Not that I don't like Apple products, I've owned an iPod for years and my girlfriend uses a MacBook Pro. This was definitely the easiest HTPC-like device I've ever setup. Definitely neat and definitely polished, I'll give them that. Despite the technical limitations with the playback hardware-wise at higher bitrates and the inability to use the USB port (why is it there?) to add external hard drives to expand storage. It works great for watching all the TV Season Passes we have for shows we don't get/record/archive in HD here that the girlfriend likes. She has also been loving pumping the music easily through the 7.1 system.

Anyways, as much as I want to say "meh" at the product, I can't, it's a great product, definitely one of the quality Apple innovations with a price point that can't be beat (though a 60g HDD standard would have been nice, I can't just sync my whole library... I have a LOT of iTunes purchased material from over the years, heh). I like it a lot and it'll definitely fill a niche for some clients of mine that are mac heads but still want Home Theatre Integration.

Deefinitely recommend the product, hacks available to make it better or not.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post. As you hinted, you are aware that the limitations of the device are being hacked now and we expect AppleTV to be an even more amazing product once the hackers are finished.

If you are interested in that, come back and visit us often -- we are trying to keep up with all the news. Anyhow, thanks again for your post.

I'm a user w/ an opposite past history. I've been using Apple computers since 1983, and Macs since the late 80s. I use Irix workstations at the office (visual effects) and have had some PC exposure, but not much. I do most everything I can on a Mac, for the pure reason as its almost never ever let me down--it just works.

Only this past year did I break down and buy my first PC, a tricked out Toshiba Qosmio laptop. Why? For the MCE capabilities, and as much as I loved the flexibility of my PowerBook, there were PC apps that I really wanted access to. So far, it's been fun...and the PC home theater application is unequivacably more evolved and flexible. For now.

So, welcome. I'm looking to implement a dedicated HTPC this year--and want it to be based on Apple hardware. I looked upon the AppleTV with great interest...but I'd love to see Apple take things much farther and open the system up to handle things like ripped DVDs and .TS files, etc. They (or someone) MUST, in order for Apple to have a truly viable home theater hub/solution. Imagine how crippled iTunes software would be if you couldn't drop in .MP3s or rip your CDs...that's where AppleTV and FrontRow are now.

In short--I want a MacMiniHD or AppleTV v2, so thanks for your posting. Here's hoping this is only the beginning and Apple is indeed listening to their fans--old and new.

They (or someone) MUST, in order for Apple to have a truly viable home theater hub/solution. Imagine how crippled iTunes software would be if you couldn't drop in .MP3s or rip your CDs...that's where AppleTV and FrontRow are now.
I agree with you, but it is unlikely that Apple will allow video_TS folders to be played on the aTV. There's the little problem of the DMCA and the process of breaking encryption to copy the DVD onto your computer, and I doubt Apple wants to find itself on the recieving end of a lawsuit from the MPAA for encouraging people to decrpyt DVDs.

Yeah I think it's ridiculous too, but I'm just being realistic. I'm still leaning towards a Mini at this point, unless someone comes up with a perfectly slick way to do this all on the aTV.

I realize what you're saying, but...

I'm sorry, what part of the playing of a broad swath of files (.TS streams, VOBs, etc.) whether they be rips of your own purchased DVDs or recordings off your paid satellite subscription would be violated on Apple's hardware that isn't on scores of PC-based solutions?

Its the core functionality of every media server/HTPC out there right now--why should Apple feel its territory they can't enter as well?

The other issue is that Apple-- like Microsoft, Sony, and others-- wants to herd people into using their formats. Why do you think they came out with .ale when a perfectly good open-source alternative (.flac) already exists? Same with lossless Windows Media files-- the Xbox360 can't handle .flac files even though it would cost them nothing to put the codec on there.

In addition to the DMCA problem I think Apple would rather have you buy the movies from Itunes, and they will never have an application that rips DVDs to any format.

I agree with your assessment...

And it's a problem I have w/ both Apple and Microsoft. I understand their wanting to push their own standards/technology--from, if nothing else, a raw hardball business play perspective. But at the expense of crippling the overall usability/functionality of their apps/hardware--that's just foolish, imho. It undermines their other products.

Again--imagine if Apple hadn't had the iPod open to MP3s, nor given iTunes the ability to rip CDs, and if they'd stood by the idea that it would only work w/ Apple hardware and OS X. The iPod would NOT be the huge revenue stream and unqualified success that it is today--it would be a tiny little niche product.

I hope they're really thinking through their strategy here. Or the AppleTV will be the next Newton (which I owned ;)).

I agree with your assessment...

And it's a problem I have w/ both Apple and Microsoft. I understand their wanted to push their own standards/technology. But at the expense of crippling the overall usability/functionality of their apps/hardware--that's just foolish, imho.

I think you are wrong about Apple using its "own" standards. AFAIK, most formats used by Apple for audio and video are open standards. The iTunes store, for example, uses the AAC format, which is not an Apple standard, but a standard of the MPEG.

But you are quite correct about Microsoft. For example, .wmv is a Microsoft only standard and must be reverse engineered to work on other platforms.

Until you add in Fairplay, which is far from "Open". :) Apple also has Quicktime, which is a proprietary container. While they use and back MPEG-4 in most cases, Apple is far from the "open" multimedia company people see from the outside.

Microsoft is no better in most cases. They do license their WMDRM, a nice way to get support in products other than those Microsoft makes. You can't say this for Apple with Fairplay. VC-1 basically takes the place of WMV9, as WMV9 is an implementation of SMPTE 421M. That means it's "open".

Chris

Until you add in Fairplay, which is far from "Open". :)

Sorry, Fairplay is a DRM system, it is not a file format.


Apple also has Quicktime, which is a proprietary container. While they use and back MPEG-4 in most cases, Apple is far from the "open" multimedia company people see from the outside.


It seems you are wrong again. According to Wikipedia: "On February 11, 1998 the ISO approved the QuickTime file format as the basis of the MPEG-4 Part 14 (.mp4) container standard. By 2000, it became an industry standard, first appearing in QuickTime 6 in 2002. Accordingly, the MPEG-4 container is designed to capture, edit, archive, and distribute media, unlike the simple file-as-stream approach of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2."

How does this support your assertion that "Apple is far from the 'open' multimedia company..."?

Sorry, Fairplay is a DRM system, it is not a file format.

Once you wrap the content in a "DRM system" it no longer falls under the "standard" that the audio/video is in. It's encryped, it's proprietary, and Apple doesn't license it. Try and play it back in an application or device that support the "file format" and see how far that gets you.

In your iTunes Store example, you are trying to say that Apple is right for using an open standard replying to "their own standards/technology" when content from the iTunes store is very proprietary in nature.


It seems you are wrong again. According to Wikipedia: "On February 11, 1998 the ISO approved the QuickTime file format as the basis of the MPEG-4 Part 14 (.mp4) container standard. By 2000, it became an industry standard, first appearing in QuickTime 6 in 2002. Accordingly, the MPEG-4 container is designed to capture, edit, archive, and distribute media, unlike the simple file-as-stream approach of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2."

I believe this text relates to the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard, not "QuickTime". MPEG-4 Part 14 is indeed built around the foundation of QuickTime, but I believe QuickTime is still proprietary. QuickTime stores audio differently from the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard (the open one). If it stores the AAC stream differently, it does not conform to the standard and is thus proprietary. Feel free to look around at Doom9 or in the specs for MPEG-4 for more. But until you can show me that QuickTime sticks to the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard, that Wikipedia quote needs to be changed.

So, Apple is "open" right? :D

BTW, Apple Lossless doesn't conform to MPEG-4 ALS. You know, that standard open format. ;)

Chris

Once you wrap the content in a "DRM system" it no longer falls under the "standard" that the audio/video is in. It's encryped, it's proprietary, and Apple doesn't license it. Try and play it back in an application or device that support the "file format" and see how far that gets you.


Chris, I think it is really quite simple: DRM is to restrict people from copying a file, while a "standard" is to promote universal application. They are two different things.


I believe this text relates to the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard, not "QuickTime". MPEG-4 Part 14 is indeed built around the foundation of QuickTime, but I believe QuickTime is still proprietary. QuickTime stores audio differently from the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard (the open one). If it stores the AAC stream differently, it does not conform to the standard and is thus proprietary. Feel free to look around at Doom9 or in the specs for MPEG-4 for more. But until you can show me that QuickTime sticks to the MPEG-4 Part 14 standard, that Wikipedia quote needs to be changed.

Chris, I sincerely mean you no offense, but could you explain to me why I should believe you rather than Wikipedia? All I know about you is that whenever anyone mentions WMC, you suddenly pop in here. How about this - since you claim Wikipedia is wrong, why don't you provide some evidence that what you are saying is correct?

...but I believe QuickTime is still proprietary.Sure. Quicktime is license protected software. It isn't a format. Nothing wrong with Apple having a proprietary system to manage its audio and video technology. Mac OS X isn't linux. Quicktime is one of those technologies Apple builds upon its open source base to offer added value and it's unique UI. This discussion needn't devolve into a spitting match about Apple's choice of OS architecture.

Quicktime can store content in a wide variety of formats, several of which are open formats. There isn't any rational debate about that.

And the arguments against Fairplay are irrelevant, as without it, Apple would not have the iTS. We need not continually re-argue the same points about DRM. AAC is an industry standard, whether it is wrapped in DRM or not. At least it isn't proprietary like WMA.

Rumor is Apple may buy or work with Miglia for their tuner DVR functions and incorporate that into the USB port on the ATV. So, rumor then theorizes, you can use the Miglia HD+ dongle to DVR HD, OTA, QAM, etc, store on your main mac and then stream to the ATV.

I'm all for the ATV if HD and recording OTA HD was more easily accessible. I may get a mini, or wait and watch the ATV hacking. Shame the PS3 I have is useless in that regards.

Chris, I think it is really quite simple: DRM is to restrict people from copying a file, while a "standard" is to promote universal application. They are two different things.

I don't think it is, and it clearly shows that you don't know the difference or what's out there. You do know there are about half a dozen "standards-based" DRM systems, don't you? Apple and Microsoft are far from the only ones in the game.

Chris, I sincerely mean you no offense, but could you explain to me why I should believe you rather than Wikipedia? All I know about you is that whenever anyone mentions WMC, you suddenly pop in here. How about this - since you claim Wikipedia is wrong, why don't you provide some evidence that what you are saying is correct?

Fine. Search ISO for QuickTime. Notice that there are no standards at ISO that have the word QuickTime in them. Reason being, QuickTime is not a standard. You can also find that Apple also has no references in any ISO standard. Search here (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CombinedQueryResult.CombinedQueryResult?queryString=QuickTim e)

Now, notice that MPEG-4 Part 14 is a standard. Click here (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=38538) for the ISO page.

I also edited the Wikipedia entry to be more clear. You can also read the MPEG-4 Part 14 article on Wikipedia that says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14) "MPEG-4 Part 14 was based on Apple's QuickTime container format. Although MPEG-4 Part 14 still resembles the QuickTime format, it has been improved upon in many different ways." - That means QuickTime was the base of MPEG-4 Part 14, and now is different from QuickTime. QuickTime is not MPEG-4 Part 14, nor does it comply with the changes made in MPEG-4 Part 14. That means, QuickTime is not a ISO standard.

You can find out more about MPEG-4 Part 14 (including a note about QuickTime not being part of the standard) at Doom9 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62723)

Sure. Quicktime is license protected software. It isn't a format. Nothing wrong with Apple having a proprietary system to manage its audio and video technology. Mac OS X isn't linux. Quicktime is one of those technologies Apple builds upon its open source base to offer added value and it's unique UI. This discussion needn't devolve into a spitting match about Apple's choice of OS architecture.

Man, you Apple guys need to stop believing everything Apple says and do some research. QuickTime sure is a file format, it's a container format! Yes, it's also the name of a application. However, it's also the name of a container format used and developed by Apple. Notice that it's specs are not published on the web, that's because it's a proprietary formats.



Quicktime can store content in a wide variety of formats, several of which are open formats. There isn't any rational debate about that.

Yes, we call this a container format. You just said above that "It isn't a format". Which one is it?? I can tell you that QuickTime the application doesn't store any content, it plays it back (just FYI).


And the arguments against Fairplay are irrelevant, as without it, Apple would not have the iTS. We need not continually re-argue the same points about DRM.

AAC is a standard, but if you notice it's not sold as one. I can't buy a track off the iTunes Store and get a file that conforms to the format. This is completely relevent as Further replied to shanewalker saying "The iTunes store, for example, uses the AAC format, which is not an Apple standard, but a standard of the MPEG."

I'm saying that because Apple wraps Fairplay around AAC, it no longer fits the standard that is AAC. That's a fact. Looks at the specs for AAC and show me the Fairplay DRM previsions. I give you a head start, there aren't any. AAC+Fairplay doesn't equal a standard. The point of a standard is so it can be played/viewed in any device that supports the standard. This is not true with AAC+Fairplay tracks from the iTunes Store.

AAC is an industry standard, whether it is wrapped in DRM or not. At least it isn't proprietary like WMA.

Yes, AAC is. But not AAC+Fairplay!

And too bad Apple Lossless is "proprietary like WMA". Same goes for the QuickTime container. :(

I'm no supporter of WMA or Microsoft's un-needed formats, but to think that Apple is fair and open is ignoring the facts. QuickTime is proprietary. Apple Lossless is proprietary. AAC+Fairplay (meaning, anything purcahsed from the iTunes Store) is proprietary. If they sold just AAC, it would be open. However, they don't.

Chris

Man, you Apple guys need to stop believing everything Apple says and do some research. QuickTime sure is a file format, it's a container format! Yes, it's also the name of a application. However, it's also the name of a container format used and developed by Apple. Notice that it's specs are not published on the web, that's because it's a proprietary formats.I'd take your own advice and do some research. Your arguments are illogical as you confuse the word "quicktime" for the multiple meanings that Apple has for it. Until you understand the technology, it is useless to converse with you, as it will inevitabley devolve into an argument.

AAC is a standard, but if you notice it's not sold as one ... I'm saying that because Apple wraps Fairplay around AAC, it no longer fits the standard that is AAC. That's a fact.No, it's your misinformed opinion. You are wildly misguided about what applying DRM to an open standard file format does. The DRM does nothing to change the AAC container. It just wraps it in the DRM.

Yeah, to bad Apple Lossless is "proprietary like WMA". Apple does not wrap DRM around ALE, nor does it attempt to sell it to the consumer. There is nothing wrong with any company having an internal proprietary file format for use by the end consumer. Don't like ALE, use AIFF. Don't like AIFF, use the lossless encoder of your choice with whatever software you want. Don't like Apple's choices of supported file formats, find another OS vendor.

QuickTime is proprietary.Again you are confusing a technology with a format with an application. There's no use trying to converse with you if you can't be clearer about what your argument is. All you come off as is "Apple is proprietary, and that sucks." So what? That's just your blustery opinion based on confusing the issue to suit your ends... which I'm not really sure what they are. Arguing for arguments sake? You're not impressing anyone here.

Man, you Apple guys need to stop believing everything Apple says and do some research.



Chris

I never understood this. A non Apple user, most times, mac-hater, comes to a mac SPECIFIC thread and then bashes Apple or it's users. Why? What seriously is the point to not only bash but to stereotype? I could throw out quite a few truthful stereotypes about pc users but that's immature and doesn't add to the thread. Please keep your personal prejudices as such, personal. Contribute your opinion/fact/thoughts to the discussion, not your distain for a platform user group or computer maker.

Chris, I have nothing else to say to you about this discussion. However, I will say that I find it very sad that we cannot have the freedom to discuss our own operating system and the programs and technologies in it without having someone from the "other side" come in and tell us that we are wrong.

Clearly, WMC means a great deal to you. OK. But is it really necessary for you to act as "policeman" and step in whenever someone writes something you think is untrue about WMC?

Why can't you have your space and we have ours? Isn't that the whole idea in dividing these forums into special interest groups?

Whenever you have come here, it has been to argue. Can't you just leave us in peace?

I'd take your own advice and do some research. Your arguments are illogical as you confuse the word "quicktime" for the multiple meanings that Apple has for it. Until you understand the technology, it is useless to converse with you, as it will inevitabley devolve into an argument.

QuickTime is both a format and an application. Am I wrong here? We are talking format, a container format to be exact. You were the only one to bring the application into the thread.


No, it's your misinformed opinion. You are wildly misguided about what applying DRM to an open standard file format does. The DRM does nothing to change the AAC container. It just wraps it in the DRM.

I'll accept that when you show me that AAC+Fairplay is a standard, as has been said in this thread. The fact is, AAC+Fairplay is not a standard. Prove me wrong, please. To comply with a standard, it must be able to be decoded by applications and devices that have a complient decoder. AAC+Fairplay is not this.

Again, show me how I'm wrong. Please.


Apple does not wrap DRM around ALE, nor does it attempt to sell it to the consumer.

I never said anything about DRM+Apple Lossless, please don't put words in peoples mouth. I said Apple Lossless does not comply with the MPEG-4 standard for lossless audio. That's a fact.


There is nothing wrong with any company having an internal proprietary file format for use by the end consumer. Don't like ALE, use AIFF. Don't like AIFF, use the lossless encoder of your choice with whatever software you want. Don't like Apple's choices of supported file formats, find another OS vendor.


I'm nor saying that there is anything wrong with it. There was a post in this thread that Apple uses open standard formats, this is incorrect. I corrected it and provided proff. Again, don't bring statements in that were never talked about.


Again you are confusing a technology with a format with an application. There's no use trying to converse with you if you can't be clearer about what your argument is. All you come off as is "Apple is proprietary, and that sucks." So what? That's just your blustery opinion based on confusing the issue to suit your ends... which I'm not really sure what they are. Arguing for arguments sake? You're not impressing anyone here.

Again, we are talking about the file format. How many times must you bring off-topic application talk in? We are not talking about QuickTime the application!! No one was at all. We are talking about QuickTime the container, which is a non-ISO standard proprietary container format. Please prove this wrong instead of changing the topic to something no one is talking about.

Chris

I never understood this. A non Apple user, most times, mac-hater, comes to a mac SPECIFIC thread and then bashes Apple or it's users. Why? What seriously is the point to not only bash but to stereotype? I could throw out quite a few truthful stereotypes about pc users but that's immature and doesn't add to the thread. Please keep your personal prejudices as such, personal. Contribute your opinion/fact/thoughts to the discussion, not your distain for a platform user group or computer maker.

I'm not a Mac hater, but I do believe people should be presented with correct informaiton. There is incorrect information in this thread. I corrected it, provided sources to back it up.

I will buy a Mac when Apple updates the Mini's to my liking.

Chris

I think this has gone far enough. Apologies to the OP.

Thread closed.