Why Apple TV Matters

[slarrg]

Many people seem to be complaining about the Apple TV. It's simply meant to be a device allowing users to play their purchased iTMS videos to their TV. Did you complain that your DVD payer only played DVDs when it came onto the market? Or the CD player playing CDs? Or VHS players? HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? Your cable box? For the vast majority of people, this is simply a new device to allow them to buy a video conveniently from their computer and play it immediately. These average users think that's an innovative and cool idea. Many of them have never even thought of buying a DVR but think it'd be cool to buy a movie without leaving the house and view it where they watch all their other video content. And, it'll play their music from iTunes and show their digital photos, too. Amazing!

The concepts that we discuss here are too confusing for most people to even consider worrying about. I remember trying to explain, to my mother, my outrage about music publishers trying to keep me from copying songs into my computer as MP3s. You know what she said? "Why don't you just put the CD into a CD player like everyone else?" It's crazy, but she couldn't even comprehend why I would want to bother putting the songs into the computer. Now she has her own Mac with iTunes and she's ripping CDs into it. Last month she was telling me about how she had burned a CD of music for one of her friends.

Lot's of people now have iTunes and are playing music with it. They've gone to the iTMS and thought it would be cool to watch an episode they missed on TV or even buy a movie they want, right now, without going out. But, they don't want to watch some tiny picture on the computer. The concept that they could watch full-screen in Quicktime isn't even a thought that would enter their heads. A $300 device that plays these videos on their TV like the DVD player? That's exactly what they want.

While these forums were complaining that the iPod didn't play Ogg Vorbis, have wireless capabilities, or have a huge hard drive, the rest of the people were saying, "Hey I can just put my CDs onto this and listen to it while I'm out and about? Cool!"

There's a lot more I would like to see in the Apple TV. But most of the problems exist due to politics of a few companies (MPAA, television content producers, cable television providers, etc.) The issues seem obscure for most people and this is why the more advanced users, like us, can't have what we want. The companies will relax their grip on the content only after enough people demand it. Right now, the majority of people simply can't understand why they need less DRM, or MPEG-2 support, or CableCards. Once Apple gets enough of these devices into the marketplace, people will begin to understand and they'll demand the ability to do the things we're discussing. The few of us will not create this revolution, we need the masses to understand and demand this, too. The Apple TV is the beginning for this.

Once enough of them are sold, users will want these things. Apple will push a few updates out to their boxes and the features will start coming. I'm certain the USB port will eventually see use as an input from an Apple DVR once the CableCard starts to become more available. The integrated solution is coming. We've all been waiting for it for decades. The hurdles are not technical, they're political. The only way to overcome these political hurdles is for the masses to understand the issues. The Apple TV becoming popular will definitely help. We need for the Apple TV to be successful. Once our mothers understand what Divx files are and want to play them, the political barriers that stop us from doing it will disappear.

[isbell]

I agree with this, but I'd take it even further. First, let me establish my geekhood.

I have three HDTVs, four TiVos including the HD TiVo, and my entire house is wired to distribute audio and HD video from sources in my basement. I have lots of other toys, too. Right now I'm typing this on a 30" monitor (actually I have the 30" + 20" hooked up to my G5 with 8GB of RAM here at home and a more impressive set up in my office--ask me about the 3D printer across from my lab). I have 16,011 songs and just under 1000 DVDs. I stream my music over the house and into speakers on my deck, and I love all this stuff. I have more tech toys than a few. And I'm married to a tech person as well. And she's hot.

So, I belong on a forum like this. I am not a typical consumer. And I have high demands.

But even for someone like me, this is a great solution. Heck, for $299 is practically a no-brainer. I use iTunes. Why? Because it works well. For some things I buy CDs and rip them, for some things I buy from the store (one of the few examples of a truly well-written web application... so well written that it's easy to forget that that's exactly what it is). I can unDRM when I want. Regardless, I stream audio throughout my house using airport express. Why? Because it is just too easy and too inexpensive.

Bascially, apple has given me an airport express that does HD. I'd have paid $200+ for that anyway. But you're telling me that it has a remote control and a front end for browsing my content so I don't actually have to go to my machine or laptop to choose a playlist? And that includes photos and other random stuff I might want to show? And it actually acts like an iPod and is sync'able as well as streamable? That's a whole lot of bonus. And it's only $299?! It's just too easy and inexpensive. What more do you want at that price point?

Now, I don't buy movies or TV shows from iTunes. First off, they aren't HD; however, onnce they are I almost certainly will, at least for a some of the stuff I want to have. And I'll be happy with it, too, because it won't suck and it will be easy. I don't have to build a custom solution and fiddle with finicky software (well, I'll probably do that, too, but at least there will be something there that anyone in my family can use without thinking about it).

Sure, it would have been nice to have a huge drive on the box (but hardly necessary), and it would have been great to have a DVR solution, and an OTA tuner built in the box (but I've got other devices for that, and BTW they cost more than $299) and 1080p and other stuff and other stuff.

But for $299, I see nothing to be unhappy about now, and I suspect it will actually get better later.

Peace.

[Andrew67]

I agree with most of what you wrote. The folks in this forum are never happy and greatly over-think products, how they should work, and who they actually target (which is rarely anyone in this forum). Simplicity rules the day. The Apple TV is basically an ipod for the TV. Will it succeed, that's yet to be determined, but that's what it is.

As to Apple DVR's, USB supported cable cards.... well, it's going to be cold day in you know where before these see the light of day. And the odds of them coming directly from Apple are even smaller. The Apple TV does not support HDCP on it's HDMI port and that's one limiting factor, the other is that it makes no business sense for Apple to provide DVR functionality. There's the internet and there is the iTunes Store. That's where Apple Inc's priorities are and that's where the Apple TV will succeed or fail.

[ChrisL01]

Many people seem to be complaining about the Apple TV. It's simply meant to be a device allowing users to play their purchased iTMS videos to their TV. Did you complain that your DVD payer only played DVDs when it came onto the market? Or the CD player playing CDs? Or VHS players? HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? Your cable box? For the vast majority of people, this is simply a new device to allow them to buy a video conveniently from their computer and play it immediately.

Good point. I think most people have determined that Apple TV is meant for those who want a simple and easy to access their iTunes Store content on a TV. It's basically plug-n-play, and even Mom's can set it up.

These average users think that's an innovative and cool idea. Many of them have never even thought of buying a DVR but think it'd be cool to buy a movie without leaving the house and view it where they watch all their other video content.

You mean like Pay-Par-View? That's been around for years and years, and most Cable/Sat STB's already support it.

There's a lot more I would like to see in the Apple TV. But most of the problems exist due to politics of a few companies (MPAA, television content producers, cable television providers, etc.) The issues seem obscure for most people and this is why the more advanced users, like us, can't have what we want.

I don't understand this. What features can't they do? The main thing I have seen people complain about is file format support, mainly DivX support. Apple can support DivX with no problems, just include MPEG-4 Part 2 decode. You don't even have to pay for the DivX logo.

You talk about CableCARD below, CableCARD support is in Windows Vista. Politics aside, it's already been done and it ships in 3 weeks.

What other features can't be done due to politics?

The companies will relax their grip on the content only after enough people demand it. Right now, the majority of people simply can't understand why they need less DRM, or MPEG-2 support, or CableCards. Once Apple gets enough of these devices into the marketplace, people will begin to understand and they'll demand the ability to do the things we're discussing. The few of us will not create this revolution, we need the masses to understand and demand this, too. The Apple TV is the beginning for this.

Not sure about this. Like you have said, iTunes Store is the main draw of Apple TV. Apple TV isn't about DVD streaming, it's not about being a PVR, it's about you buying from the iTunes Store and then getting them to the TV.

Once enough of them are sold, users will want these things. Apple will push a few updates out to their boxes and the features will start coming. I'm certain the USB port will eventually see use as an input from an Apple DVR once the CableCard starts to become more available.

Seems most Apple employees have said the USB is worthless, not sure if you can expect external USB tuners on the Apple TV side.

To get CableCARD into a product you really have to design the product around it, not the only way around. What I mean is that there is a lot of planning, rules, and regulations that must be followed in order to get CableLabs on your side.

Also, that 40GB hard drive is worthless if this is to ever become a PVR.

[Lazlo]

Replying to the original post:

I agree with the first half. The market Apple is going for isn't the early adopters. It's the people who are buying music and tv shows at an unbelievable rate.

But, what makes anyone think that the AppleTV is ever going to support anything except what goes into iTunes? Was the video iPod not enough? In the same vein, why does anyone believe an Apple DVR is even a remote possibility, let alone an imminent product? Steve Jobs wants to provide all of our content through iTunes, and he's getting pretty close to being able to do that. He wants to provide exactly what many of us have been clamoring for for years - to pay only for what we want, a la carte, and not subsidize a bunch of channels that we never watch.

1) Apple will never produce or support a DVR as long as the iTS is growing.

2) Apple (and the AppleTV) will never support a codec that isn't natively supported in iTunes.

If my experience with Apple has taught me anything it is that they are going to force you to do things their way. If that means that you have to convert all of your video to H.264 to get it to play on their device, that's the way it is. Opening up their platform will only lead down the slippery slope of instability and support nightmares.

[chefklc]

No, no, no.

Many people seem to be complaining about the Apple TV. It's simply meant to be a device allowing users to play their purchased iTMS videos to their TV. Did you complain that your DVD payer only played DVDs when it came onto the market?

No, "we" complained about the initial high price, and then waited for it to drop. It represented a substantial improvement, nee, an exponential improvement, over what was currently available. We didn't complain that it only played dvds because we had no other "digital" option--superdrives weren't available--and we couldn't play back video at such high quality or in such small form. None of that applies to the present situation--every user of AppleTV will have to regress, to swallow picture and audio degradation, just to play along. Those of us who have raised eyebrows are complaining now that $299 is too steep a price for anyone to pay now just to play back iTS video content, especially Mom at home, with such an underwhelming, inherently limited device.

Many of them have never even thought of buying a DVR but think it'd be cool to buy a movie without leaving the house and view it where they watch all their other video content. And, it'll play their music from iTunes and show their digital photos, too. Amazing!

Of course not, many of "us" wouldn't buy a "DVR" right now--our options still generally suck and are over-priced. "They" already have had a Series 2 Tivo for years and if not probably already have DVR functionality from their cable company. You want them to change course?

Many Moms and Dads are already watching high def, or at least digital cable, and already have a dvd collection. I can see this device working for some in a few special situations--even for the geekiest among us, isbell, you raised a couple--but otherwise I can't escape the feeling it's a miscalculation, for suckers and dopes. I actually hope initial sales disappoint, and that configured as is this is DOA right out of the box as a mainstream device.

While these forums were complaining that the iPod didn't play Ogg Vorbis, have wireless capabilities, or have a huge hard drive, the rest of the people were saying, "Hey I can just put my CDs onto this and listen to it while I'm out and about? Cool!"

Save the patronizing tone and the poor attempt to draw a comparison. This forum, and no one that I know who's been here for the past few years, complained about any of this. That's because we knew you couldn't hear much of difference between compression rates with an iPod, were generally pleased as punch with iTunes and Apple lossless and other options, were smart enough not to care about buying anything from the iTMS or its DRM, realized a firewire iPod could also be a firewire external hard drive for other files, that we could keep a lossless iTunes library and compressed versions just for our iPods, felt that wireless capability would have been a gimmick we didn't really need anyway, and on and on. It served the geek, the status seeker, and the soccer Mom.

iPods do what they do, and do it exceptionally well. The "AppleTV as iPod for your TV" analogy stutters mightily along the way: it isn't even as open and flexible as the iPod, it's not even a glorified Front Row extender--which many of us thought would have at least some value--instead, it somehow manages to be significantly LESS than that, to be even more closed, more restrictive, more inadequate.

A $300 device that plays these videos on their TV like the DVD player? That's exactly what they want.

Again, no, not when "they" get this thing home and find out it won't replace other devices they already have, won't help them with their Netflix dvds, and won't play nice with anything NOT inside iTunes folders. And to get it to play nice with any of this, they need their Macs and a steeper learning curve anyway.

Once Apple gets enough of these devices into the marketplace, people will begin to understand and they'll demand the ability to do the things we're discussing.

No they won't. Far more likely that once they realize what's involved with being able to play their existing dvd collection back with this device--and everyone's Mom has at least a bunch of dvds--they'll return the thing or just use it for music--but come on, how many potential buyers from the supposed unwashed HT masses even have a stereo next to their TVs? They're not gonna want to buy content again, they like to "own" rather than rent, and if they've dropped a serious chunk of change on the new TV, don't you think they'll want a picture quality to match from all their devices?

This "us" versus "them" attitude has to stop, it's an insult to our intelligence implying that we aren't ALSO able to relate to Joe and Jane homeowner workaholic surburban soccer Mom types. We can genuinely disagree, we know exactly what they're up against, what they're frustrated by and how much time they have to devote to this. There's no way I can recommend anyone spend $300+ bucks for a different way to view the occasional downloaded low-res episode of "Heroes," when they can watch any ep they missed free online just to catch up, and are already paying for it, and probably recording it, via digital cable or high def.

Problem is, you can criticize the device on any number of valid grounds just like this, and we have very successfully; we can also be generally supportive of Apple and also say that we expected a lot more from Apple at that price point. Why? Because no matter what we're doing in our own homes, we're also the ones giving advice and tech support to our significantly less aware and less savvy friends and family. We've been there--and we're in the better position to assign "value"--which is different from price.

[Lazlo]

slarrg, especially since this is your first post, I hope all of these comments don't come across as harsh. We have seen a lot of complaints and speculation over the years about Apple and TiVo, opening up iTunes to plug-ins, supporting the EyeTV, etc. I think your post is a good start, especially the part about what is good about the AppleTV. But I think we all need to accept the fact that much of what we want in a set top box (everything) isn't going to come from Apple. Microsoft is trying to do that with MCE, and it will be fraught with problems. Apple's entire philosophy is "keep it simple", and unfortunately for geeks like us that means supporting only one way of doing things.

[slarrg]

As to Apple DVR's, USB supported cable cards.... well, it's going to be cold day in you know where before these see the light of day. And the odds of them coming directly from Apple are even smaller.

ATI, has already announced a USB CableCard tuner for Windows Vista. If Apple doesn't get a system certified by CableLabs, it's unlikely that anyone else could do it. Precisely why the ATI system is Vista only not XP, for example.

The Apple TV does not support HDCP on it's HDMI port and that's one limiting factor, the other is that it makes no business sense for Apple to provide DVR functionality. There's the internet and there is the iTunes Store. That's where Apple Inc's priorities are and that's where the Apple TV will succeed or fail.

I've not seen anything saying Apple refuses to support HDCP on it's HDMI. Of course, we're talking about a product that still will not be released until next month. A similar argument could be made about PodCasts. Apple has no business reason to introduce them when they compete with a sellable product in the iTMS. Yet Apple did introduce them because they add a value to the iPod product line which sells more iPods thus increasing potential customers for iTMS. The same can be true with Apple TV.

You mean like Pay-Par-View? That's been around for years and years, and most Cable/Sat STB's already support it.

Pay-Per-View is very limited compared to iTMS and will become even more so as Apple continues to add content. No cable company even offers an interface capable of handling the sheer volume of individual items available through iTMS. Such an interface would be quite impossible on a television with a remote control.

I don't understand this. What features can't they do? The main thing I have seen people complain about is file format support, mainly DivX support. Apple can support DivX with no problems, just include MPEG-4 Part 2 decode. You don't even have to pay for the DivX logo. You talk about CableCARD below, CableCARD support is in Windows Vista. Politics aside, it's already been done and it ships in 3 weeks. What other features can't be done due to politics?

They are not allowing MPEG-2 which makes streaming of DVD impossible without time consuming transcoding. Of course, it's simply a software update to provide the codecs to do MPEG-2. That was my point. It'll almost certainly be added later. DivX will be unlikely, especially if Apple wants to develop a CableCard system and get it approved by CableLabs. Also, CableCards are not required by the FCC until July and the cable lobbyists are trying to get the date pushed out again. Remember, the FCC mandated CableCards back in 1996 and the cable companies are still not required to make them available. Yesterday, Senator Sununu said that he will be introducing legislation to keep the FCC from mandating technology. I suspect this is related to the loss of the cable industry's loss of the integration case the same day. This is the same ruling that makes CableCards required.

Not sure about this. Like you have said, iTunes Store is the main draw of Apple TV. Apple TV isn't about DVD streaming, it's not about being a PVR, it's about you buying from the iTunes Store and then getting them to the TV.

See above. The iPod was also not about internet enable Podcasts for free either.

Seems most Apple employees have said the USB is worthless, not sure if you can expect external USB tuners on the Apple TV side.

Of course it's worthless before the next product is released. The same way the 802.11n chips in every computer Apple has shipped in the last few months were useless. Of course, now that Apple is introducing the Airport Extreme they will be releasing drivers to allow the computers to use the hardware they put in from the beginning. This is quite common for Apple to do.

To get CableCARD into a product you really have to design the product around it, not the only way around. What I mean is that there is a lot of planning, rules, and regulations that must be followed in order to get CableLabs on your side.

Which, I suspect, is exactly why Apple is avoiding DVD streaming and DivX at this point in time.

Also, that 40GB hard drive is worthless if this is to ever become a PVR.

The 40GB harddrive is simply meant to be a buffer for streaming media and for local storage of files to be played immediately. The whole point of Apple TV is that the content is stored on a computer somewhere else in your home. The DVR solution I mentioned would be another box that sits under the Apple TV and plugs into the USB port to stream live television into the Apple TV. Of course, it could be done through the network, but I see this as something that would be purchased for each Apple TV. It may even allow other DVRs, such as Tivo or the Dish Network's' DVR, to connect and be accessed by Apples FrontRow style interface (if Apple were to make agreements for them to do so.) In any case, the storage of any recorded shows would never be expected on the Apple TV but elsewhere (the DVR or iTunes.)

Obviously, this is pure speculation on my part, but I don't think Apple is unaware of the customer's desires here. I suspect they are not releasing it because they want to get Leopard out first to get CableLabs behind their ability to lock down content end-to-end. I don't think Apple would release this unless it were dead simple to setup and use and this is only possible once CableCard availability is mandatory.

[ChrisL01]

ATI, has already announced a USB CableCard tuner for Windows Vista. If Apple doesn't get a system certified by CableLabs, it's unlikely that anyone else could do it. Precisely why the ATI system is Vista only not XP, for example

A few things here. Much of getting that working would depend on CableLabs. Having said that, there are all of these huge things that matter to get it working that Apple would have to do a ton of work on. For example, the ATI OCUR will remove the OpenCable Protection and re-wrap the content with WMDRM. Apple doesn't support anything wih Windows Media, huge problem. I believe they could also use Real's stuff for that, I'm not sure that the ATI OCUR support it though, which would mean a huge cost of developing OCUR's that do. Yes, I'm sure Apple could get that done if it turned out that they needed to.

Then there is HDCP that is needed for a gurantee of full resolution output. Whether Apple TV supports HDCP is up in the air. The list goes on and on. Oh, then there is the huge problem of Vista being the only supported OS. The Protected Media Path in Vista is used for this, something Apple doesn't appear to have in OS X.


Pay-Per-View is very limited compared to iTMS and will become even more so as Apple continues to add content. No cable company even offers an interface capable of handling the sheer volume of individual items available through iTMS. Such an interface would be quite impossible on a television with a remote control.

Haven't tried it, but you should look at AT&T HomeZone.

DivX will be unlikely, especially if Apple wants to develop a CableCard system and get it approved by CableLabs. Also, CableCards are not required by the FCC until July and the cable lobbyists are trying to get the date pushed out again. Remember, the FCC mandated CableCards back in 1996 and the cable companies are still not required to make them available. Yesterday, Senator Sununu said that he will be introducing legislation to keep the FCC from mandating technology. I suspect this is related to the loss of the cable industry's loss of the integration case the same day. This is the same ruling that makes CableCards required.

DivX has nothing to do with CableLabs or CableCARD. People get bent out of shape about DivX because of it's "pirate backing", and not enough people understand what it takes to support "DivX." DivX is nothing more than MPEG-4 Part 2. This is the same with XviD and various other codecs (Nero Digital, etc). DivX just happens to be a name brand. To decode DivX content, you also get decode of every other MPEG-4 Part 2 based codec. That means, all you need to be is support decode MPEG-4 Part 2 and you don't need to put the DivX logo on the product!

You can have a product that supports decode of MPEG-4 Part 2 and CableCARD without any problems, there is nothing that CableLabs puts fouth that disallows that.

H.264 happens to be MPEG-4 Part 10, so under the "no DivX" theory that you have the product already can't get CableCARD support, ever. :)

Chris

[chefklc]

Personally, I don't want everything in one box from Apple, ain't ever gonna happen for all the valid reasons put out there by Andrew and Lazlo and others. There's also no debate about who the intended audience is for "AppleTV" or who the audience "should" be.

Steve Jobs wants to provide all of our content through iTunes, and he's getting pretty close to being able to do that. He wants to provide exactly what many of us have been clamoring for for years - to pay only for what we want, a la carte, and not subsidize a bunch of channels that we never watch.

1) Apple will never produce or support a DVR as long as the iTS is growing.

2) Apple (and the AppleTV) will never support a codec that isn't natively supported in iTunes.

If my experience with Apple has taught me anything it is that they are going to force you to do things their way. If that means that you have to convert all of your video to H.264 to get it to play on their device, that's the way it is. Opening up their platform will only lead down the slippery slope of instability and support nightmares.

This is very well said. Since we all know this, since we've studied Apple history, it's also why we should be encouraging every friend, relative and soccer Mom we run into at the supermarket not to get the AppleTV now but instead to wait, to put that money toward a real Mac like the cheapest Macbook or perhaps a mini, depending on their situation. It's not that hard to get your mini up and running, playing dvds AND downloading stuff from iTS, sharing libraries, getting actual honest to goodness AC-3 out to your stereo (IF you happen to have a stereo...) You can do everything you can do with the AppleTV (except easily connect via component, and if that's the case, frankly the AppleTV would work better for you, though you should probably put that money toward a better TV anyway. That reminds me, that $699 Vizio 32" high def LCD looks mighty sweet at Costco...) and you can do more should you eventually wish to, and in the process protect yourself a little better from what we know is Apple's controlling, inherently restrictive nature, and its ultimate goal.

The obvious alternative if we're advising Mom and Pop not to throw their $300 at it now: it's far better to promote that mini right now is AppleTV, a much more capable and diverse version that just doesn't sync right out of the box. Get a mini instead, even a used one and wait for Apple to roll out the improvements and enhancements that would make this device more tenable. The AppleTV is a great concept, there's no disagreement that much about it from a user perspective is actually ahead of its time--but if it ships as is I'm afraid we'll still feel there are too many future promises as yet unfulfilled--for us and for our parents--and that it'll better for everyone to wait for Apple to catch up. slarrg, you did a good job speculating about some of those possible future paths, problem is, with no hint of them anytime soon it's just not money well spent. Go with the mini instead.

[Ted Todorov]

Of course not, many of "us" wouldn't buy a "DVR" right now--our options still generally suck and are over-priced. "They" already have had a Series 2 Tivo for years and if not probably already have DVR functionality from their cable company. You want them to change course?

Many Moms and Dads are already watching high def, or at least digital cable, and already have a dvd collection. I can see this device working for some in a few special situations--even for the geekiest among us, isbell, you raised a couple--but otherwise I can't escape the feeling it's a miscalculation, for suckers and dopes. I actually hope initial sales disappoint, and that configured as is this is DOA right out of the box as a mainstream device.
Look, I'm no defender of AppleTV, I have no intention of getting one, and if I ever got the itch, I'd pick up another Mini.

Still I don't think your analysis holds water. Mom & Dad may have a DVD collection: so what, they play them on a DVD player, they don't rip it to disk. They may have a Tivo or DVR (probably cable co. DVR -- Tivo's market penetration isn't all that high(?)), but their DVR is not HD and doesn't have a time machine -- so TV shows coming from the Apple store have a value -- to Mom & Pop they don't look worse than the DVR, they are there even when they forgot to record or erased something, and they are commercial free. The effort of skipping commercials with a DVR may be tiny, but there are people out there who would rather not have to. (We are talking 18!! minutes of commercials per one hour of network TV).

Indeed I don't even know why I'm bothering making this argument: iTunes TV shows are having a smashing success, startling the TV industry. Many of those iTunes customers would love an AppleTV, and because of AppleTV, iTunes will have even more TV customers. Add music and movies, and AppleTV will be a successful product, one which neither of us will buy in it's present form.

[slarrg]

1) Apple will never produce or support a DVR as long as the iTS is growing.

There are two thing that prevent Apple from having the Apple TV as your primary media interface:

1. Live Television
2. DVR functionality

In my opinion, Apple will seek to become the only interface that ever appears on your television. They have a really slick FrontRow style of interface on the Apple TV that allows a user to access movies, television, music and photos. However, the current Apple TV cannot tune live TV nor can it schedule a recording. This forces the user to use an entirely different interface to do these tasks. I think Apple will not allow this to stand and will, over time, add these missing pieces to their system. Apple is smart enough to not do something until they can do it better. That's why I think they will wait to introduce these features until after they can be assured of CableCard support. They'll leave the clumsy interfaces and IR blasters to others until their interface can tune the channels directly. The stock holders have been demanding a product to show iTS content on the television and Apple has delivered this. It will undoubtedly help Apple to get more studios to add content to the iTS.

2) Apple (and the AppleTV) will never support a codec that isn't natively supported in iTunes.

I completely agree. However, this is not the same as saying that Apple will never add support for new codecs to both Apple TV and iTunes at a later date. Before Apple started selling video content there was no support for H.264 then one day we downloaded an update and had H.264 support. I suspect that other codecs will be added in the future.

Ultimately, a solution for ripping DVDs will be required by consumers. Legally, this is complicated because Apple must lock the system end-to-end and because such a large percentage of DVDs are rented. Therefore, I suspect Apple's initial entry into this will be streaming of DVDs to the Apple TV from a computer. This will require either real-time transcoding to H.264 (unlikely) or support for MPEG-2. However, I suspect that Apple will create a modified MPEG-2 codec that will allow iTunes to encrypt the MPEG-2 data as it streams the data. I would not expect to find this support listed in the technical features of the Apple TV product, though. Additionally, Apple may, at launch or a later date, rip DVDs to this same encrypted DVD format.

[Ted Todorov]

Haven't tried it, but you should look at AT&T HomeZone.
You can't be seriously implying the PPV is in any way a viable competitor to Apple's Pay To OWN TV model. iTunes is ubiquitous, PPV is limited to that customer's particular provider. Some PPV may be decent (but I'd amazed if anyone's TV selection can touch iTunes). In any event, due to it's inherent inability to compete on a national let alone international scale, PPV will always lose to iTunes.

[Lazlo]

But my point is that there is no reason for Apple to ever provide MPEG-2 support. Why? Because it doesn't make them any money. They will never do so because it doesn't support their intent to become a replacement for Netflix as well as Comcast or Cox. In fact, they are working to become the replacement for DVDs (and Blu-ray and HD-DVD before they make it out of the gate). They are already on their way. The best way for them to avoid the whole legal morass is to just keep using iTunes as their media solution. FairPlay works for them, and apparently for a bunch of other people as well.

[snickersbar]

If it wont play multiplexed vog orbis in 7.1 with discreet subwoofer displexion, its garbage!

[chefklc]

Let me try to be more clear, Ted--$300+ for a new playback option, limited as it will be given that "common" folks won't be dumping their cable subscriptions or dvd players anytime soon because iTS isn't ready for them to do so yet--nor is there a financial incentive to do so--doesn't make too much sense. Add to that negative that the AppleTV as structured not only won't make it easy for them to integrate their existing libraries and content, but actively hinder their ability to do so, means that you'll still have to retain those legacy devices as you potentially got absorbed into the appeal of a "new" system. I'm not saying the downloads themselves don't have value, I'm saying its value is too limited right now, and $300+ too steep an entry. If AppleTV were less locked down, I think it would be easier to make the case that Mom and Dad could grow into it, but as it is now it seems too steep a price to pay for too little. Does that still not hold water?

I don't disagree video downloads from the iTS will continue to be extremely successful.

[ChrisL01]

You can't be seriously implying the PPV is in any way a viable competitor to Apple's Pay To OWN TV model. iTunes is ubiquitous, PPV is limited to that customer's particular provider. Some PPV may be decent (but I'd amazed if anyone's TV selection can touch iTunes). In any event, due to it's inherent inability to compete on a national let alone international scale, PPV will always lose to iTunes.

No, I'm not. I was replying to "...but think it'd be cool to buy a movie without leaving the house and view it where they watch all their other video content." Meaning, people have been able to do this for a long long time. I'm not saying it's better then what iTunes offers, I was just saying we have had PPV for years and years.

I'm personally not going to spend money on content until it's HD and has got a DD 5.1 track.

Chris

[Ted Todorov]

But my point is that there is no reason for Apple to ever provide MPEG-2 support. Why? Because it doesn't make them any money...
I agree with you that Apple is unlikely to support MPEG2. However, your reasoning is wrong. As stated above, Podcasts are an excellent example of a service that makes Apple no money, but sells iPods. If Apple became convinced that supporting {Fill in the blank} would sell lots of AppleTVs, they would support it.

Remember, for the foreseeable future Apple remains a HARDWARE company, and software is there to sell hardware.

[slarrg]

A few things here. Much of getting that working would depend on CableLabs. Having said that, there are all of these huge things that matter to get it working that Apple would have to do a ton of work on. For example, the ATI OCUR will remove the OpenCable Protection and re-wrap the content with WMDRM. Apple doesn't support anything wih Windows Media, huge problem...

I'm not suggesting that Apple would use the ATI product. Certainly Apple would roll their own solution. This was in response to the USB/CableCard not gonna happen remark by Andrew67.

DivX has nothing to do with CableLabs or CableCARD. People get bent out of shape about DivX because of it's "pirate backing", and not enough people understand what it takes to support "DivX." DivX is nothing more than MPEG-4 Part 2...

Yes, I'm fully aware of what DivX is and have been using it since the day's when the name officially had a smily at the end: "DivX :)". I know I probably didn't explain myself very well in this regard. I felt the post was too long and for brevity's sake didn't expound too much. My primary reasoning is that a specific DivX branded driver would not be allowed as it would require opening the codecs to third-parties. This will make it so that others can insert a codec that could be used to decode whatever end-to-end DRM that Apple would create to lock up the stream from a CableCard. This ability to add third-party codecs is what would keep CableLabs from certifying the device. I suspect a lot of this stuff is going to be added in Leopard. I don't think this is something that Apple will ned to begin working on, I think it's something they've been working on for some time. I suspect Apple already knows what products they are going to introduce over the next few months after Apple TV.

[telemike]

My take:

I'd use the Apple TV to stream/sync music and video from iTunes to my HDTV in the other room from the PC.

I can backup dvd's using Nero Recode to MPEG-4 (although divx is nice)

I primarily will watch dvd movies on my dvd player, although having some as mpeg-4 for convience.

[slarrg]

I'm personally not going to spend money on content until it's HD and has got a DD 5.1 track.

I'm completely in agreement here. Of course, Apple will be improving the quality of the downloads from iTS once the Apple TV ships. But, already people have purchased 50 million television shows and over a million movies from iTS. This is with low quality video/audio and having to watch it either on their computer or a tiny iPod screen. I think there are a lot of people willing to spend money to get this content on the television where it belongs.

[Andrew67]

I'm not suggesting that Apple would use the ATI product. Certainly Apple would roll their own solution. This was in response to the USB/CableCard not gonna happen remark by Andrew67.

It's not going to happen because CableCard is a monstorous undertaking. It involves changing the architecture of the computer, software support, and an extremely tough certification process. And what does Apple get out of it? Very little. DVR's sovle a problem based on past technology. Apple has proven to be a forward thinking company which is why they're basing their future on iTunes, portable media, impulse purchases and instant gratification.

[druber]

Everyone's got content to bring to the table: DVDs or home videos for some, OTA HD content for others. Somewhere recently they compared the number of tracks sold on iTunes to the number of iPods sold. Worked out that the average iPod owner had bought less than 10 tracks from the iTS (IIRC). I'm a bit below that average, and I love my iPod because I can import CDs, create my own music and load it as easily as I can put on pants (and let me tell you, brother, I've got that process down pat).

CSS and the DMCA are stumbling blocks that don't exist for CD audio, and if you accept that video is most often enjoyed at home where expectations of quality are a bit higher (as opposed to the iPod where you may listen anywhere and very much enjoy lossy encoding) because you're paying more attention and new high-def displays can deliver obviously better detail/quality, the Apple TV has a much harder row to hoe than the iPod.

Were the Apple TV able to playback MPEG2 high-def content, Apple could turn to the content industry and say, "See how easy this is? See how good this looks? This is why we need to work together to provide HD content in the iTS." Even just streaming DVDs from a Mac/PC could give people the opportunity to take a device off the rack and replace it with an Apple TV. Apple isn't doing either of these things. It seems like the "Could I...?" questions are all being answered with, "Yes, with iTunes." If you have your own content, that yes doesn't get you anywhere.

This seems like a great opportunity for Apple to give people options, and if the product is successful, use that success as leverage with content providers. Instead, they've made an expensive media extender that plays the media Apple allows. Not a winner in my book, as it stands now.

[ChrisL01]

I'm not suggesting that Apple would use the ATI product. Certainly Apple would roll their own solution. This was in response to the USB/CableCard not gonna happen remark by Andrew67.

ATI has the first example of an OCUR, other companies are free to develop them but they must comply to the specs already set forth by CableLabs.

Apple is not developing a CableCARD solution outside of OCUR, nor will CableLabs allow it. They spent years developing the OCUR's with Microsoft. They are not going to develop a new product just for Apple. Apple can follow what's already set or they can forget about CableCARD in any products. Yes, I'm serious about all of that.

Yes, I'm fully aware of what DivX is and have been using it since the day's when the name officially had a smily at the end: "DivX :)". I know I probably didn't explain myself very well in this regard. I felt the post was too long and for brevity's sake didn't expound too much. My primary reasoning is that a specific DivX branded driver would not be allowed as it would require opening the codecs to third-parties. This will make it so that others can insert a codec that could be used to decode whatever end-to-end DRM that Apple would create to lock up the stream from a CableCard. This ability to add third-party codecs is what would keep CableLabs from certifying the device. I suspect a lot of this stuff is going to be added in Leopard. I don't think this is something that Apple will ned to begin working on, I think it's something they've been working on for some time. I suspect Apple already knows what products they are going to introduce over the next few months after Apple TV.

It was actually a ; ) at the end of it IIRC. ;)

Again, Apple can create a MPEG-4 Part 2 codec without using the DivX name, or allowing third parties codec access, etc. MPEG-4 is an open spec.

And no, third party codec's on a device will not limit CableCARD access. There would have to be an architecture built that would not allow users to interact with the codec's on the box (eg. using them to attempt to transcode protected content to non-protected formats). In 3 weeks you will be able to buy a Vista PC w/ CableCARD and you can install whatever codec's you like on it. DivX, XviD, Nero Digital, H.264, and so on. It will work just fine, and there is nothing that says it can't be done. Nor is there anything that will disable CableCARD from working when a user does install third party codec's on a Vista PC.

Chris

[GadgetFreak]

Ted points out that Apple is a hardware company. This brings up some conflicting arguments. When discussing record labels and iTunes, the prevailing opinion seems to be that Apple makes almost nothing on the music sales -- they make their money by selling iPods.

But when discussing DVR functions, people say that Apple wants you to buy everything through iTunes. If their goal is to maximize use of iTunes, then not providing DVR functions would help achieve that. But if their goal is to sell as much f*cking hardware as they can, then why not put DVR functionality in? People obviously like using tivo, etc -- so why not put it in?

Buying shows for $2 per episode is way more expensive than paying a monthly cable or DirecTV bill for most people. Assuming a bill of $50 per month:

If a show that you watch is on 4 times a month @ $2 per episode. If you only watch 6 shows then that would be $48 per month. But you can't watch Leno, ESPN, CNN, Kiddie shows, etc. And if you watch 7 shows you pay more. Some stuff you may want to keep, but most of it gets deleted after it is watched.

[Scarpad]

Many people seem to be complaining about the Apple TV. It's simply meant to be a device allowing users to play their purchased iTMS videos to their TV. Did you complain that your DVD payer only played DVDs when it came onto the market? Or the CD player playing CDs? Or VHS players? HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? Your cable box? For the vast majority of people, this is simply a new device to allow them to buy a video conveniently from their computer and play it immediately. These average users think that's an innovative and cool idea. Many of them have never even thought of buying a DVR but think it'd be cool to buy a movie without leaving the house and view it where they watch all their other video content. And, it'll play their music from iTunes and show their digital photos, too. Amazing!

The concepts that we discuss here are too confusing for most people to even consider worrying about. I remember trying to explain, to my mother, my outrage about music publishers trying to keep me from copying songs into my computer as MP3s. You know what she said? "Why don't you just put the CD into a CD player like everyone else?" It's crazy, but she couldn't even comprehend why I would want to bother putting the songs into the computer. Now she has her own Mac with iTunes and she's ripping CDs into it. Last month she was telling me about how she had burned a CD of music for one of her friends.

Lot's of people now have iTunes and are playing music with it. They've gone to the iTMS and thought it would be cool to watch an episode they missed on TV or even buy a movie they want, right now, without going out. But, they don't want to watch some tiny picture on the computer. The concept that they could watch full-screen in Quicktime isn't even a thought that would enter their heads. A $300 device that plays these videos on their TV like the DVD player? That's exactly what they want.

While these forums were complaining that the iPod didn't play Ogg Vorbis, have wireless capabilities, or have a huge hard drive, the rest of the people were saying, "Hey I can just put my CDs onto this and listen to it while I'm out and about? Cool!"

There's a lot more I would like to see in the Apple TV. But most of the problems exist due to politics of a few companies (MPAA, television content producers, cable television providers, etc.) The issues seem obscure for most people and this is why the more advanced users, like us, can't have what we want. The companies will relax their grip on the content only after enough people demand it. Right now, the majority of people simply can't understand why they need less DRM, or MPEG-2 support, or CableCards. Once Apple gets enough of these devices into the marketplace, people will begin to understand and they'll demand the ability to do the things we're discussing. The few of us will not create this revolution, we need the masses to understand and demand this, too. The Apple TV is the beginning for this.

Once enough of them are sold, users will want these things. Apple will push a few updates out to their boxes and the features will start coming. I'm certain the USB port will eventually see use as an input from an Apple DVR once the CableCard starts to become more available. The integrated solution is coming. We've all been waiting for it for decades. The hurdles are not technical, they're political. The only way to overcome these political hurdles is for the masses to understand the issues. The Apple TV becoming popular will definitely help. We need for the Apple TV to be successful. Once our mothers understand what Divx files are and want to play them, the political barriers that stop us from doing it will disappear.

Apple TV is valuable for me. I can take my currently connected Macmini back into my office (sitting in the Livingroom doing Quicken was odd) where it belongs, I can have better connections to my TV (HDMI and Toslink). I can place my video files on any drives as long as they are in Itunes they will be seen, I can stream my Lossless Music, browse my Pictures and listen to Podcasts. It fits what I Need

[slarrg]

It's not going to happen because CableCard is a monstorous undertaking. It involves changing the architecture of the computer, software support, and an extremely tough certification process. And what does Apple get out of it? Very little. DVR's sovle a problem based on past technology. Apple has proven to be a forward thinking company which is why they're basing their future on iTunes, portable media, impulse purchases and instant gratification.

Live television is not a "past technology." People will still want to watch live TV and will want to do it from the FrontRow style interface without having to change to another device. Today's consumer also has become accustomed to being able to pause and rewind live television. To have an Apple interface to live TV with pause and rewind will require Apple to build everything from a DVR except the scheduling. If you're building that much, then adding the scheduling of recording becomes a trivial addition.

Apple has an incomplete solution without offering live TV. People still need news and live sports. Apple will undoubtedly fill this need at some point in the future. Apple likes to offer interfaces that are better and easier than the competition and they will simply not offer the live TV component until they have a simple installation and configuration. This requires CableCard. This is why Apple will make their own DVR system.

[snickersbar]

Apple TV is valuable for me. I can take my currently connected Macmini back into my office (sitting in the Livingroom doing Quicken was odd) where it belongs, I can have better connections to my TV (HDMI and Toslink). I can place my video files on any drives as long as they are in Itunes they will be seen, I can stream my Lossless Music, browse my Pictures and listen to Podcasts. It fits what I Need

My Mini has Toslink and HDMI. All you need is a DVI to HDMI cable (same price as an HDMI-HDMI cable and same quality) and a Toslink to 3.5mm adapter (probably $1 but mine came with my $10 optical cable from walmart)

[slarrg]

ATI has the first example of an OCUR, other companies are free to develop them but they must comply to the specs already set forth by CableLabs.

Apple is not developing a CableCARD solution outside of OCUR, nor will CableLabs allow it.

Of course. I simply said they wouldn't need to use ATI's hardware.

In 3 weeks you will be able to buy a Vista PC w/ CableCARD and you can install whatever codec's you like on it. DivX, XviD, Nero Digital, H.264, and so on. It will work just fine, and there is nothing that says it can't be done. Nor is there anything that will disable CableCARD from working when a user does install third party codec's on a Vista PC.

At this point we're comparing my vision of an unannounced Apple product with an unreleased ATI hardware and an unreleased Microsoft operating system. :)

[Scarpad]

My Mini has Toslink and HDMI. All you need is a DVI to HDMI cable (same price as an HDMI-HDMI cable and same quality) and a Toslink to 3.5mm adapter (probably $1 but mine came with my $10 optical cable from walmart)


Power PC Mini

[gaderson]

I'm personally not going to spend money on content until it's HD and has got a DD 5.1 track.

Chris

Yeah, the rumor at MacWorld was that Apple wasn't even using the 720P clips in its AppleTV demos. Though they didn't look too bad, watched bits of The Office. I asked one of the Demo people and he didn't think that they would have multi-channel support (the only cables were the power adapter, and a HDMI). So there was audio through HDMI.

Thought the interesting point was brought up by one of the ElGato people, isn't iTunes getting a little cumbersome? How long can it be used to do all this? And, it also seemed clear to ElGato that there would be no chance of them streaming to the box, or interfacing with it. So for those of us with large eyeTV archives it's largely a non-starter.

My friend asked what 'OS' the AppleTV was running and got the 'can't discuss' so, like the 'iPhone' hopefully someone will maybe crack it and then we all can buy one for our HT.

[Ted Todorov]

Ted points out that Apple is a hardware company. This brings up some conflicting arguments. When discussing record labels and iTunes, the prevailing opinion seems to be that Apple makes almost nothing on the music sales -- they make their money by selling iPods.

But when discussing DVR functions, people say that Apple wants you to buy everything through iTunes. If their goal is to maximize use of iTunes, then not providing DVR functions would help achieve that. But if their goal is to sell as much f*cking hardware as they can, then why not put DVR functionality in? People obviously like using tivo, etc -- so why not put it in?

Buying shows for $2 per episode is way more expensive than paying a monthly cable or DirecTV bill for most people. Assuming a bill of $50 per month:

If a show that you watch is on 4 times a month @ $2 per episode. If you only watch 6 shows then that would be $48 per month. But you can't watch Leno, ESPN, CNN, Kiddie shows, etc. And if you watch 7 shows you pay more. Some stuff you may want to keep, but most of it gets deleted after it is watched.
Of course Apple dreams of one day cornering the music and movie distribution business and making vast sums of money that way. But I re-iterate what I said earlier -- in the *foreseeable* future the money is in hardware. That's why the music industry is braying for a cut of iPod sales (which one company got from MS/Zune).

That said, while I don't think that Apple is afraid of having DVR functionality or having AppleTV support MPEG2 for fear of undercutting their iTunes business or pissing off the studios. I simply don't think they feel that the potential sales gain justifies it, and DVRs especially are a headache.
The former CEO(?) of Elgato is an Apple employee, so I am sure Apple knows *exactly* how much money they stand to make in the DVR market, and have decided it isn't worth it. Remember, ReplayTV is out of business, and Tivo is or was losing money. They have to compete against "free" or cheap from the cable companies.

As for the iTunes TV audience: again, it exists, no matter what the figures say. People will pay a premium for convenience and lack of commercials. They will pay for missed episodes. Also, I can't be the only person out there who only watches TV on DVD and thus for me iTunes is an alternative to buying TV season sets or Netflix, rather than cable which I have never had. Once iTunes is at least DVD quality, to me it becomes preferable to physical DVDs as it doesn't require shelf space which I don't have.

[Ted Todorov]

Live television is not a "past technology." People will still want to watch live TV and will want to do it from the FrontRow style interface without having to change to another device. Today's consumer also has become accustomed to being able to pause and rewind live television. To have an Apple interface to live TV with pause and rewind will require Apple to build everything from a DVR except the scheduling. If you're building that much, then adding the scheduling of recording becomes a trivial addition.

Apple has an incomplete solution without offering live TV. People still need news and live sports. Apple will undoubtedly fill this need at some point in the future. Apple likes to offer interfaces that are better and easier than the competition and they will simply not offer the live TV component until they have a simple installation and configuration. This requires CableCard. This is why Apple will make their own DVR system.
I don't disagree with you logic, but I have to agree with Andrew (no Apple DVR). One simple reason: Steve Jobs HATES TV. He has repeatedly said so. He doesn't necessarily hate TV shows (which is why Apple sells them), but he considers live TV a huge waste of time. When you have a conflict between Jobs and logic, at Apple Jobs tends to win. And when it comes to TV, he just might be right.

[bommai]

One reason Apple might not support MPEG2 is to appease movie and tv studios. The only source of MPEG2 are DVDs and HD TV streams. Both of these are prized possessions for the studios. They don't want any reuse or alternate use. They would love to show it to you live and then sell you the DVD. What incentive is there for them if you can just buy the show once and then you don't have to buy it again for another reason. Also, since Apple has not signed any contracts with most studios (except for Disney and Paramount), Apple might be restricting the codec support to appease them.

I am tending toward a Mini too since I have an eyeTV hybrid right now with Powermac G4 and would love to watch it on my big screen HDTV oneday.

[Andrew67]

One reason Apple might not support MPEG2 is to appease movie and tv studios. The only source of MPEG2 are DVDs and HD TV streams.

I believe a bigger reason is that the ipod does not play mpeg2 streams. Apple wants portable media, media that can live among any of it's devices. MPEG2 does not fit that bill.

[Genius74]

I agree with this, but I'd take it even further. First, let me establish my geekhood.

I have three HDTVs, four TiVos including the HD TiVo, and my entire house is wired to distribute audio and HD video from sources in my basement. I have lots of other toys, too. Right now I'm typing this on a 30" monitor (actually I have the 30" + 20" hooked up to my G5 with 8GB of RAM here at home and a more impressive set up in my office--ask me about the 3D printer across from my lab). I have 16,011 songs and just under 1000 DVDs. I stream my music over the house and into speakers on my deck, and I love all this stuff. I have more tech toys than a few. And I'm married to a tech person as well. And she's hot.

So, I belong on a forum like this. I am not a typical consumer. And I have high demands.

But even for someone like me, this is a great solution. Heck, for $299 is practically a no-brainer. I use iTunes. Why? Because it works well. For some things I buy CDs and rip them, for some things I buy from the store (one of the few examples of a truly well-written web application... so well written that it's easy to forget that that's exactly what it is). I can unDRM when I want. Regardless, I stream audio throughout my house using airport express. Why? Because it is just too easy and too inexpensive.

Bascially, apple has given me an airport express that does HD. I'd have paid $200+ for that anyway. But you're telling me that it has a remote control and a front end for browsing my content so I don't actually have to go to my machine or laptop to choose a playlist? And that includes photos and other random stuff I might want to show? And it actually acts like an iPod and is sync'able as well as streamable? That's a whole lot of bonus. And it's only $299?! It's just too easy and inexpensive. What more do you want at that price point?

Now, I don't buy movies or TV shows from iTunes. First off, they aren't HD; however, onnce they are I almost certainly will, at least for a some of the stuff I want to have. And I'll be happy with it, too, because it won't suck and it will be easy. I don't have to build a custom solution and fiddle with finicky software (well, I'll probably do that, too, but at least there will be something there that anyone in my family can use without thinking about it).

Sure, it would have been nice to have a huge drive on the box (but hardly necessary), and it would have been great to have a DVR solution, and an OTA tuner built in the box (but I've got other devices for that, and BTW they cost more than $299) and 1080p and other stuff and other stuff.

But for $299, I see nothing to be unhappy about now, and I suspect it will actually get better later.

Peace.

I doubt you're typing "on" your monitor... :D j/k


The problem with your last statement is that hopefully "getting better later" will work on the current hardware and not require an upgrade.

My complaint about this is really the expense. Just buy a Mac mini. Sure it costs more, but now EVERYTHING is on the TV and not just ITMS related stuff.

[Genius74]

Of course Apple dreams of one day cornering the music and movie distribution business and making vast sums of money that way. But I re-iterate what I said earlier -- in the *foreseeable* future the money is in hardware. That's why the music industry is braying for a cut of iPod sales (which one company got from MS/Zune).

That said, while I don't think that Apple is afraid of having DVR functionality or having AppleTV support MPEG2 for fear of undercutting their iTunes business or pissing off the studios. I simply don't think they feel that the potential sales gain justifies it, and DVRs especially are a headache.
The former CEO(?) of Elgato is an Apple employee, so I am sure Apple knows *exactly* how much money they stand to make in the DVR market, and have decided it isn't worth it. Remember, ReplayTV is out of business, and Tivo is or was losing money. They have to compete against "free" or cheap from the cable companies.

As for the iTunes TV audience: again, it exists, no matter what the figures say. People will pay a premium for convenience and lack of commercials. They will pay for missed episodes. Also, I can't be the only person out there who only watches TV on DVD and thus for me iTunes is an alternative to buying TV season sets or Netflix, rather than cable which I have never had. Once iTunes is at least DVD quality, to me it becomes preferable to physical DVDs as it doesn't require shelf space which I don't have.


I'll only buy TV/Movies from ITMS when the quality improves (which should be soon). More importantly, I won't purchase until there's a subscription model for a flat fee (this probably won't happen, so this product means nothing to me).

[isbell]

I doubt you're typing "on" your monitor... :D j/k


It's big enough to support me as a desk....


The problem with your last statement is that hopefully "getting better later" will work on the current hardware and not require an upgrade.


At $299, I'll be happy to upgrade in a couple of years. Do you know how much I paid for my shiny new cell phone a couple of years ago? Or my HDTiVo? Or my first DVD player? Or my airport express? Or (insert any device)?

What will happen when AppleTV v1.0 gets old is that I will throw away the airport express and the appletv will become a second video stream or something. Or be just for music. Whatever. Amortized over a couple of years, that's great. It would hold more value than my computer, actually.


My complaint about this is really the expense. Just buy a Mac mini. Sure it costs more, but now EVERYTHING is on the TV and not just ITMS related stuff.


Here's the thing: I already have a device for OTA HD, more than one for DVDs, and way more than one for other live TV. $299 is a great for a NEW SINGLE PURPOSE device that complements what I already have, and this particular device does even more than I want. And it's easy. Why pay $599 to duplicate all my other devices, and with more hassle?

It feels like complaining that your new HD TV doesn't have a Blu-Ray player built in along with a DVR. Or that your DVR doesn't let you surf the web. Why does it have to?

In my day, having separates was considered the minimum requirement for being a real A/Vophile. Kids today!

[JerryNY]

I've posted it before and I'll post it again: Apple will not be making a DVR for you to record TV shows and build a video collection that doesn't make them any money. iTunes Store exists to sell content for the iPod and now the ?TV. To record off of Live television would also require using MPEG2 which Apple doesn't like. Apple in case you haven't noticed only likes things they themselves make and will use their own stuff unless there are no alternatives. Apple's idea of a HTPC is one in which you use to watch and listen to media that they can sell you not to allow you to fill up your hard drive with someone else's content that doesn't put one red cent into their pocket. The ?TV when first shown made me think Apple might be rethinking the unthinkable but after seeing the specs and codec support it looks like the Apple I know and love. Don't get me wrong, I would love for Apple to make a kick-butt DVR but I can't see it fitting into their strategy.

I do find it odd that they introduced a device that prominently specs that it does 720p but they have no content offered in that format. When the ?TV actually ships in a month they probably will have 720p stuff and that could be interesting. I won't be getting an ?TV in all likelihood as my mini is much more flexible for me but I do hope that interface makes it into Frontrow 2.0. I still love Apple and will be giving them copious amounts of my money in the future, especially come June ;) , but expecting them to do things not in their nature reminds me of the Frog and the Scorpion tale.

-Jerry C.


- edit- the ?TV's are meant to be AppleTV, I used the proper symbol for the Apple logo which is option + shift+k but the forum's server doesn't seem to support it. I was gonna change it in the body of my post but thought I should keep it on principle ;)

[GadgetFreak]

iTunes Store exists to sell content for the iPod and now the ?TV.

That is up for debate. They make more money off of selling iPods than they do off of iTunes.

[GadgetFreak]

Three recent announcements got me thinking:

1) Cingular will be taking the AT&T name on Monday.
2) Apple and the new AT&T seem to like working together.
3) XBox 360 will soon be able to serve as an IPTV set top box for AT&T's television service.

So maybe Apple will come out with a DVR but does not want to mess with unelegant CableCards or unelegant cable companies. The telcos are using IP technology to break into the TV business, but they have an uphill battle. The people i know that are getting TV service from Verizon only got it because they were getting awesome FIOS internet connections ... none of them said "hey, what a great TV lineup".

Apple TV as the set top box for AT&T u-verse (or whatever they call it)? That would certainly help AT&T grab market share and would solve the Live TV problem. The DVR issue? Bigger hard drives in ITV? connected Hard Drives? Storage inside of AT&T? i don't know, but i am beginning to think the AT&T relationship will be more than just Cingular.

[sprung2]

Apple has already established a successful business model for content distribution with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. AppleTV will undoubtedly capitalize on that model. Apple has no motive to do otherwise. Though a 1080p AppleTV would be sweet and Apple Would have an Opoortunity to deal a Crushing Blow to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=786548)

[Ryan1]

I wish Apple good luck with Apple TV. I don't think it is aimed at most of this forum, since its capabilities appear very limited, and the price too high.

Actually, I don't really know who it is aimed at. If it's aiming for the masses, the per-movie charges are too high: take a look at recently the Starz Vongo service - it gives you 1000+ movies, 1500+ other videos, plus streaming Starz feed, plus PPV. All for $10 per month. And it is a plug for Vista MCE, so it would get the market exposure.

This I see competing with Sat/cable. But Apple's idea? I would think that the masses would figure out that they can watch a month's worth of movies on demand, for the price of one or less movie from Apple.

Don't mean to rain on the parade, just think that the future is flat fee, and if Apple TV was offering that, or something more akin to rentals, perhaps with option to buy, then I could see the point.

[GadgetFreak]

Apple has already established a successful business model for content distribution with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. AppleTV will undoubtedly capitalize on that model. Apple has no motive to do otherwise. Though a 1080p AppleTV would be sweet and Apple Would have an Opoortunity to deal a Crushing Blow to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=786548)

Of course there is a motive: sell more hardware. Whether they feel that is more important than selling more content is up for debate. But what is not debatable is that a device that just allows you to purchase TV shows at $2 per episode would be outsold by a machine that did the same thing but also had DVR capability.


When Steve Jobs said they would not add video to the iPod, one of the reasons he gave was that consumers wanted to own music, but that they did not want to own television shows. While they may have sold a decent number of shows on itunes and TV on DVD sells, that is mainly fans building out a collection of their favorite shows.

[NortheasternPJ]

iTunes Store exists to sell content for the iPod and now the ?TV.


Wrong. iTunes store exists to sell hardware. Apple has said over and over that it barely breaks even on selling content.

[sprung2]

Of course there is a motive: sell more hardware. Whether they feel that is more important than selling more content is up for debate. But what is not debatable is that a device that just allows you to purchase TV shows at $2 per episode would be outsold by a machine that did the same thing but also had DVR capability.


When Steve Jobs said they would not add video to the iPod, one of the reasons he gave was that consumers wanted to own music, but that they did not want to own television shows. While they may have sold a decent number of shows on itunes and TV on DVD sells, that is mainly fans building out a collection of their favorite shows.

Don't get me wrong, I too am salivating over a 1080p AppleTV with DVR. I'd dump my HD DVR cable box in a second for it, and would incur that added expense of upgrading my existing cable internet service to 30mbs from the current 15. But I can only surmise, since the techno infrastructure is already in place, that apple didn't go that route because they weren't allowed to by the content providers, some of whom are advocating alternative technologies and would stand to loose greatly by this implementation, and at a such a volatile time. Just begun, this format war has.

[tommylotto]

If this is a "video iPod", then it should be able to play ripped DVD's. The iPod plays ripped CD's in addition to the music from the iTunes store. The AppleTV should be able to play ripped DVD's in addition to shows from their store. Even if Apple does not provide a solution at launch, some enterprising hacker will.

Gee, what is that USB port for??? Maybe a tuner (I doubt it), but maybe a DVD player (that is so 90's), or HD DVD, or Blue Ray. Also, the guys at Macworld reported that the settings has an option to upgrade the software. So, any limitations it has at launch may not be permanent. I think it depends on sales success. The more they sell, the more support Apple will give it. So, you sceptics, if you want it to improve, buy it sight unseen and hope for the best. That is what I'm doing.

[wildrock]

Wrong. iTunes store exists to sell hardware. Apple has said over and over that it barely breaks even on selling content.Another way of putting this is that the iTS is all about adding value. One of the things that Apple is so good at is adding value to a hardware product, thereby enhancing it's appeal. iTS does this, being able to rip CD's does this, podcasts do it. On and on, what you'll see is Apple building a PLATFORM consisting of discrete hardware elements (computer, iPod, appleTV, iPhone, displays, etc.) and technologies, operated through exceptional software, linked to the iTS (and whatever content distribution ideas Apple comes up with like, hopefully, rentals and subscriptions). Then they add value through access to other personal content, ease of use, additional bennies (rip CD's, iPhoto, iMovie, internet radio, etc.), and so on.

Apple is selling a platform, one which they want to be of the highest value. A platform--not individual products (hence the continual reference to "halo effect"). No one comes close in the combined CES/computer space to doing this. Not Microsoft, not Sony, no one. This is why the Starz Vongo service will ultimately be irrelevant (and other PPV and VOD solutions). And who can get it anyway? Not me, though it may succeed in some small way in a few markets for a bit, until something better comes along. I hate cable's vision of PPV and VOD. Poor quality, bad tools to view it, expensive, and on and on... There are a myriad of individual products and ideas that are great on their own merits. But without a platform to plug into and a company with an overall vision to assist them, they will languish. It is why we most likely won't see an Apple dedicated pvr. Cable TV doen't fit into Apple's vision. It is so 20th century, and I for one (and there are many more like me), am more than willing to see the era of ad-sponsored, network controlled, channel-flipping television viewing end (though not necessarily sponsor underwritten public broadcasting). Most of it is garbage, and i'm not afraid to say so. And I won't be sorry to see it go, nor will Steve Jobs.

Now before anyone says, "but so and so has xyz product that does abc better than Apple," I understand all of this. So Apple has to make a choice what to allow easily onto its platform (or what to exclude). What it doesn't allow is what gravels people here. But what it does allow is pretty amazing, if you take it in its entirety. And Apple will continue to build out the platform with products like the appleTV, the iPhone, probably a new and true video iPod, maybe displays, better computers, better iTS, and on and on.

Apple's ability to integrate hardware and software, inject content, and add value is what they are doing better than anyone. But it is such a huge task, one that no one else is doing in scope that Apple is, that it takes much time, and the pieces are still developing, partnerships forming, technologies evolving, that we'll always find a weak spot. Look elsewhere from Apple, and you can find huge gaps and problems with what others are doing. But you won't find a single centralized, encompassing vision for the future of home entertainment (and professional services to create content) than that of Apple's, though Microsoft reads the writing on the wall and is trying to head it off. You may find pockets of excellence elsewhere, the benchmarks by which we will always compare new products or ideas to, here. And innovation and expansive thinking is good, and will continue.

But this is why the appleTV matters. It is just another piece of Apple's puzzle, as incomplete or insufficient as it may be. It fits into the larger scheme of things in Apple's vision, and that is what is important--it is defining Apple's not so readily divined future for us. And it will mature, along with other products, until it becomes fully integrated. But it still may not play DivX, and people will complain. :D

[windwaves]

I don't disagree with you logic, but I have to agree with Andrew (no Apple DVR). One simple reason: Steve Jobs HATES TV. He has repeatedly said so. He doesn't necessarily hate TV shows (which is why Apple sells them), but he considers live TV a huge waste of time. When you have a conflict between Jobs and logic, at Apple Jobs tends to win. And when it comes to TV, he just might be right.

I am like you and SJ !!! I hate TV and guess what, SJ, with iTV is getting me closer and closer to the day when I will have finally eliminated cable from my properties !!!!

[Genius74]

It's big enough to support me as a desk....



At $299, I'll be happy to upgrade in a couple of years. Do you know how much I paid for my shiny new cell phone a couple of years ago? Or my HDTiVo? Or my first DVD player? Or my airport express? Or (insert any device)?

What will happen when AppleTV v1.0 gets old is that I will throw away the airport express and the appletv will become a second video stream or something. Or be just for music. Whatever. Amortized over a couple of years, that's great. It would hold more value than my computer, actually.



Here's the thing: I already have a device for OTA HD, more than one for DVDs, and way more than one for other live TV. $299 is a great for a NEW SINGLE PURPOSE device that complements what I already have, and this particular device does even more than I want. And it's easy. Why pay $599 to duplicate all my other devices, and with more hassle?

It feels like complaining that your new HD TV doesn't have a Blu-Ray player built in along with a DVR. Or that your DVR doesn't let you surf the web. Why does it have to?

In my day, having separates was considered the minimum requirement for being a real A/Vophile. Kids today!


sounds like you'll buy more than one... yay for you...

What's the single purpose of this device? Would you buy this w/o owning an Ipod?

If you own an Ipod just buy an AV dock..

The dock purchase isn't directed toward you, it's toward anyone that doesn't want to pay twice the price of their ipod to do the same thing on their tv.

You don't like my mini suggestion, fine.. run a cable to your tv (obviously everyone's situation is different, so this isn't for everyone either and definitely not you since you'll buy this).

[tommylotto]

The main (not single) purpose of this thing is to serve as a large format interface for your iTunes library and iPhoto library on your HDTV in your livingroom. There are plenty of other devices that can do this, but they all suck. AppleTV will be very slick at this task -- music and slideshows. You can sit on your couch and flip through albums or playlists or slideshows. That in itself is huge.

You add playing video from your iTunes library and downloaded programs from iTS as a cherry on top. Look at it that way. Then keep in mind all the features that are possible as add-ons: Tuner, DVD, HD DVD, BR, ripped DVD's on NSA.

Who is more likely to put together this type of a system in a slick professional manner that has a chance of breaking out of bleeding edge geekdom and make this mainstream? Lynksys? Buffalo? or Apple?

[isbell]

sounds like you'll buy more than one... yay for you...


Actually, I'll probably only buy one. It'll go in the basement and get distributed throughout the house from there.


What's the single purpose of this device? Would you buy this w/o owning an Ipod?

If you own an Ipod just buy an AV dock..

The dock purchase isn't directed toward you, it's toward anyone that doesn't want to pay twice the price of their ipod to do the same thing on their tv.


My iPod isn't a streaming source of HD and audio for the house. That would take too much work. Interestingly, I don't carry pictures of my family around with me. They're on my video iPod. That was a bonus.


You don't like my mini suggestion, fine.. run a cable to your tv (obviously everyone's situation is different, so this isn't for everyone either and definitely not you since you'll buy this).

I'm confused by this suggestion. My home office machine is on the first floor. My A/V distribution is in the basement, so I'd have to run a cable downstairs. Doesn't seem worth it to me when I can do it wirelessly. Right now my airport express is downstairs and I stream audio to it from any of three machines in the house. It would be great to be able to do that with HD video.

I could put a mini downstairs and deal with it remotely from here, but by the time I put all that together, I could have two or three AppleTVs, and I only need one of those. In fact, even when move my office downstairs next year, I don't think it will be worth it to do all that unless all of my various sources blow up at once

[imlucid]

The thing that has me most excited about this product is the simplicity.

My HT setup was getting out of control and even using the MX-500 remote, I found that no one but my wife and I could use the system and even then she would more often or not call me up when I was away asking me to trouble shoot some problem or another.

I mean, I had 3 ReplayTVs, two EyeTV 500s, two DISH receivers, a laptop serving distributed music to the house, a mac mini as my central HT machine serving video to my projector as well as a cable distro to TVs in other rooms, all controlled via IR repeaters and the equipment in the server closet.

I decided that it was too much and started trying to simplify my life. I've finally given up DISH and pretty much just watch shows I purchase off of iTS. Turns out we don't have much time for watching TV anymore anyway (work and kids) and the shows I like are all available for purchase. This is much cheaper than the $70 a month I was paying for DISH. The biggest downer is the lack of sports. I did however download the Fiesta bowl from iTS and it was an awesome experience seeing this with no commercials. If they'd put up Sharks games I'd be a season subscriber and happy as a clam!

Plus, the idea that I'll have one interface that is always on (turn on the TV and pick up the Apple Remote, no switching inputs or dealing with components etc.) My wife just navigates the UI and picks out from what is available.

The higher resolution shows look pretty good on the big screen compared to satellite (though of course not anywhere near HD). But you know, the simplicity is outweighing the quality factor now. I'm about ready to stop recording HD until there is a setting in EyeTV to auto export HD programs into 720p TV shows with info into iTunes.

I'm finding that the simplicity of this type of solution and the commercial free content is outweighing the resolution of the content so far.

I'm tired of being a techie in my home and want to just watch TV when I have some time to do so.

Anyway just my $0.02. The AppleTV is definitely not a product that is going to satisfy the majority of HT techies out there (which is still true of the iPod) but it may just be the ticket for a large group of people out there that like the idea of getting their Mac content on their TV but don't want to have to read up on AVS Forum in order to do it!

:D

[isbell]

So, anyway, if I look at my situation right now, there are several TV shows that I watch, but since the advent of TiVo and other DVRs I've almost completely stopped just surfing. Watching TV has become like going to the video store, and if there's nothing on I want to see, I end up reading a book or watching a movie, or surfing the web, or something.

Now of the shows I watch most are OTA and free. I've got TiVo for that. Of the cable shows I watch there's only five or six, probably. Heck, let's say there are ten. At $25-$35 for a season (current iTS prices for a season) that's $350 a year. I currently pay somewhere around $1340 a year for sattelite because of the way their bundling works.

What am I getting for all that? Access that costs me more than what I end up using + the ability to watch shows I want to try once or twice to see. But it's not really worth it. A la carte would cost me less, even if I had to pay $2 for the occassional show I wanted to sample.

Now, this only works if I can get HD from iTS, of course, and of the shows I want to get from HBO or Showtime or wherever. And those shows come to DVD right now, so I can imagine they would be available from iTS. Mind you they may not be available at the time that they are broadcast, but in practice I end up watching a lot of the shows I care about in large bursts anyway.

When DirectTV stops working with my 250, this means I might be able to avoid going to Comcast (spit). This makes me happy. Thanks Steve Jobs!

[Joseph S]

Here's another reason why it matters...

Accessories!!!

http://www.xtrememac.com/press/pr/2007/2007_01_10.php
http://www.xtrememac.com/audio/av_cables/hdmi_switcher/

Much cleaner looking than the Gefen and Monoprice if you already have a Mini. Cheap and HDMI 1.3.

[isbell]

I suppose my ideal situation would be a la carte + a subscription model for some "channels". In that case, I'd buy shows but "subscribe" to Noggin or whatever it is that my child watches. On the other hand, she can watch the same three episodes of Dora the Explorer for months at a time, so maybe I don't even have to do that.

[druber]

The USB port on the back is reportedly only for diagnostic/service needs. No USB hard drive or anything else.

If 720p/24fps content does work, that's at least something. 3 minutes of 1080i took close to three hours to convert to it with one-pass H.264 on my G4 iBook, but....

[gmwedding]

...That said, while I don't think that Apple is afraid of having DVR functionality or having AppleTV support MPEG2 for fear of undercutting their iTunes business or pissing off the studios. I simply don't think they feel that the potential sales gain justifies it, and DVRs especially are a headache.
The former CEO(?) of Elgato is an Apple employee, so I am sure Apple knows *exactly* how much money they stand to make in the DVR market, and have decided it isn't worth it...

Perhaps Apple is building a DVR, but it simply isn't ready (By ready, I mean hardware, software and business model). After all, it took Apple two years longer than everyone thought it should to introduce the iPhone (and it still isn't quite ready). It took Apple an extra year to introduce an updated Mac mini with the minimum features (faster processor and optical audio) for home theater use. This hardware and software engineering stuff isn't brain surgery, but it is very challenging and tedious work. Give them time. Jobs only acknowledged for the first time that Apple was looking into media center options at the most recent stockholders meeting last year.

Here's how and why Apple COULD build a successful DVR business:

Just as Apple is doing with a cellular provider, partner with another company providing cable or satellite services. Think about it: like cellular phones, DVRs are a sorry lot. Their software interfaces are terrible (think Comcast/Motorola DCT 6412, the TiVo that is good, but perhaps not uniformly loved, or the uninspired Microsoft Guide). Think DVR upgrades and bug fixes that are few and far between.

Also, DVR hardware is notoriously unreliable (at least Comcast's is) and VERY frustrating. Quick -- name two consumer products many on these boards hate. Cell phones and misbehaving DVRs would be high on everyone's list. That is an opportunity.

If TiVO, Motorola and others can build a DVR to sell to cable or satcos, so could Apple. And they could do it better. This is just one idea, and I'm sure the marketing geniuses at Apple could come up with several other ways to justify getting into this business that also is in need of a great hardware-software solution.

Apple TV, the iTunes Store, Front Row and even the Airport Extreme are just the first products in a long march toward more consumer electronics products that will be aimed outside of Apple's core computer business. Never under estimate Steve Jobs' unpredictable brilliance.

[wildrock]

Here's how why Apple COULD build a successful DVR business...
To put it simply, I believe Apple's direction doesn't include supporting a legacy model of delivering content via cable/satellite. It is highly invested in a new/different model, and a dvr would provide nothing more than competition for the iTS. While I would love an Apple dvr as much as anyone, I don't believe they would be able to or want to deploy one through a similar method as Moto, SA, or Pace is doing with cable. And I don't think they want to go the CableCard route, only to be stymied by the cablecos at every step. But then again, I would never have thought that they'd try to build a better (or not) boombox. The HiFi for $350??? Give me a break. Anybody know anyone who has one? I can hear Steve Jobs' grandkids: "but grandpa, why don't you build me an ipod boombox?"

Much better that Apple give us a nice HTPC form factor that we can customize to our heart's content. Then all of our arguments here turn to how to implement all of the software/hardware integration needs into a complete system.

[gmwedding]

I agree, and my desire also is for a more powerful and flexible HTPC...My point isn't that I think Apple will build a DVR -- maybe they will and maybe they won't. I don't know on this one...I'm just saying there may well be business models that we aren't thinking of that Jobs and crew will uncover by thinking differently...

[NoTx]

You know, if they can just get this thing to play ripped DVDs, it would be worth it for me to buy for every TV in my home (as well as the storage for my DVDs). I have over a thousand of the darn things... and honestly, I would love to just box them up and not worry about em. I know they can be converted somewhat... but I am an audio fanatic and always go out of my way for 6.1 sound.

Adding in iTunes and the ability to grab the shows I want to watch, I could happily get rid of a cable bill:) And still have what I want. Granted I am a Sci-Fi junky... so, they have that covered.

But I guess that will be a wait and see.

[Phantom Gremlin]

Details are still sketchy, but it looks like SlingCatcher will do a lot that Apple TV won't. But nobody has mentioned it. They will probably be much more open in terms of supporting various formats.

Here's a brief blurb: http://www.pvrwire.com/2007/01/08/more-on-the-slingcatcher/

[gmwedding]

Regarding Apple's HDTV efforts and the next generation of DVR's, see this story:

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2007/01/if_federal_comm.html

It reports on how the cable companies have been fighting for exemptions from a new FCC rule that forces them to make their DVRs operable with competitor's services. Comcast just lost a plea for an exemption. This would seem to open up a new competitive era for cable and satellite companies and could shift some control (the ability to switch services more easily) back into the hands of consumers.

Under this evolving business model, couldn't the development of an Apple DVR with an elegant, universal interface make sense? Remember it no longer is simply Apple Computer, but Apple, Inc., a consumer electronics company. And isn't a DVR a consumer electronics device?

[SBryan]

...
If my experience with Apple has taught me anything it is that they are going to force you to do things their way. If that means that you have to convert all of your video to H.264 to get it to play on their device, that's the way it is. Opening up their platform will only lead down the slippery slope of instability and support nightmares.

You mean like all the instability and support nightmares of VLC (sarcasm intended, of course). It seems very odd to me that because of "platform politics" that the best media player for both Mac and Windows is VLC rather than either player from the platform owners. VLC behaves in a way I used to associate with the Mac, in most cases it just works.

[Scarpad]

The thing that has me most excited about this product is the simplicity.

My HT setup was getting out of control and even using the MX-500 remote, I found that no one but my wife and I could use the system and even then she would more often or not call me up when I was away asking me to trouble shoot some problem or another.

I mean, I had 3 ReplayTVs, two EyeTV 500s, two DISH receivers, a laptop serving distributed music to the house, a mac mini as my central HT machine serving video to my projector as well as a cable distro to TVs in other rooms, all controlled via IR repeaters and the equipment in the server closet.

I decided that it was too much and started trying to simplify my life. I've finally given up DISH and pretty much just watch shows I purchase off of iTS. Turns out we don't have much time for watching TV anymore anyway (work and kids) and the shows I like are all available for purchase. This is much cheaper than the $70 a month I was paying for DISH. The biggest downer is the lack of sports. I did however download the Fiesta bowl from iTS and it was an awesome experience seeing this with no commercials. If they'd put up Sharks games I'd be a season subscriber and happy as a clam!

Plus, the idea that I'll have one interface that is always on (turn on the TV and pick up the Apple Remote, no switching inputs or dealing with components etc.) My wife just navigates the UI and picks out from what is available.

The higher resolution shows look pretty good on the big screen compared to satellite (though of course not anywhere near HD). But you know, the simplicity is outweighing the quality factor now. I'm about ready to stop recording HD until there is a setting in EyeTV to auto export HD programs into 720p TV shows with info into iTunes.

I'm finding that the simplicity of this type of solution and the commercial free content is outweighing the resolution of the content so far.

I'm tired of being a techie in my home and want to just watch TV when I have some time to do so.

Anyway just my $0.02. The AppleTV is definitely not a product that is going to satisfy the majority of HT techies out there (which is still true of the iPod) but it may just be the ticket for a large group of people out there that like the idea of getting their Mac content on their TV but don't want to have to read up on AVS Forum in order to do it!

:D

My wife would'nt touch the mini and really I don't blame her, having the Mini and 3 external HD it was getting unsightly to say the least. Now all that is hidden away in one room , out of sight and one thin box will be sitting above the tv, with one remote to deal with, it's gonna simplify my life. I'm using Nero Recode 2 in Quicktime Simple profile and the encodes look sweet at about the 1800kbps rat which yeilds about 360 megs for a 30 min show and 650 megs for a typical 48 min show. AVC would be nice but NR2 does'nt support that yet and the encode times are crazy, the Mpeg4 ASP encoding in recode is damn spiffy.

[Jonesky]

I am never going to be a technogeek like most on ths forum but I really dig HDTV and gaming and Macs. My perspective (mine's preordered, btw) is that it is simple, fun (streaming what's on my computer in the way of photos, music, maybe even the occasional tv show) and elegant. I considered the mini but it's lack of Bluray and need to fool around with resolutions, etc (I really wanted an hdmi out) just absolutely killed it. I learned this while fooling around with my MacBook Pro and dvi for a while one day.

If Apple makes it then I am likely to trust in its simplicity and for HDTV I have an HD-dvd player, a PS3 for Bluray, and a Moto6412 stb. With the dvr I can record and skip commercials and so the iTS might not see me buying a lot. I won't really know until I get it home, but it sounds great. I'll try it with g until I'm proved wrong. I do see the 40gb hard drive as buffer and temporary storage of files if it turns out to be possible to prestore a show before watching. The only thing I might yearn for is a way to firewire out the back of my stb with a ton of HD space to record shows for my own use later. I also like the fact it's wireless. Don't have any idea how to do this and won't try until someone makes it exceptionally easy (like Apple). Would I but an Apple dvr (hopefully with expandable HD space)? In a second. Main thing is no fuss, no muss, it just works.

Just my newb two cents.

[gmwedding]

1/12/2007 3:12:22 PM, by Eric Bangeman

A new bill (S.256) introduced in the US Senate this week would force satellite, digital, and Internet radio providers (but not over-the-air radio) to implement measures designed to restrict the ability of listeners to record audio from the services. Called the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act" (PERFORM), the bill is sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

If the name of the bill sounds familiar, it should. The bill was originally introduced in April 2006 with the support of the RIAA. It died in committee, but the senators are hopeful that the bill will pass this time around.

Read more here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070112-8609.html

[wildrock]

You mean like all the instability and support nightmares of VLC (sarcasm intended, of course). It seems very odd to me that because of "platform politics" that the best media player for both Mac and Windows is VLC rather than either player from the platform owners. VLC behaves in a way I used to associate with the Mac, in most cases it just works.That's odd. Because I gave VLC my initial trial the other night and it crashed twice on the first DVD I tried to play. I just thought that because it was v0.86a, that it was still in alpha, and that crashes/bugs were to be expected. Others haven't experienced it crashing? Never have had a crash with dozens of disks played via DVDPlayer.

[rezzy]

Using v0.8.2, I don't think I've ever had a DVD to crash, just only a few hi-def videos to choke and quit.

[wildrock]

Using v0.8.2, I don't think I've ever had a DVD to crash, just only a few hi-def videos to choke and quit.Videolan has an archive full of past builds. Anyone have an idea which is the best one for a new user of VLC to try? Or is there a discussion elswhere? I don't really want to have to a or b test them all myself. Just looking to compare alternatives with DVDPlayer. Thanks.

[Scarpad]

1/12/2007 3:12:22 PM, by Eric Bangeman

A new bill (S.256) introduced in the US Senate this week would force satellite, digital, and Internet radio providers (but not over-the-air radio) to implement measures designed to restrict the ability of listeners to record audio from the services. Called the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act" (PERFORM), the bill is sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

If the name of the bill sounds familiar, it should. The bill was originally introduced in April 2006 with the support of the RIAA. It died in committee, but the senators are hopeful that the bill will pass this time around.

Read more here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070112-8609.html


I think these guys have far more important matters to adress,

[rezzy]

Videolan has an archive full of past builds. Anyone have an idea which is the best one for a new user of VLC to try? Or is there a discussion elswhere? I don't really want to have to a or b test them all myself. Just looking to compare alternatives with DVDPlayer. Thanks.When I first installed OSX (Panther 10.3.9), it didn't detect a DVD drive, so the DVDPlayer installation was skipped. I instead pulled down the then-latest version of VLC and never looked back.

[Urian]

Apple TV specs are:

-CPU Intel Pentium M 1.0 Ghz
-350Mhz bus
-256MB DDR2 400Mhz
-Nvidia G72 (GeForce 7300) with 64MB of memory.

[Further]

Videolan has an archive full of past builds. Anyone have an idea which is the best one for a new user of VLC to try? Or is there a discussion elswhere? I don't really want to have to a or b test them all myself. Just looking to compare alternatives with DVDPlayer. Thanks.

I'm using 0.8.6a at the moment, listening to a Shoutcast radio station as I type this. I have it on both a G5 PPC (the machine is not very stable) and a Mac Mini (the machine is very stable) and have been using it for years. In my experiences VLC is very stable, so I cannot recommend one version over another for you. I know that people have reported crashing, but there are "millions" more who don't have any issues with it.

In case you don't know, when you unpack the archive, you should find an Applescript called "delete_preferences". If you want to be safe, run the script then reboot your machine. Open VLC and see what happens.

As I've said before, I find it the best current DVD player for the Mac.

[lunddal]

I don't disagree with you logic, but I have to agree with Andrew (no Apple DVR). One simple reason: Steve Jobs HATES TV. He has repeatedly said so. He doesn't necessarily hate TV shows (which is why Apple sells them), but he considers live TV a huge waste of time. When you have a conflict between Jobs and logic, at Apple Jobs tends to win. And when it comes to TV, he just might be right.

That's an old myth.

What he said was that you turned your brain on when using your computer and your brain off when watching tv, which is why he don't think that the two will merge.

[gmwedding]

See this recent CNet story, which reads, in part:

...Notably, TiVo has added a variety of abilities to its popular digital video recording system in recent years, allowing content to move to other PCs and devices. This week, it finally brought that TiVoToGo mobile service option to the Mac...And Digeo, which counts Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen among its investors, has been trying to crack this market for a long time. Years of selling its Moxi line of set-top boxes to cable companies has brought only limited results...At CES, Digeo said that it will start selling its devices directly to consumers...

A key reason for this shift to the consumer is a long-planned change in the cable industry that will allow people to buy rather than rent DVRs. People will be able to purchase their own set-top box at a retail stores, then hook it up to their local cable provider via a small insert, knows as a CableCard.

Microsoft has been touting plans for CableCard support for a long time. In November 2005, the company said it had signed a deal with the cable industry that would pave the way for Media Center PCs with built-in CableCards to arrive by the 2006 holiday sales season. That didn't happen. At CES last week, Microsoft said it sees such PCs coming out in the second half of this year...

At some point, competition may force Apple to do a DVR, and maybe even go head-to-head with the cable TV industry. After all, a good number of people believe that IPTV will be the future of video content. Read more, here. My point is, anything may be possible...

http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6150127.html?tag=tb

[bdraw]

I can't wait to get my Apple TV which I ordered as soon as it was announced. I don't buy anything from the iTunes Music store either.

I want to use it to listen to my mp3 collection in my Home theater and look at my pictures and from what I have seen it will do a better job than the XP Media Center I have now, or the Xbox360 I have now and even the TiVo Series3 I have. While I really like all these devices none of them play music and my pictures on my TV in a way that satisfies me and I think the Apple TV will.

I doubt I will ever watch a video on it, if I want to watch a HD show I will watch it on my Series3, if I want to play a HD game I will use the Xbox360 and if i want to watch a HD movie than I will use my Blu-ray player.

In this space the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" still applies and until a single device can do all these things well, we will need 5 devices to do everything we want.

[wildrock]

That's an old myth.

What he said was that you turned your brain on when using your computer and your brain off when watching tv, which is why he don't think that the two will merge.What if you used your computer to watch tv? :rolleyes: :p ;)

[bommai]

Three recent announcements got me thinking:

1) Cingular will be taking the AT&T name on Monday.
2) Apple and the new AT&T seem to like working together.
3) XBox 360 will soon be able to serve as an IPTV set top box for AT&T's television service.

So maybe Apple will come out with a DVR but does not want to mess with unelegant CableCards or unelegant cable companies. The telcos are using IP technology to break into the TV business, but they have an uphill battle. The people i know that are getting TV service from Verizon only got it because they were getting awesome FIOS internet connections ... none of them said "hey, what a great TV lineup".

Apple TV as the set top box for AT&T u-verse (or whatever they call it)? That would certainly help AT&T grab market share and would solve the Live TV problem. The DVR issue? Bigger hard drives in ITV? connected Hard Drives? Storage inside of AT&T? i don't know, but i am beginning to think the AT&T relationship will be more than just Cingular.

U-verse is already out in several areas. AT&T uses Microsoft's IPTV solution and H.264 file format for the service. The box they use is a Motorola IPTV DVR Box that can do HDTV. I don't think there is any hope for Apple to get into that. I think Apple is into alacarte show buying business.

[thebitman]

Can EyeTV work with the new Apple TV device?


Yes, it appears that EyeTV can export any recording so that the Apple TV media player can use it.

Apple’s upcoming Apple TV media player uses iTunes as a media management application. EyeTV can already export to iTunes, in an iPod compatible video format (H.264 or MPEG-4), and that video will appear in the “TV Shows” section of iTunes. In turn, that “TV Shows” list will be accessible via your TV, using Apple TV.

Currently, EyeTV’s iPod exports are in 640 by 480 or 320 by 240 resolution. Since the Apple TV also can receive 720p videos, our engineers will investigate how to best leverage that format as well, with HDTV EyeTV recordings.

The official specifications from Apple are:

H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store):
640 by 480, 30 fps, LC version of Baseline Profile
320 by 240, 30 fps, Baseline profile up to Level 1.3
1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile.

MPEG-4:
640 by 480, 30 fps, Simple Profile

Once the Apple TV is shipping in February, then we can have a more definite statement about what video formats EyeTV can give it. Most likely, additional export options will be added to a future EyeTV update, specifically for Apple TV.

At this time, EyeTV’s MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 recordings don’t meet the specifications for Apple TV’s video formats. So, there will always be an export involved, which will take some time - the faster your Mac, the faster the export.

Such exports to “iPod” format can be automated now, so that when a scheduled recording is completed, it will automatically be exported, and synched with iTunes. From there it can be easily sent to an iPod, or Apple TV.

[Joseph S]

That's about as good a solution as someone holding a camcorder to the screen. It takes forever to export MPEG2 and you'll lose the dd51 audio.

[almostinsane]

And 1080i content converted to 720p looks like crap.

[BeninDen]

I am never going to be a technogeek like most on ths forum but I really dig HDTV and gaming and Macs. My perspective (mine's preordered, btw) is that it is simple, fun (streaming what's on my computer in the way of photos, music, maybe even the occasional tv show) and elegant. I considered the mini but it's lack of Bluray and need to fool around with resolutions, etc (I really wanted an hdmi out) just absolutely killed it. I learned this while fooling around with my MacBook Pro and dvi for a while one day.

If Apple makes it then I am likely to trust in its simplicity and for HDTV I have an HD-dvd player, a PS3 for Bluray, and a Moto6412 stb. With the dvr I can record and skip commercials and so the iTS might not see me buying a lot. I won't really know until I get it home, but it sounds great. I'll try it with g until I'm proved wrong. I do see the 40gb hard drive as buffer and temporary storage of files if it turns out to be possible to prestore a show before watching. The only thing I might yearn for is a way to firewire out the back of my stb with a ton of HD space to record shows for my own use later. I also like the fact it's wireless. Don't have any idea how to do this and won't try until someone makes it exceptionally easy (like Apple). Would I but an Apple dvr (hopefully with expandable HD space)? In a second. Main thing is no fuss, no muss, it just works.

Just my newb two cents.

You, my friend must be my lost twin. I've preordered as well, considered the mini, played with my MBP for a bit. Then decided it would be the missing link to connect my mac to my system that has a MotorolaDVR, and a PS3. My ATV will be used primarily to play my Apple Lossless collection on my main system, with super simplicity. Also, I assume it will be cabable of streaming net radio. As they say, if it plays on Itunes, it plays on ATV.

[Ted Todorov]

That's an old myth.

What he said was that you turned your brain on when using your computer and your brain off when watching tv, which is why he don't think that the two will merge.
That is the exact quote that makes me say that Jobs hates TV. To me (and Jobs) turning off ones brain is a bad thing.

I was on vacation last week and we had a 99 channel cable TV in