The iTV needs only 1GB of NAND flash memory to achieve this level of skip protection.
That's 1GB per movie. I was thinking the hard drive stores the first GB for up to 100 (or some arbitrary number of) movies, so selecting any one of them leads to an instantaneous start, rather than waiting for the buffer to fill.
What if I like Jazz and Classical but my teenage daughter like Deathmetal and Ska?
Do you really think everyone wants it all jumbled together?
Ummmm.... Ya but you can just use playlists or whatever. If you could see the shared music of multiple computers you could use the iTV to make Smart Playlists of media on all the computers, for example create a Smart Playlist on the iTV of all the Music Videos, or all the Jazz music. I'd rather do that then have to sync all my libraries together.
To me it seems better to have the iTV access all shared content at once. That way the user has the most options about how they want to arrange or organize all of their content. If all the shared content was shown you could just make a "My Music" smart playlist and a "My Daughter's" smart playlist and each could contain only the genres you want. What if one day she decides she like Jazz????
That's 1GB per movie. I was thinking the hard drive stores the first GB for up to 100 (or some arbitrary number of) movies, so selecting any one of them leads to an instantaneous start, rather than waiting for the buffer to fill.
FrontRow is already capable of looking for shared movies on your local network.
Most movies began playback immediately.
802.11g has a max datarate of 54 Mbits/sec and a typical datarate of 25 Mbits/sec.
25 Mbits/sec = 3,200 kb/sec (twice the data rate of your typical iTunes movie)
So the bottleneck for most consumers will be the speed of their cable/DSL connection.
Typical broadband in the US is only 6Mbits or 768 kb/sec(half the data rate of your typical iTunes movie).
Most consumers will be able to start watching a movie they start downloading after about 20-30 minutes.
If the file is already on your local network, your iTV can start streaming without delay.
What would be the easiest and most convenient way to get your iTunes videos and movies from your computer to your TV?
Burn to DVD. Obviously.
Why can't we? It's not the technical capability, since Apple introduced DVD burning ages ago (last millenium, IIRC).
Of course, before you could burn an iTunes movie, you'd have to convert it from H.264 to MPEG-2 which would take an hour and create a 4.7GB temporary file. (Although if Apple was clever they could convert while downloading.)
What if I'm lazy and want to just browse by artist or album?
The point is, most consumers only have one computer with THEIR music on it.
Many households will have multiple computers and multiple users who DONT want to see the other users music.
If you are lazy then you are just that and why should those who are making things more functional have to work to a lazy bones person. But don't worry you will be able to be lazy one day when they just connect your brain in wirelessly. You will probably complain that you have to activate the system.
Based on some of the statements made in this forum, I would suggest that a number of you view Job's keynote and get some of your facts straightened out.
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture. We really have no other means to determine what the actual product will have or do other than that which was described by the big guy himself.
I think most people are already aware that I don't like way iTV appears to be. Actually I hate the idea, but I just wanted to note that I think it seems a bit unrealistic that Robert Iger is giving props to Apple on this. Now that Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder at Disney it almost seems like Jobs is touting this himself. Anyone else get that impression? You know what I mean? It just feels weird.
Based on some of the statements made in this forum, I would suggest that a number of you view Jpb's keynote and get some of your facts straightened out.
That's come to mind more than once reading this and other iTV-related threads.
Btw, anyone have trouble with the audio volume/quality of the Showtime presentation? Not sure if it's a problem with the stream, QuickTime 7.1.3, and/or my iMac G5; other audio is unaffected.
Quote:
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture.
With been no shortage of passion, sometimes with an apparent disregard for accuracy and truth.
Good article. The numbers are about to double to 18% as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to rise at a rapid rate.
According the Nielsen 90% of TV is still seen in live in real time even in homes with DVRs. Of the remainder 50% are played the same day for timeshifting puposes and the demographic is mostly that of younger couples with kids.
Set to double to 18%? Meh...if that were true the advertisers would be even more up in arms. If you believe in those number and even faster uptake then you should also believe in the end of advertising based content. That CBS report is a forlorn hope and likely the effect is based on the fact that 90% of all viewing is still "live" so the commerical are seen in their entirety.
Were DVR penetration to reach 50% and were used to timeshift more aggressively then fewer ads would be seen in their entierty and with the sound off and the image zipping by you might get some sense of what was being advertised but doubtful you would know or care what.
I know that my method was always to start watching a show about 15-20 minutes after it started at a minimum. Usually I'd prefer to watch something stored and then replay the just recorded event. Ads are too aggravating to waste time watching.
Personally, if the season passes were uniformly like $15 I'd just do iTunes for prime time shows and leave cable for ESPN and CNN.
I fear you're confusing bits and bytes here. An iTS movie is around 1.5Mbits/sec, not 1.5Mbytes/sec.
Bingo. So to clarify:
25 megabits/second = 25,600 kilobits/second.
Way loads for an iTunes movie of 1,500 kilobits/second, you could potentially stream 16 films over a network, assuming the working figure of 25Mbits/s is true.
I agree that they'll be a small buffer in these devices.
Personally I have been using Handbrake to rip all of my DVDs to H.264 encoded copies on an external hard drive to bring to university as I don't want all the boxes taking up space; this is EXACTLY what I want.
Based on some of the statements made in this forum, I would suggest that a number of you view Job's keynote and get some of your facts straightened out.
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture. We really have no other means to determine what the actual product will have or do other than that which was described by the big guy himself.
As we know it today the iTV is an expensive replacement of a video and audio cable. It's not like it's a problem to connect a MacBook Pro or an iMac to a TV. It's been working fine the last couple of years. No problems.
iTV would be great if it could do EVERYTHING that iTunes could do, without a computer present. And for me who's got a powerbook, it would be perfect to have my entire music and video and movie library at a remote location (the iTV) because I don't have space on my hard drive for both music, video and work. It's simply impossible. It's tight as it is already. The iTV should represent the iTunes master Library = it should have a slim 120+GB hard drive reserved for music and movies. It would also be great to be able to buy stuff from the iTunes Store without a computer.
I think that is the problem. With FrontRow on the iTV itself, it could be a media hub that is totally independent of your laptop and yes, I'd prefer that as well. I have maxxed out my PowerBook storage and have most of my music sitting on an external drive as it is now. But looking at the iTV specs and the size and shape of the box makes me thing Apple still wants you to run the iTV via a Mac ... a Mac mini. Either that or you get to upgrade your laptop and turn your old one into a portable media server that sits on the coffee table - not a bad option.
Maybe in time the studios and DRM technology will allow a little box that size to be an all-in-one media device without the computer, but not yet. It seems to me though that the Macmini, the iTV and the MacMini-looking external drives can do everything you want (oh, yeah you need PVR software) - just for a little bit more than you may want to spend.
Like "Works with iTunes on PC or Mac", since there was some doubt about PC compatibility here earlier.
I think Abster2core's point was that the presentation can answer at least a few of the questions people have been asking. Well, at least get Jobs' answer since, as we know, he's not always entirely accurate.
He's talking about much of the criticism levied at iTV as being useless or a bad idea because it cannot do X, Y or Z. At this point iTV is vaporware and Apple is still free to give it any functionality it choses. We are pretty slim on the facts.
All we know for sure is that iTV's primary function is to stream media from the Mac to television. It will use 802.11 technology. Jobs did not say g, I think this is an obvious indication they intend to use n. Because n will future proof iTV as a device that can stream HD. iTV will have an HDMI port, USB port, component ports, optical audio port, and a hard drive.
That's pretty much all we know for sure. If iTV were literally only limited to streaming media from the Mac to the television and that was its only function there would be no need for the USB port. So I would gather there is more to the story than we currently know.
It seems to me that once a wireless standard is created for streaming video to HD plasma screens that this would be integrated into every TV that costs more than $700 anyway. I mean how much more can that chipset be compared to a $4000 Phillips TV? Seems to me in two years the iTV as we've seen would be redundant.
THUS it has to be more than we have seen. Apple has a window of opportunity - with the iTunes user base and lack of all-in-one systems that my mom could operate - to be the leader in the field and set the standards for the last 10 feet.
I still think its 802.11n. N has the QOS to support media streaming. G doesn't.
Many G routers can't sustain the data rates required. I have issue with Vonage over G (and its not all THAT big a bandwidth hog) because the cheap D-Link wireless router stalls after a while. It's very easily seen by running any bandwidth tests...I can get the full 5MB download speed for about half the test and then it just slams to a halt.
Plugged into the wired network I get 5MB sustained as many times as I want to bang the test server. Wireless...I get great numbers for a while and then screeeching halt. Then it blazes throught the finish. Its not the FIOS end that's throttling. Its the wireless part router. I figure its some buffer getting hammered.
Because n will future proof iTV as a device that can stream HD.
Maybe, though I don't recall Jobs ever mentioning HD any time during the iTV segment of the presentation, if at all. Pretty sure he consistently said big or flat screen TV though I'd have to double-check.
Those two items got me wondering if iTV will really be HD-capable.
Quote:
iTV will have an HDMI port, USB port, component ports, optical audio port, and a hard drive.
That's pretty much all we know for sure.
The hard drive is still doubtful since so far that only seems a rumor based on what Iger said.
Quote:
If iTV were literally only limited to streaming media from the Mac to the television and that was its only function there would be no need for the USB port.
iPod connectively seems the most obvious immediate purpose for the USB port.
Quote:
So I would gather there is more to the story than we currently know.
Plenty. I'm waiting to know if iTV will have any integration with existing EyeTV devices, essentially obsoleting EyeHome. And maybe, hopefully, they held back mentioning HD to have something left as a surprise when it's released. Mentioning it during the presentation could have been counterproductive to the announcement of non-HD movies on the iTunes Store.
I just got latest Battlestar Galactica 2.5 DVD from Netflix. Watching it on my 42" plasma, picture quality is okay, not great. The dark scenes don't look very good. Almost DVD quality? I don't think that is for me.
Of course, before you could burn an iTunes movie, you'd have to convert it from H.264 to MPEG-2 which would take an hour and create a 4.7GB temporary file. (Although if Apple was clever they could convert while downloading.)
Would it still take an hour on current machines? I have no experience in converting h264 into mpeg2. I know that when I copy my DVDs, my old single-core, single-processor 867Mhz G4 Quicksilver can compress a typical 90-120 min movie (8GB mpeg2 file) into a 4.3GB file in about 45 minutes, and then create a disk image in an additional 6 minutes. Granted, this is mpeg2-to-mpeg2 and translating from h264 to mpeg2 may take longer. But I was under the impression that compressing was more resource intensive than decompressing (small h.264 to larger mpeg2 file).
In any case, even if it takes as long as encoding DV into mpeg2, Apple already does this with iDVD. Apple made it less painful by allowing iDVD to encode in the background. iTunes could do this as well, and with the rapid proliferation of dual-core chips, it wouldn't even have to slow your system significantly. (On my ancient machine, which is probably at best a quarter of the speed of today's iMacs, iDVD's background encoding doesn't really affect my system speed to badly.)
Unfortunately, the movie studios have a stranglehold on the content. And they're all standing shoulder-to-shoulder against anything that threatens their way of doing things (even if it means that they'll make more money). So I'm pessimistic of gaining the freedom to burn iTunes movies or videos that I legitimately own for my own use.
Comments
I don't think the iTV needs a hard drive to do caching.
Here are my calaculations:
Assuming the typical movie on the iTunes store is encoded at 1500 kbits/sec
IF the iTV was designed to buffer 10 minutes of video for skip protection,
1500 kbits/sec * 60 seconds * 10 minutes = 900,000 kilobits = 879 Megabytes
The iTV needs only 1GB of NAND flash memory to achieve this level of skip protection.
That's 1GB per movie. I was thinking the hard drive stores the first GB for up to 100 (or some arbitrary number of) movies, so selecting any one of them leads to an instantaneous start, rather than waiting for the buffer to fill.
What if I like Jazz and Classical but my teenage daughter like Deathmetal and Ska?
Do you really think everyone wants it all jumbled together?
Ummmm.... Ya but you can just use playlists or whatever. If you could see the shared music of multiple computers you could use the iTV to make Smart Playlists of media on all the computers, for example create a Smart Playlist on the iTV of all the Music Videos, or all the Jazz music. I'd rather do that then have to sync all my libraries together.
To me it seems better to have the iTV access all shared content at once. That way the user has the most options about how they want to arrange or organize all of their content. If all the shared content was shown you could just make a "My Music" smart playlist and a "My Daughter's" smart playlist and each could contain only the genres you want. What if one day she decides she like Jazz????
That's 1GB per movie. I was thinking the hard drive stores the first GB for up to 100 (or some arbitrary number of) movies, so selecting any one of them leads to an instantaneous start, rather than waiting for the buffer to fill.
FrontRow is already capable of looking for shared movies on your local network.
Most movies began playback immediately.
802.11g has a max datarate of 54 Mbits/sec and a typical datarate of 25 Mbits/sec.
25 Mbits/sec = 3,200 kb/sec (twice the data rate of your typical iTunes movie)
So the bottleneck for most consumers will be the speed of their cable/DSL connection.
Typical broadband in the US is only 6Mbits or 768 kb/sec(half the data rate of your typical iTunes movie).
Most consumers will be able to start watching a movie they start downloading after about 20-30 minutes.
If the file is already on your local network, your iTV can start streaming without delay.
What would be the easiest and most convenient way to get your iTunes videos and movies from your computer to your TV?
Burn to DVD. Obviously.
Why can't we? It's not the technical capability, since Apple introduced DVD burning ages ago (last millenium, IIRC).
Of course, before you could burn an iTunes movie, you'd have to convert it from H.264 to MPEG-2 which would take an hour and create a 4.7GB temporary file. (Although if Apple was clever they could convert while downloading.)
What if I'm lazy and want to just browse by artist or album?
The point is, most consumers only have one computer with THEIR music on it.
Many households will have multiple computers and multiple users who DONT want to see the other users music.
If you are lazy then you are just that and why should those who are making things more functional have to work to a lazy bones person. But don't worry you will be able to be lazy one day when they just connect your brain in wirelessly. You will probably complain that you have to activate the system.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/showtime06/
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture. We really have no other means to determine what the actual product will have or do other than that which was described by the big guy himself.
802.11g has a max datarate of 54 Mbits/sec and a typical datarate of 25 Mbits/sec.
25 Mbits/sec = 3,200 kb/sec (twice the data rate of your typical iTunes movie)
So the bottleneck for most consumers will be the speed of their cable/DSL connection.
Typical broadband in the US is only 6Mbits or 768 kb/sec(half the data rate of your typical iTunes movie).
I fear you're confusing bits and bytes here. An iTS movie is around 1.5Mbits/sec, not 1.5Mbytes/sec.
Based on some of the statements made in this forum, I would suggest that a number of you view Jpb's keynote and get some of your facts straightened out.
That's come to mind more than once reading this and other iTV-related threads.
Btw, anyone have trouble with the audio volume/quality of the Showtime presentation? Not sure if it's a problem with the stream, QuickTime 7.1.3, and/or my iMac G5; other audio is unaffected.
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture.
With been no shortage of passion, sometimes with an apparent disregard for accuracy and truth.
Good article. The numbers are about to double to 18% as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to rise at a rapid rate.
According the Nielsen 90% of TV is still seen in live in real time even in homes with DVRs. Of the remainder 50% are played the same day for timeshifting puposes and the demographic is mostly that of younger couples with kids.
http://www.am-strategies.com/en/news.php?ID=149
Set to double to 18%? Meh...if that were true the advertisers would be even more up in arms. If you believe in those number and even faster uptake then you should also believe in the end of advertising based content. That CBS report is a forlorn hope and likely the effect is based on the fact that 90% of all viewing is still "live" so the commerical are seen in their entirety.
Were DVR penetration to reach 50% and were used to timeshift more aggressively then fewer ads would be seen in their entierty and with the sound off and the image zipping by you might get some sense of what was being advertised but doubtful you would know or care what.
I know that my method was always to start watching a show about 15-20 minutes after it started at a minimum. Usually I'd prefer to watch something stored and then replay the just recorded event. Ads are too aggravating to waste time watching.
Personally, if the season passes were uniformly like $15 I'd just do iTunes for prime time shows and leave cable for ESPN and CNN.
Vinea
I fear you're confusing bits and bytes here. An iTS movie is around 1.5Mbits/sec, not 1.5Mbytes/sec.
Bingo. So to clarify:
25 megabits/second = 25,600 kilobits/second.
Way loads for an iTunes movie of 1,500 kilobits/second, you could potentially stream 16 films over a network, assuming the working figure of 25Mbits/s is true.
I agree that they'll be a small buffer in these devices.
Personally I have been using Handbrake to rip all of my DVDs to H.264 encoded copies on an external hard drive to bring to university as I don't want all the boxes taking up space; this is EXACTLY what I want.
Based on some of the statements made in this forum, I would suggest that a number of you view Job's keynote and get some of your facts straightened out.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/showtime06/
I would also suggest that a lot of what has been posted and written about iTV is only conjecture. We really have no other means to determine what the actual product will have or do other than that which was described by the big guy himself.
UMMMMM.... which facts?
As we know it today the iTV is an expensive replacement of a video and audio cable. It's not like it's a problem to connect a MacBook Pro or an iMac to a TV. It's been working fine the last couple of years. No problems.
iTV would be great if it could do EVERYTHING that iTunes could do, without a computer present. And for me who's got a powerbook, it would be perfect to have my entire music and video and movie library at a remote location (the iTV) because I don't have space on my hard drive for both music, video and work. It's simply impossible. It's tight as it is already. The iTV should represent the iTunes master Library = it should have a slim 120+GB hard drive reserved for music and movies. It would also be great to be able to buy stuff from the iTunes Store without a computer.
I think that is the problem. With FrontRow on the iTV itself, it could be a media hub that is totally independent of your laptop and yes, I'd prefer that as well. I have maxxed out my PowerBook storage and have most of my music sitting on an external drive as it is now. But looking at the iTV specs and the size and shape of the box makes me thing Apple still wants you to run the iTV via a Mac ... a Mac mini. Either that or you get to upgrade your laptop and turn your old one into a portable media server that sits on the coffee table - not a bad option.
Maybe in time the studios and DRM technology will allow a little box that size to be an all-in-one media device without the computer, but not yet. It seems to me though that the Macmini, the iTV and the MacMini-looking external drives can do everything you want (oh, yeah you need PVR software) - just for a little bit more than you may want to spend.
UMMMMM.... which facts?
Like "Works with iTunes on PC or Mac", since there was some doubt about PC compatibility here earlier.
I think Abster2core's point was that the presentation can answer at least a few of the questions people have been asking. Well, at least get Jobs' answer since, as we know, he's not always entirely accurate.
UMMMMM.... which facts?
He's talking about much of the criticism levied at iTV as being useless or a bad idea because it cannot do X, Y or Z. At this point iTV is vaporware and Apple is still free to give it any functionality it choses. We are pretty slim on the facts.
All we know for sure is that iTV's primary function is to stream media from the Mac to television. It will use 802.11 technology. Jobs did not say g, I think this is an obvious indication they intend to use n. Because n will future proof iTV as a device that can stream HD. iTV will have an HDMI port, USB port, component ports, optical audio port, and a hard drive.
That's pretty much all we know for sure. If iTV were literally only limited to streaming media from the Mac to the television and that was its only function there would be no need for the USB port. So I would gather there is more to the story than we currently know.
THUS it has to be more than we have seen. Apple has a window of opportunity - with the iTunes user base and lack of all-in-one systems that my mom could operate - to be the leader in the field and set the standards for the last 10 feet.
Many G routers can't sustain the data rates required. I have issue with Vonage over G (and its not all THAT big a bandwidth hog) because the cheap D-Link wireless router stalls after a while. It's very easily seen by running any bandwidth tests...I can get the full 5MB download speed for about half the test and then it just slams to a halt.
Plugged into the wired network I get 5MB sustained as many times as I want to bang the test server. Wireless...I get great numbers for a while and then screeeching halt. Then it blazes throught the finish. Its not the FIOS end that's throttling. Its the wireless part router. I figure its some buffer getting hammered.
Vinea
Because n will future proof iTV as a device that can stream HD.
Maybe, though I don't recall Jobs ever mentioning HD any time during the iTV segment of the presentation, if at all. Pretty sure he consistently said big or flat screen TV though I'd have to double-check.
And according to Hands-on with the Apple iTV prototype (@ Engadget) the Apple rep wouldn't reveal the TV resolution submenu settings.
Those two items got me wondering if iTV will really be HD-capable.
iTV will have an HDMI port, USB port, component ports, optical audio port, and a hard drive.
That's pretty much all we know for sure.
The hard drive is still doubtful since so far that only seems a rumor based on what Iger said.
If iTV were literally only limited to streaming media from the Mac to the television and that was its only function there would be no need for the USB port.
iPod connectively seems the most obvious immediate purpose for the USB port.
So I would gather there is more to the story than we currently know.
Plenty. I'm waiting to know if iTV will have any integration with existing EyeTV devices, essentially obsoleting EyeHome. And maybe, hopefully, they held back mentioning HD to have something left as a surprise when it's released. Mentioning it during the presentation could have been counterproductive to the announcement of non-HD movies on the iTunes Store.
Of course, before you could burn an iTunes movie, you'd have to convert it from H.264 to MPEG-2 which would take an hour and create a 4.7GB temporary file. (Although if Apple was clever they could convert while downloading.)
Would it still take an hour on current machines? I have no experience in converting h264 into mpeg2. I know that when I copy my DVDs, my old single-core, single-processor 867Mhz G4 Quicksilver can compress a typical 90-120 min movie (8GB mpeg2 file) into a 4.3GB file in about 45 minutes, and then create a disk image in an additional 6 minutes. Granted, this is mpeg2-to-mpeg2 and translating from h264 to mpeg2 may take longer. But I was under the impression that compressing was more resource intensive than decompressing (small h.264 to larger mpeg2 file).
In any case, even if it takes as long as encoding DV into mpeg2, Apple already does this with iDVD. Apple made it less painful by allowing iDVD to encode in the background. iTunes could do this as well, and with the rapid proliferation of dual-core chips, it wouldn't even have to slow your system significantly. (On my ancient machine, which is probably at best a quarter of the speed of today's iMacs, iDVD's background encoding doesn't really affect my system speed to badly.)
Unfortunately, the movie studios have a stranglehold on the content. And they're all standing shoulder-to-shoulder against anything that threatens their way of doing things (even if it means that they'll make more money). So I'm pessimistic of gaining the freedom to burn iTunes movies or videos that I legitimately own for my own use.