and YouTube) in "the cloud" to your TV. nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
the real importance of running the iPad OS on ATV would be putting its amazing apps on your TV screen - that would be something entirely new and remarkable. their display will work fine - there is no scaling issue as the writer suggests to present their 4:3 768p screen image on an HDTV. the real question/issue he misses totally tho is what will be the new UI for such an ATV?
the current ATV remote just won't work with the iPad's OS. so ... does your iPhone/touch/iPad become the remote instead?
very likely. and then a $100 price for this ATV makes sense, because it will really just be an accessory peripheral to one of those mobile Apple products you also have to buy to use it. the cheapest package would be a $200 touch plus a $100 ATV for $300 total. not bad at all. of course Apple really wants to sell you iPads at a significantly higher price.
btw, this would also turn the ATV into a potentially very important new home game console, unified with the mobile iPad platform. hello Nintendo!
Another product in the pipeline. Apple should just stick this inside an Aluminum 30" - 40" screen, then we will have a real AppleTV.
No more set top box. Give us a real TV. I gave my Sony TV away, because I have been waiting for an AppleTV.
I am not sure if anyone remembers the announced $500M? LG TV screen deal sometime last year or 2008, I think. I thought they were finally going to revamp the Apple TV project. But nothing further was reported.
I was not really as enthused that the deal was made with LB, because I did not like their phones; worst experience I had, when I was forced to be given one when my phone broke while I was on trip in Louisiana in 2007. It was dropping calls like every few minutes while I was there. It was embarrasing to those I was talking to,
The LG TV I saw in Best Buy, were cheap but they were not really at par with some of the usual Japanese or even South Korean brands.
Anyway, when Apple rushed the North Carolina facility, I thought they were finally becoming serious with their push to cloud computing, as speculated by the media at the time. Other areas where the facility may be useful for Apple, was the Maps project, especially after they bought the Maps start up company.
I use the Google satellite maps right now, as we are screening facilities and areas around California for a business project. The Bird's Eye view of Bing, I found very useful much more than the satellite view or in conjunction wi the satellite maps. I like to rotate the Bird's Eye view from Bing to get a 360 perspectives of a building. What I also found was that there were more errors in identifying the actual building sometimes when I use the Google maps vs the Bing maps.
The 360 views are useful for prelimary site plans to share with architects, they could be used to prepare concept designs before the actual site visit, especially if the person is abroad. The database for thuse images are enormous.
I hope now that every component is in place. Cloud computing is one area where Apple lags behind other companies.
I hope they go beyond the Apple TV though. This would also apply for all the Apple iPhone OS mobile computing devices -- iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, for now. These devices would be more truly portable if cloud computing comes to Apple.
CGC
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
Live streaming can be handled on Apple's end. It is not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. They've already been using the HTTP Live stereaming protocol on Akamai for the iPhone for live events. The main difference now is Apple can serve ads for more revenue to on par with cable and OTA.
$50/month for a subscription service and $75 for broadband would sound like a good price to me. It's about the same as a normal Triple Play subscription package without any premium channels. If you have multiple boxes, it costs more. So does DVR through cable. I live in NY and there is competition going on between different cable companies which will help to keep prices low.
DSL users may be screwed but, if they're living in a region where tat is the only option, they've been getting screwed for awhile now.
People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?
Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.
I agree. I have 1.5 Mbps DSL which was great for general internet use but was such a pain when I got my AppleTV. And I wasn't going to switch and pay more for faster internet just so I could download movies, especially when I already had Netflix.
How fast would my home Internet need to be to download 1080p?
I was at blockbuster yesterday. Found myself thinking that if I never walked into the store again I'd be fine with that. And I don't want to buy a BR player. Give me 1080 streaming and I'm yours.
h.264 is now getting professional blu ray encodes down to 15 mbps or so. so figure that would give you "blu ray quality" (as if that is some standard).
1/2 that, about 7-8 mbps and you could have some really high quality streaming media.
this sounds good to me, as i just switched from verizon's crappy 3 mbps dsl+ phone for $90 a month to comcast's 20 mbps cable + comcast phone (it was required) for $55 a month - and saved myself $35 per month in the process!! (not an ad, it is just ridiculous how verizon is raping its dsl subscribers) i only switched because the "premium" 3 mbps DSL was set to go up to $119 a month (including phone) as my 12 month discount was up.
why leak to these guys? the story makes some basic sense. but the writer doesn't seem to be able to think on his own.
ATV already can stream media content from your LAN or iTunes (and YouTube) in "the cloud" to your TV. nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
the real importance of running the iPad OS on ATV would be putting its amazing apps on your TV screen - that would be something entirely new and remarkable. their display will work fine - there is no scaling issue as the writer suggests to present their 4:3 768p screen image on an HDTV. the real question/issue he misses totally tho is what will be the new UI for such an ATV?
the current ATV remote just won't work with the iPad's OS. so ... does your iPhone/touch/iPad become the remote instead?
very likely. and then a $100 price for this ATV makes sense, because it will really just be an accessory peripheral to one of those mobile Apple products you also have to buy to use it. the cheapest package would be a $200 touch plus a $100 ATV for $300 total. not bad at all. of course Apple really wants to sell you iPads at a significantly higher price.
btw, this would also turn the ATV into a potentially very important new home game console, unified with the mobile iPad platform. hello Nintendo!
Very insightful. And yes, Nintendo should be worried.
I think you're reaching a bit.
100 bucks is like dinner for four at an average restaurant. lots of people spend multiple hundreds of dollars on going to sporting events on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. buying a tshirt and a pair of pants is more expensive than this.
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.