For high quality (BD level) you would need a stable 45 mbit connection. For broadcast cable HD quality, you would need 15-20 mbit. For low quality highly compressed 1080p (Xbox Live level) that would cost you around 10mbit. Current 720p iTunes streams are 5mbit, but to be frank, they look mostly awful.
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
In fact - why not have a news "portal" with a list of stories, similar to how the AppleTV shows movie trailers? Tick the stories we want, or watch them all, or choose article by article. Link small stories to other bigger expose/current-affairs programs if we want more information. etc.
This sounds awful. I love my apple tv because there are no ads!
There's going to have to be ads. In order for there to be any subscriptions service, TV companies will have to believe that they can recoup potential lost revenue from losing eyeballs through network ads. It would make sense that even early on Apple has a high asking price for iAds.
The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything. I could use a DVD player I already have, use Netflix and have access to more content at a cheaper price. There needs to be a subscription service in order for the product to be a huge hit. This is why Google TV will be a flop.
Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.
I got a demo of AppleTV at the iSore once. They showed me in detail how you could use it to buy content from Apple. Not much else.
What nonsense. This is what happens when you are too lazy to find out for yourself, and instead rely on a 'demo' at the iSore (sic).
The only content I've ever 'bought' is movies I rented ($4.99 for 720p HD, rented typically once a week; the selection and currency are excellent). The following are totally free: Youtube, Internet radio, your own music, thousands of podcasts (including video podcasts of just about every news/talk show) your own photos, your own movies that are on iTunes, and anything you've bought from the iTunes store that is on your hard drive.
In fact, I usually do not have the time to digest all the choices I have from amongst the free content on AppleTV.
You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?
Yes, I read "can't" as "can". Mea culpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But will it be codec agnostic, or must one use Apple-specified codecs?
Of course not, without knowledge of codecs nothing could play. We can expect
Quote:
Does it really have only one HDMI output? How abut a separate Toslink for multi-channel sound to route to the sound system? (My TV has no HDMI output).
There are several things to consider here.
How popular is TOSLINK in consumer HES?
Is HDMI going to be found on all HDTVs or HES receivers that have TOSLINK, thus negating the need?
What benefits does TOSLINK offer over HDMI?
What disadvantages does TOSLINK offer HDMI?
Does TOSLINK offer HDCP support?
From what I can tell HDMI offers more throughput, is more future-forward and is more ubiquitous than TOSLINK. The only benefit I can see for the inclusion of TOSLINK is to allow the HDTV to only be the monitor and allow the speakers to route through a separate receiver system that doesn't offer video.
I guarantee that the next AppleTV will not offer component or analog audio. I'm sure many will complain for various shortsighted reasons but it's safe to say that Apple can appease the content owners better by only offering A/V ports that are HDCP compliant.
Quote:
Will it really stream video from where my stuff is on my computer, or will it connect only to iTunes?
That is the kicker. Connecting to iTunes will surely happen, but connecting to your network as a whole would be great. If there is an SDK then I think Apple would just leave that up to a 3rd-party.
Quote:
I routinely move stuff around from the download directory to the music or video folders on my computer, and then, when I want to archive, I move the content to an external drive. iTunes cannot deal with any of that.
i love it for audio but hate it for video. I'd catalog it in iTunes if I at least had the option to double-click a file and have it play through QuickTime. THe default iTunes video players asks very differently. I suspect we'll see a 64-bit Cocoa iTunes X coming this fall. Hopefully they've rethought the app from top to bottom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde
If you can install 3rd party apps, Netflix here we come.
That seems like a great way for Apple to offer a device for your HDTV that no one can even come close to touching. What other HW company that makes a media extender would have 3rd-party apps ready? They wouldn't just be a contender, but could own this market, too.
The rumored 16GB seems like plenty of space for the OS and apps. If this is true, perhaps they will demo this new device at WWDC along with the TV SDK for a fall release along with the new version of iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde
I assume you meant 1TB :-)
1GB would get you about 2 tv shows.
Of course, 1TB isn't that much these days either. I put in a 8TB raid (raid 5, 6TB actual storage). It's already 1/3 full. iTunes is making me go broke.
He stated "1Gb network" as in 1Gbps wired ethernet network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
Depends on the bit rate and sustainable average network speed. For example, a high-profile Blu-ray file may be 40Mbps, which is considerably higher any of the sites streaming 1080p, so the only way you'll be using that is from ripped Blu-rays. Note that 40Mbps converts to 5MBps. Now take that actual through put of wired and wireless networks. There will be buffering but this isn't actually an issue these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything.
it wasn't meant to. It was meant to connect you computer, your media hub, to your TV. That will not change.
Quote:
Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Besides different types of HES HW having different usable lifespans having a single device that does everything is complex, expensive, and goes against everything Apple has historically done. Not everyone wants to pay for cable card slots they won't use, or a PVR when they prefer their TiVo or another Blu-ray player or one at all.
I think Apple is going to be pushing this for every room in the house with a TV, not just the living room and usually you don't have all these devices in every room, so a cheap small device would be the best choice, IMO.
With cloud based sync and iPhone OS, this could be a path to making the iPad a stand alone product, not requiring a desktop computer.
I personally see no evidence of that happening. Even when Apple does incorporate the LaLa purchase into iTunes.com (assumption) to stream your library to your devices the content will still remain on your local device. All it will do will let you stream from the same essential file from their servers, not actually hold all your content on their servers.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
Microsoft on Xbox Live have multiple quality levels with each stream, so they simply test your connection then give you whatever stream you can handle. Doesn't take long (a few seconds), then playback starts virtually instantly.
If Apple could get everyone to spend $250+ per year on a product with almost no marginal cost, the Apple TV will be one hell of a profit center.
Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Apple never had more than 15.8% share...
Besides it not being the best analogy, analogies, while useful for illustrative purposes, really aren't a good predictive tool.
Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.
I said the product had no marginal cost. The fixed capital costs were not mentioned. The profit sharing arrangements were not mentioned.
If you think I said "that is all pure profit for apple" then you misunderstood the meaning of "product with no marginal cost".
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.
I was thinking along those lines too. IIRC, you have an impressive wireless setup/home network/media sharing setup (or is that Doc someone?) which uses lots of Apple products to their fullest. His system, coupled with this new news, made me wonder if Apple wanted to try to take on the living room, and beyond that, the whole house.
But I can't square that with Apple now being a "Mobile Device Company". And I wonder if taking over the house implies a central server, which Apple has never been so good at, and NAS, and deals with third parties like cable companies and home security companies and utility companies, which Appple has never been very good at.
nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
Isn't Apple wholeheartedly supporting wireless n? Isn't that a "good enough" equivalent to ethernet?
And on a different subject: What are your views on a TosLink or other S/PDIF port?
Having just HDMI assumes the user has either a central audio/video switching receiver with HDMI, or that their TV has an HDMI or other digital audio output to feed the big sound system.
I don't know if either of these assumptions applies to a large enough demographic (but very likely, Apple knows better than I do). I also wonder if Joe VHS will be able to even set it up in a way that it works to give the best UX. Likely many will just be plugged into the TV via HDMI, to be enjoyed with TV speakers instead of 5.1 channel sound.
This home theater setup stuff is complicated with many old formats still in use - heck, Apple provides a VGA adaptor for the brand new iPad! I wonder how many people use Component with TOSLINK/S/PDIF instead of HDMI.
Comments
For high quality (BD level) you would need a stable 45 mbit connection. For broadcast cable HD quality, you would need 15-20 mbit. For low quality highly compressed 1080p (Xbox Live level) that would cost you around 10mbit. Current 720p iTunes streams are 5mbit, but to be frank, they look mostly awful.
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
In fact - why not have a news "portal" with a list of stories, similar to how the AppleTV shows movie trailers? Tick the stories we want, or watch them all, or choose article by article. Link small stories to other bigger expose/current-affairs programs if we want more information. etc.
It's here already. It is called Google News.
You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?
His heart is in the right place.
This sounds awful. I love my apple tv because there are no ads!
There's going to have to be ads. In order for there to be any subscriptions service, TV companies will have to believe that they can recoup potential lost revenue from losing eyeballs through network ads. It would make sense that even early on Apple has a high asking price for iAds.
The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything. I could use a DVD player I already have, use Netflix and have access to more content at a cheaper price. There needs to be a subscription service in order for the product to be a huge hit. This is why Google TV will be a flop.
Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.
I got a demo of AppleTV at the iSore once. They showed me in detail how you could use it to buy content from Apple. Not much else.
What nonsense. This is what happens when you are too lazy to find out for yourself, and instead rely on a 'demo' at the iSore (sic).
The only content I've ever 'bought' is movies I rented ($4.99 for 720p HD, rented typically once a week; the selection and currency are excellent). The following are totally free: Youtube, Internet radio, your own music, thousands of podcasts (including video podcasts of just about every news/talk show) your own photos, your own movies that are on iTunes, and anything you've bought from the iTunes store that is on your hard drive.
In fact, I usually do not have the time to digest all the choices I have from amongst the free content on AppleTV.
I want an Apple OS in my (Philips) TV!!
I don't want another remote control
I don't want a new settop box
Apple should license (free of paid) its OS to TV manufactures...!!
Or - TVs should have a card slot/printboard where a small computer or OS can be inserted.
Why do I want to buy another TV when I don't have to?
Which is cheaper, a new TV or a set top box?
Set top is the better choice in the short run and then implementing your idea in the long run but knowing Apple they would never license their OS
What nonsense.
The only content I've ever 'bought' is movies I rented ($4.99 for 720p HD, rented typically once a week;
If Apple could get everyone to spend $250+ per year on a product with almost no marginal cost, the Apple TV will be one hell of a profit center.
Why do I want to buy another TV when I don't have to?
These days, TVs only last a few years. Not like the old B&W tube-type consoles that lasted an entire childhood...
You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?
Yes, I read "can't" as "can". Mea culpa.
But will it be codec agnostic, or must one use Apple-specified codecs?
Of course not, without knowledge of codecs nothing could play. We can expect
Does it really have only one HDMI output? How abut a separate Toslink for multi-channel sound to route to the sound system? (My TV has no HDMI output).
There are several things to consider here.
- How popular is TOSLINK in consumer HES?
- Is HDMI going to be found on all HDTVs or HES receivers that have TOSLINK, thus negating the need?
- What benefits does TOSLINK offer over HDMI?
- What disadvantages does TOSLINK offer HDMI?
- Does TOSLINK offer HDCP support?
From what I can tell HDMI offers more throughput, is more future-forward and is more ubiquitous than TOSLINK. The only benefit I can see for the inclusion of TOSLINK is to allow the HDTV to only be the monitor and allow the speakers to route through a separate receiver system that doesn't offer video.I guarantee that the next AppleTV will not offer component or analog audio. I'm sure many will complain for various shortsighted reasons but it's safe to say that Apple can appease the content owners better by only offering A/V ports that are HDCP compliant.
Will it really stream video from where my stuff is on my computer, or will it connect only to iTunes?
That is the kicker. Connecting to iTunes will surely happen, but connecting to your network as a whole would be great. If there is an SDK then I think Apple would just leave that up to a 3rd-party.
I routinely move stuff around from the download directory to the music or video folders on my computer, and then, when I want to archive, I move the content to an external drive. iTunes cannot deal with any of that.
i love it for audio but hate it for video. I'd catalog it in iTunes if I at least had the option to double-click a file and have it play through QuickTime. THe default iTunes video players asks very differently. I suspect we'll see a 64-bit Cocoa iTunes X coming this fall. Hopefully they've rethought the app from top to bottom.
If you can install 3rd party apps, Netflix here we come.
That seems like a great way for Apple to offer a device for your HDTV that no one can even come close to touching. What other HW company that makes a media extender would have 3rd-party apps ready? They wouldn't just be a contender, but could own this market, too.
The rumored 16GB seems like plenty of space for the OS and apps. If this is true, perhaps they will demo this new device at WWDC along with the TV SDK for a fall release along with the new version of iTunes.
I assume you meant 1TB :-)
1GB would get you about 2 tv shows.
Of course, 1TB isn't that much these days either. I put in a 8TB raid (raid 5, 6TB actual storage). It's already 1/3 full. iTunes is making me go broke.
He stated "1Gb network" as in 1Gbps wired ethernet network.
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
Depends on the bit rate and sustainable average network speed. For example, a high-profile Blu-ray file may be 40Mbps, which is considerably higher any of the sites streaming 1080p, so the only way you'll be using that is from ripped Blu-rays. Note that 40Mbps converts to 5MBps. Now take that actual through put of wired and wireless networks. There will be buffering but this isn't actually an issue these days.
The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything.
it wasn't meant to. It was meant to connect you computer, your media hub, to your TV. That will not change.
Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Besides different types of HES HW having different usable lifespans having a single device that does everything is complex, expensive, and goes against everything Apple has historically done. Not everyone wants to pay for cable card slots they won't use, or a PVR when they prefer their TiVo or another Blu-ray player or one at all.
I think Apple is going to be pushing this for every room in the house with a TV, not just the living room and usually you don't have all these devices in every room, so a cheap small device would be the best choice, IMO.
With cloud based sync and iPhone OS, this could be a path to making the iPad a stand alone product, not requiring a desktop computer.
I personally see no evidence of that happening. Even when Apple does incorporate the LaLa purchase into iTunes.com (assumption) to stream your library to your devices the content will still remain on your local device. All it will do will let you stream from the same essential file from their servers, not actually hold all your content on their servers.
I want an Apple OS in my (Philips) TV!!
I don't want another remote control
I don't want a new settop box
Apple should license (free of paid) its OS to TV manufactures...!!
Or - TVs should have a card slot/printboard where a small computer or OS can be inserted.
Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to have to buy a new TV to get these features. This $99 Apple device sounds perfect.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.
Apple never had more than 15.8% share...
Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
Microsoft on Xbox Live have multiple quality levels with each stream, so they simply test your connection then give you whatever stream you can handle. Doesn't take long (a few seconds), then playback starts virtually instantly.
If Apple could get everyone to spend $250+ per year on a product with almost no marginal cost, the Apple TV will be one hell of a profit center.
Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.
I thought you were talking about ATV\\GTV.
In that case, it seems even less relevant.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use. ...
Apple never had more than 15.8% share...
Besides it not being the best analogy, analogies, while useful for illustrative purposes, really aren't a good predictive tool.
Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.
I said the product had no marginal cost. The fixed capital costs were not mentioned. The profit sharing arrangements were not mentioned.
If you think I said "that is all pure profit for apple" then you misunderstood the meaning of "product with no marginal cost".
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.
I was thinking along those lines too. IIRC, you have an impressive wireless setup/home network/media sharing setup (or is that Doc someone?) which uses lots of Apple products to their fullest. His system, coupled with this new news, made me wonder if Apple wanted to try to take on the living room, and beyond that, the whole house.
But I can't square that with Apple now being a "Mobile Device Company". And I wonder if taking over the house implies a central server, which Apple has never been so good at, and NAS, and deals with third parties like cable companies and home security companies and utility companies, which Appple has never been very good at.
So I dunno.
nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.
Isn't Apple wholeheartedly supporting wireless n? Isn't that a "good enough" equivalent to ethernet?
And on a different subject: What are your views on a TosLink or other S/PDIF port?
Having just HDMI assumes the user has either a central audio/video switching receiver with HDMI, or that their TV has an HDMI or other digital audio output to feed the big sound system.
I don't know if either of these assumptions applies to a large enough demographic (but very likely, Apple knows better than I do). I also wonder if Joe VHS will be able to even set it up in a way that it works to give the best UX. Likely many will just be plugged into the TV via HDMI, to be enjoyed with TV speakers instead of 5.1 channel sound.
This home theater setup stuff is complicated with many old formats still in use - heck, Apple provides a VGA adaptor for the brand new iPad! I wonder how many people use Component with TOSLINK/S/PDIF instead of HDMI.