David Pogue Reviews the Apple TV

necro81 writes "David Pogue of the NY Times has devoted his weekly column to the newly released Apple TV. He also has a video blurb to go with it. He compares it to the XBox360 and Netgear's EVA8000, which also deliver content traditionally trapped in a PC onto a TV set. Apple TV Pros: setup is as easy as can be, it's small and silent form factor will be good for home theaters, and the interface and remote control are intuitive. Cons: HDTV only, playback is limited to formats playable within iTunes, and no internet functionality other than movie trailers."

Comments

Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Already trademarked as the eye TV, I understand. I believe that this is the product that holds that trademark: http://www.elgato.com/

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[Kyeetza]

it's also a British network of television stations. http://www.itv.com/ Besides that, when Jobs debuted the product, he said that "iTV" was only a developmental code name until they released it.

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[HaeMaker]

Didn't stop them with iPhone.

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Yeah, but the British TV station has nothing to do with the trademark issues.

What makes these trademark shenanigans all the more peculiar is that at the same MacWorld show this week Apple introduced another product called Apple TV, which it first demonstrated last year under the name iTV. ... Well, it turned out that Elgato Systems makes a product called EyeTV (pronounced "iTV" obviously), which is a line of Macintosh video capture devices -- some with tuners -- so Apple backed off and changed the product name to Apple TV.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_200 70111_001476.html

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Didn't stop them with iPhone. True, but I would bet that move cost them a lot of money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#Trademark_disp ute

I guess that in their cost benefit analysis and corporate negotiations with Cisco they found a way to make it pay off, but the iTV fight was not worth the price...

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[slim-t]

I just wish they would have made http://www.apple.com/itv/ redirect to http://www.apple.com/appletv/. Would have saved me a few seconds in decided I didn't want it.

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[macron1]

apple makes a TV????

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[TheRaven64]

There is a big difference. Cisco doesn't make many (any?) products directly aimed at the Mac market, and so doesn't provide much added value to Apple. Elgato primarily focusses on the Mac market, and is respected amongst Mac users.

Pissing off Cisco costs them nothing. Pissing off Elgato costs them goodwill from some Mac users and may cost them a supplier if they cause Elgato to re-focus on non-Mac platforms.

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[cortense]

My understanding (and I know I read this somewhere, but I can't find it now...) of this issue is that Cisco (though the device is Linksys branded) was required to produce a device called the "iPhone" within a certain amount of time in order to defend their trademark. However, they didn't do this and as a result, the trademark lapsed into a sort of gray area, where it's ownership was unclear. There's a little bit about the settlement here.

Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordings

[haplo21112]

Until then its not a very useful piece of equipment to me.

Not quite

[Hawthorne01]

It will play on 480i, you just need component video to do it.

Re:Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but the 480i mode is 16:9 only. If you don't have a 16:9 TV, or one of the 4:3 ones with a "squeeze" mode, everything will look wrong.

Re:Not quite

[Kyeetza]

If you have a 4:3 tv, you'll also need component inputs. I'm not a big tv person, so I don't know if newer 4:3 TV sets have component inputs, but I know older ones (i.e. - mine) certainly do not. This might be the excuse I need to get that 1080p 42" westinghouse that I've been salivating over.

Re:Not quite

[amper]

I've got a Sony KV-32FS100 that I bought about 4.5 years ago that has both squeeze and component (even supports 480p). I'd like to get an Apple TV, but it supposedly doesn't work with all 480i and 480p sets.

Re:Not quite

[greed]

I've got two relatively cheap 4:3 SDTV sets, both with 480i component in. One's a Toshiba 14", and the other is an LG 20". They're not old, less than 4 years or so. The LG does not have S-Video, the only "decent" video you can feed it from DVD or a game console is 480i component.

The Toshiba, being the cheaper of the two, does have a "16:9" squeeze mode, which compresses the vertical scan range. I don't remember if the LG can do it.

Not that I see any use for the Apple TV; it's too limited. I might as well just use a video iPod or my AVOX Jukebox hard-disk enclosure.

Re:Not quite

[ncc74656]

I'm not a big tv person, so I don't know if newer 4:3 TV sets have component inputs, but I know older ones (i.e. - mine) certainly do not.

I have a 27" flat-tube Akai that I bought back in 2002 or 2003 that has a 480i component input. It also has a "squeeze" mode that displays widescreen sources at full resolution.

hacked

[jamienk]

AppleTV can now play Xvid -- http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s= &threadid=2391956

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

That is a lot of crap to do just to support a non-DRM encrusted format. The blurb even said you need QT Pro, which means more money for Apple to just play a file. No thanks, I will stick to MythTV.

Re:hacked

[ocelotbob]

The AppleTV's been out for 1 day, obviously the hacks at this point are at the quick and dirty level. If you fully RTFA, you'll learn that they're working on ways to streamline the process, and should have something a lot nicer soon.

Re:hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact it is not a "hack", it is basically installing a Quicktime Codec to OS X based system. It is the most legit, hassle free way of getting your media to play on Mac systems.

Re:hacked

[jspayne]

Mod Parent: +1 - more interesting that the lame review

Re:hacked

[Kyeetza]

Instead of going through all that hassell, you could just use Visualhub http://www.techspansion.com/visualhub/.com/ to convert it to an .h264 file that would be of equal or greater quality while keeping the file size the same or lower depending on the settings you use. The downside - it's OS X only, but it's the best $23 I ever spent.

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

While as a geek I think it is cool to hack the hardware to offer more features, I don't think you should have to do that for a device you pay for to just watch some content that you record. Xvid is open, so there is no reason for Apple to not at least include Xvid playback support. The only thing I can think of is that Apple wants the AppleTV to be nothing more than a player for iTMS content. If that is the case, then no thanks.

Re:hacked

[jedidiah]

Let's see what's the worse hassle...

      Upgrading an embedded MacOS install so that it has a respectable set of video decoders?

      or

      Re-Transcoding thousands of hours of video content?

How long do you think it will be by the time this thing chews through my 2.5TB of videos?

Re:hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I can think of is that Apple wants the AppleTV to be nothing more than a player for iTMS content. If that is the case, then no thanks.

FUD. You are just using Slashdotters' desire for multiple and open formats to perpetuate the FUD that Apple devices only play Apple contents.

Yeah, Apple should support more formats (both audio and video). No argument there. However restricting it to MP-4 and H.264 does not mean it only supports iTMS content only (FWIW, there is no iTMS anymore. It's iTunes Store now). You can create your own MP4 and H.264 files without DRMs and use them with [Apple]TV. You can use QuickTime to export videos for [Apple]TV or use Handbrake to convert your DVDs to H.264.

Re:hacked

[Kyeetza]

I was talking about the hassle of opening up your $300 apple tv and writing scripts. Not everyone feels comfortable prying open their expensive toys (I guess /. isn't the right place to make that assumption). As for conversion times, yes it would take awhile, for me it's worth the disk space that using .h264 gives you. I have a mac mini (1.66ghz) - the slowest mac currently available. Visual hub converted a 1GB xvid file in around 5 hours or so. Much faster than exporting with Quicktime and if you have a MBP or a Mac Pro, it'll chew through your video collection in no time. IMO, it's not much of a hassle since visualhub is a 'set it and forget' kind of app. Also, converting vids to .mp4 file with Visualhub, or it's free cousin iSquint ensures that you can view them on your iPod, which you cannot do with an xvid file. But to each their own I guess......

Re:hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

So the problem isn't codec support on the AppleTV, its your bad decision as to what format you've recorded your videos.

If you had a huge library of beta tapes, you'd be in the same situation.

If you get started now, you'll have everything transcoded to h.264 in no time :)

And the captcha is...transfer....

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

Xvid is open, so there is no reason for Apple to not at least include Xvid playback support.

It already does. I have hundreds of XviD-encoded videos, all of which I am confident will play on AppleTV. They already play in iTunes and on the iPod. How is this possible? Easy. I just chose not to encode them with non-standard features, and not stick them in non-standard formats like AVI or MKV.

I don't think anyone should have to compensate for the fact that open source projects don't devote much energy to making it easy to produce widely-compatable videos. For example, mencoder defaults to using AVI, no matter what codecs you've chosen, and only mplayer will play such files.

I think a stronger case could be made for them to try to support Windows Media -- at least there's a reason for so much content to exist in that format.

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

How long do you think it will be by the time this thing chews through my 2.5TB of videos?

Just out of curiosity, what format is that in? Or is it just thoroughly mixed?

Re:hacked

[Karlt1]

"That is a lot of crap to do just to support a non-DRM encrusted format. The blurb even said you need QT Pro, which means more money for Apple to just play a file. No thanks, I will stick to MythTV."

How in the world is this marked "insightful"? There is so much misinformation in those two sentences its ridiculous.

1. The AppleTV plays MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless, Mpeg4 and H.264 all non DRMd formats.
2. You don't need Quicktime Pro for any AppleTV functionality. You can use Handbrake (free open source software available for Windows, Macs, and Linux) to rip DVDs to either MPEG or H.264
3. You don't even need QTPro to re-encode into an AppleTV format. There are plenty of free tools that can convert from Divx to Mpeg. If you're using a Mac, you download the codecs for QT, and you import the Divx movie into iTunes (Movie2Itunes) and then choose the "Convert to iPod format.

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

That is a lot of crap to do just to support a non-DRM encrusted format.

AppleTV plays plenty of non-DRMed formats. To pretend otherwise marks you as a dick.

The blurb even said you need QT Pro, which means more money for Apple to just play a file.

In reality, you don't need QuickTIme Pro at all. So what if the 0-day hack says it does? It's just the method they used. Hell, they used a 3rd-party SSH server because they didn't know how to enable SSH, not because it's not possible to do so.

No thanks, I will stick to MythTV.

If you've already got a solution, why are you even bothering to post? If people were banging at your door begging you to switch, maybe it would make sense to complain, but as it stands, they're not, and you don't have much reason to be complaining. "Insightful", my ass -- you're just bitching.

Re:hacked

[ronocdh]

How in the world is this marked "insightful"? There is so much misinformation in those two sentences its ridiculous.

1. The AppleTV plays MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless, Mpeg4 and H.264 all non DRMd formats.

How were you marked "informative"? Does the AppleTV play FLAC? Because Quicktime sure doesn't. Ogg Vorbis files? Not without plugins from Xiph. It also doesn't play Xvid, an open format, which the GP was (IMO rightfully) griping about.

There's no excuse to exclude these open source formats unless Apple is trying to maintain utter control over the information being swapped between their products. I'm not trolling here; I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro. But I think it's pretty universal knowledge the Apple loves closed systems. This is just another realization of that.

Re:hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, like how not supporting Ogg has really hurt the iPod's acceptance in the marketplace.

And the Apple TV plays anything that can be played in iTunes or more correctly quicktime, not just DRMed crap. mpegs, .mov, etc.

Re:hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

You can create your own MP4 and H.264 files without DRMs and use them with [Apple]TV. You can use QuickTime to export videos for [Apple]TV Not for free. The free version of Quicktime cannot export videos (H.264) to Apple TV. You'll need Quicktime Pro to do that. The "export video for Apple TV" feature is a $30 "option" and doesn't come with Apple TV by default.

You can also use a free, but less user-friendly, open source app that uses x264.

or use Handbrake to convert your DVDs to H.264. Illegally?

Re:hacked

[blackest_k]

please it is obvious that Apple and the content owners want to sell content, sales which would be impacted by freely available divx. Sure you can convert formats but wouldnt you rather just buy media in a compatible format.

won't be long before compatable formats are also freely available - if the device sells well

Re:hacked

[Karlt1]

"How were you marked "informative"? Does the AppleTV play FLAC? Because Quicktime sure doesn't. Ogg Vorbis files? Not without plugins from Xiph. It also doesn't play Xvid, an open format, which the GP was (IMO rightfully) griping about."

He said DRM'd format. Since when did any of the previously mentioned formats have any types of digital rights management? All of those formats are documented standards, There's a difference between a licensed format and a DRM'd format. Why bother supporting formats that no one outside of a few Slashdot geeks care about?

"There's no excuse to exclude these open source formats unless Apple is trying to maintain utter control over the information being swapped between their products."

Apple doesn't control any of the formats listed except for Apple Lossless. What type of closed format is the Apple TV? It has already been shown to be running a slightly stripped down version of MacOS X (which has a BSD core), on a standard 2.5 inch hard drive, formatted as HPFS+ and a simple username and password of frontrow/frontrow. Apple didn't go through any measures to try to keep this box from bing hacked.

"I'm not trolling here; I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro. But I think it's pretty universal knowledge the Apple loves closed systems. This is just another realization of that."

Because they don't support formats that no one cares about and focuses on the most popular formats (MP3 and MPEG) makes them a closed system? Why wouldn't Apple rather support a free format instead of one for which they had to pay license feed if it made business sense to do so?

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

I think a stronger case could be made for them to try to support Windows Media -- at least there's a reason for so much content to exist in that format.

Huh? And what reason is that? To give more money to Microsoft? No thanks. MS Windows Media sucks. It is MS Windows only. I tried to get it to play on Linux and OS X. The Flip4Mac stuff sucks on my two Intel based Macs. It constantly would hang or crash so I go rid of Flip4Mac. Just try to play some DRM-encrusted wmv on Mac or Linux, it won't work. So why in the world would I want an AppleTV to support more DRMed crap? Apple puts enough DRM crap in AppleTV, please don't add Microsoft's DRM crap on top of it.

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

And QuickTime doesn't support much OTB. I have a DivX file and an Xvid file. QuickTime wouldn't play them OTB, which means AppleTV won't play them either. Unless, of course you want to void your warranty and "hack" the AppleTV.

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

You can use Handbrake (free open source software available for Windows, Macs, and Linux) to rip DVDs to either MPEG or H.264

Uh, MPEG uses up way to much space. The AppleTV has a very small HD, way too small IMO. H.264 under QuickTime sucks. It uses up way too much CPU and can be jerky. I personally want DivX or Xvid. That is why I don't think the AppleTV is a good product. Why do you Apple fanboi's run around trying to "damage control" when someone says they do not like an Apple product? Should every human in the world love Apple and all of their products?

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

I thought Apple products "just work". If that is the case then why the need for a "hack"? Oh, and I also thought Apple products were targeted at the average user? How in the world would an average user be able to do this "hack"?

Take off your Steve-Jobs-Blinders(tm) and get a grip. Everything Apple does is not perfect. People can have an opinion about Apple products.

Why did I post? Well I live in a free country and I and just expressing my opinion. If you don't like it than too bad. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I know you get a woody for Steve Jobs.

you're just bitching.

So giving an opinion about the lack of features in an Apple product is "bitching" while giving an opinion about the lack of features in an MS product is "insightful"? Geez, anyone with 3 brain cells can see right through you Apple fanboi's.

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

Huh? And what reason is that? To give more money to Microsoft? [then lots of blathering that has nothing to do with anything that I said]

You're being obtuse. I was saying that at least with Windows Media, the fact that it's got a massive installed base at least justifies the existence of so much content in that format, which in turn is a decent argument for supporting it. I didn't say anything about DRM. At the very least, it's a better argument that saying that anyone should go out of their way to support dozens of non-standard formats instead. To be clear: I don't think there's any reason for AppleTV to support either.

I'd also like to point out that you said nothing about the main idea expressed in my post -- that XviD is already supported if the encoder is responsible enough to use well-supported standards.

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

Re-read your post and think about why you might come off as "bitching" rather than just stating your opinion. Nothing in your post relates to anything I said in mine. You're clearly not interested in it, and yet you're replying to it. You're making assumptions about my character based on...what exactly? You're the one bringing up Steve Jobs and "just works" and bizarre notions about Apple being infallible. I didn't say anything about any of that. You're making mock apologies about hurting my feelings -- feelings? What does that have to do with this? And something about Microsoft? Brain cells? What are you even talking about?

Re:hacked

[Karlt1]

"Uh, MPEG uses up way to much space. The AppleTV has a very small HD, way too small IMO."

It's not meant to hold all of your media. It's meant as a streaming device.

" H.264 under QuickTime sucks. It uses up way too much CPU and can be jerky."

Do you really think that any company is crazy enough to put out a dedicated device that can't handle one of the only two video codecs it supports well? What difference does CPU utilization make on a dedicated device?

" I personally want DivX or Xvid. That is why I don't think the AppleTV is a good product. "

That's your choice, but how much more of the market would Apple get by supporting Divx?

"Why do you Apple fanboi's run around trying to "damage control" when someone says they do not like an Apple product?"

It wasn't about "not liking" the device. I don't like the device either. I have a Mac Mini connected to my HDTV. The original poster said that the AppleTV only supported DRM encumbered formats. He was mistaken. MP3, AAC, MPEG, H.264, WAV, Apple Lossless, and AIFF are not DRM encumbered. All of those formats except for Apple Lossless are publically documented, licensed standards.

"Should every human in the world love Apple and all of their products?"

No one said anything about "liking" the format except for you. The original poster made a factual claim that was incorrect.

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

That's your choice, but how much more of the market would Apple get by supporting Divx?

Are you serious? How many people out there that would even be interested in a device like this use DRM encrusted formats vs. DivX/Xvid? Just look to P2P/Usenet for the answer. How many posts items on P2P/Usenet do you see that use DRm encrusted wmv or DRM encrusted m4v? I can tell you the answer, none. How many users encode the DVD's that they bought to DRM encrusted wmv or DRM encrusted m4v? I hope the answer is none, I know I do not.

Streaming MPEG/H.264 across a regular wireless connection sucks. I tried to watch a TV show I bought from iTMS on my Intel iMac streaming to my Intel Macbook over a wireless connection. It was choppy as h-e-double-hockey-sticks with a perfect Wireless G connection. MPEG is to large, and H.264 just uses too much CPU, at least on the two recent Intel Mac's that I have bought over the last 4 months.

Re:hacked

[Karlt1]

"Are you serious? How many people out there that would even be interested in a device like this use DRM encrusted formats vs. DivX/Xvid? Just look to P2P/Usenet for the answer. How many posts items on P2P/Usenet do you see that use DRm encrusted wmv or DRM encrusted m4v? I can tell you the answer, none. How many users encode the DVD's that they bought to DRM encrusted wmv or DRM encrusted m4v? I hope the answer is none, I know I do not. "

Are you just pretending to be dense? The AppleTV supports regular non DRM'd MPEG and H.264. You load Handbrake -- free open source software available for Macs, Windows and Linux -- you insert your DVD and you press convert. You then have a regular old non DRM'd MPEG or H.264 file.

Re:hacked

[elrous0]

So all I have to do is convert my hundreds of divx and xvid files to one of the only 2 video formats that Apple TV can play, and I'm in?!?! Wow, who WOULDN'T spend $299 for that?

Re:hacked

[elrous0]

Because they don't support formats that no one cares about

Yes, because no one cares about divx and xvid--easily the two most popular video formats on the internet.

Re:hacked

[jedidiah]

You need to be beaten by a big CLUE BAT and then beaten some more.

Do you have any clue how long it takes to transcode into h.264?

That was the WHOLE POINT of my original rant.

Technologically clueless idiot!

Re:hacked

[jedidiah]

MPEG2 & DivX.

I have lots of DVD's (iso and vobs) that I would love to transcode into h.264 while still maintaining the structure and extra streams in the vobs. A realtime h.264 transcoder would effectively quadruple my storage capacity.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[heinousjay]

No problem. I'll need your phone number, of course, and just to be safe your home address, social security number, mother's maiden name and place of employment. Wouldn't want to miss notifying you.

HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[stratjakt]

Moronic. Turns out it's not that much more useful than my Xbox 360, and infinitely less useful than a hacked xbox media center.

I mean OH MY GOD APPLE I LOVE THIS YOU HAVE REINVENTED MY TV! It now has YOUR STORE ATTACHED TO IT!

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[badboy_tw2002]

Wait, you're saying its more useful than the 360, which pretty much does everything the AppleTV does as a secondary feature. Hopefully the AppleTV will "also play games" as well as the Xbox "also streams video" to be worth $300.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It didn't take long for someone to start bashing Apple or mock its users. Jeez..

Besides Apple TV seems to be easily modifiable (Probably more so than your xbox media center).

Anyway, Apple delivers a product that works AS ADVERTISED. Nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you need DVR, Tivo has a product for you.

Or just maybe, you can have a media server in another room and just use the Apple TV to view the content remotely (and without the noise of cooling fans). I think it works out of the box this way (just import your video into iTunes).

I'm sure a neat hack is coming real soon that will provide more features. I know I may get one just to play with and try to merge it with elgato's eyeTV.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[FuckTheModerators]

...infinitely less useful than a hacked xbox media center...

Damn straight. Mod parent up.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[stratjakt]

I should have qualified "no more useful than 360 wrt video"

I also should have noted that the 360 costs just as much. And the hard drive on the appletv isn't much bigger, 40 gig isn't much when you're talking HDTV movies at 7-9 gigs-ish each (based on my 360 marketplace experience).

Also, Apple doesn't say (they never do... PART OF THEIR HIP MYSTIQUE!!). I see one single lonely USB port on the back. Can that be to attach storage, or just for iPod syncing? I know I stuck a fat-formatted 80 gig usb drive filled with wmv files into my 360 and they play fine. The wmv-only is my only gripe with the 360 (its a big one, though).

Are you supposed to have all your purchased video on your Mac (sold seperately), and leave it running non-stop?

They way underdelivered here. I mean, REINVENTED HOW I WATCH TV.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Sorry, but no, 480i is not HDTV, even if it is in component video form. The connector type doesn't define whether it is HD.

I had an SDTV that I bought in 2000 had 480i component, and that TV was not capable of progressive or HD video.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[bestinshow]

Take AppleTV. Take out 40GB hard drive. Image onto 160GB hard drive. Put 160GB into Apple TV. Kappow, extra storage space.
Whilst the drive is out you can also install a SSH server so you can get access to the filesystem. The username/password on the AppleTV is frontrow/frontrow. I guess you could install Apache or Postgresql or whatever here as well, assuming the BSD layer is intact. People are working on getting the USB port fully active, and remote desktop active.
And via the SSH server you can install divx/xvid codecs into Quicktime on the AppleTV to support this common video format for backups (of DVDs, or Cinema showings, hehe).

It'll kill your warranty though. But it's looking to be a very hackable consumer BSD box right now...

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Dirk Pitt]

OP was responding to this part of the story summary:

"Cons: HDTV only"

He's saying that the Apple TV will support *normal def* with component, it already supports 720P out-of-the-box.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Thrudheim]

infinitely less useful than a hacked xbox media center

For you, that's probably true at this point in time, but the very fact that you have a hacked xbox media center and are reading Slashdot puts you out on the fringe of the target market. Apple is very good at delivering products that non-techies can use, and it turns out that there are a lot of non-techies out there.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Overly Critical Guy]

The 360 is a gigantic, noisy Windows PC designed to spread the Win32 monopoly into the living room. The Apple TV is a tiny, silent iTunes streaming device. I'll take the Apple TV.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[shipbrick]

To turn the 360 into a useful media center use this program http://www.tversity.com/. It takes a little bit of effort to set up, i.e. must have codecs and such (install help - http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1002/playing_div x_and_xvid_content_on_xbox_360_an_easy_guide/index .html), . It runs on a networked PC and transcodes, on the fly, various video formats from your PC (including xvid) into wmv so the 360 will play them (assuming the 360 has a reasonably recent firmware update). It does what I thought the 360 should have done out of the box. After getting this working on my 360, I have since canceled my cable.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[stratjakt]

I've tried tversity. It's ok, some video I threw at it froze it up, making me go downstairs to restart it - I could weed out those bad files though.

You still cant seek, fast forward or rewind anything but wmv. That sucks, but if you just want to watch a movie "theater style", I guess it's better than nothing.

I'd be happier when (if) it gets ported to linux, and I could run it as a service. I don't leave my desktop on all the time.

I'd be happiest if MSFT just let you playback divx/xvid. Hell, I'd be happy if it could stream MPEG2-TS from a windows PC (it can from Media Center, but not XP?), it'd be trivial to set up a system to download tivo recordings, peel off the DRM, and watch it on the 360.

I've got a few xboxes, used ones are cheap. I'll mod those and stick them on all my TVs, they do everything I want - too weak to playback past 720p, but I'll live.

XBox live marketplace is my go-to for HD content though, I'm finding it pretty convenient and easy to use. I'm pretty interested to see what they do with IPTV as well.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[JimDaGeek]

And do you really think your average user could do all that? Nope. On the AppleTV site, Apple quotes:

Apple TV is "for people who are yearning for a simple way to show on their big TVs all that stuff trapped on their computers."

Your suggestion doesn't sound simple enough for Joe User.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[geekoid]

You bring up some good points, but then you bring up some unbelievally ignorant points.

"
Are you supposed to have all your purchased video on your Mac (sold seperately), and leave it running non-stop?"

Works with PC's as well. They ahve been very clear about that.

It is designed to stream content, not long term storage of content. I will make a prediction here: future version will have a larger HD...I know, it's a freaking revelation.

It also plays anything you can import into iTunes.
This is a minor issue for me. It's nice I can use iTunes, but I would like to be able to select other places on my PC's HD.

Far less of a problem then wmv only.

Sure, the way underdeliverade for you. Not for me. I won't buy one for at least a year, but I am considering getting one.

Since I'll never use wmv, MS way underdelivered.

The last appled computer I owned was the Apple IIc. I do own an iPod mini and an iPod shuffle(both gifts.), and I like iTunes.
I don't think I qualify as a fanboy...nor do I want to, about anything.

About the USB port: Just go click the USB port in the picture in the tech spec. page.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/connect.html

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Zhe Mappel]

I mean OH MY GOD APPLE I LOVE THIS YOU HAVE REINVENTED MY TV! It now has YOUR STORE ATTACHED TO IT!

Heh.

+5 Slavish Adoration In Face of Technical and Usability Deficiencies :-)

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[prockcore]

He's saying that the Apple TV will support *normal def* with component, it already supports 720P out-of-the-box.

It only supports 720p24. Broadcast HD is 720p60... you're looking at 1/3rd the framerate of current HD programming in the US.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[IvanTheNotSoBad]

Besides Apple TV seems to be easily modifiable (Probably more so than your xbox media center).

That comment makes me think you've never even seen xbox media center. Besides the fact that you can easily customize it a million ways, you don't need to modify it to play the files you need. It plays pretty much any file you throw at it. No need to convert avi, mpg, wmv, ra, divx, xvid, etc. to anything else. I definitely don't want to spend days converting all my files to quicktime.

I do have to admit getting XBMC in the first place is a hurdle in itself. But since you're waiting for a "neat hack" anyways maybe that's not such a big deal.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[rondeniable]

Sorry, I love linux as a server, i own 2 macs for work and i have a 360 and Media Center for home entertainment.

But this device is lame... With 360+Media Center i can:

Watch DVDs
Play some of the best games on the market.
Stream free pre-recorded content from my cable provider.
Stream free live recorded content from my cable provider.
Stream all my home photos and video over my home network.
Rent Movies and TV Shows on-demand.
Download free content all day such as game demo's and movie previews.
Oh and all this for 100$ more than this device..

Sorry i love apple but this device needs to come a long way still...

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[choppermcphee]

" The 360 is a gigantic, noisy Windows PC designed to spread the Win32 monopoly into the living room. The Apple TV is a tiny, silent iTunes streaming device. I'll take the Apple TV. " Out of all the thousands of opinions I've read in the last couple of days on the subject, those two sentences are perhaps the most succinct and relevant I've read. Well done sir.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[EggyToast]

Simple user doesn't care about video codes, XviD, or DRM either. They care about their iTunes stuff showing up on the telly. They don't have TB of video encoded in open source formats on their computer.

But for the "power user" who owns a mac at home and would enjoy more functionality out of something that syncs to iTunes, taking a hard drive out is nothing.

The big thing, to me, about Apple TV is the coordination with iTunes. If you don't use iTunes, then this thing is useless. Me, I use iTunes as essentially an IV into my music collection, and make it do all the work of randomly selecting and sorting things. Piping that into my stereo downstairs is huge, but not worth the $120 that Airport Express costs. But piping audio and video? That's a much bigger deal. Combine that with this apparent hackability, and the fact that you aren't limited by "simple" is great.

Simple isn't a limitation.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[shmlco]

"It is designed to stream content, not long term storage of content."

Uh, no. Think of the Apple TV as wireless iPod and you'll almost have it. Information is sync'ed between your Mac/PC and the AppleTV, and the sync'ed content is stored on the ATV.

Think of how you manage syncing content to a iPod nano and you'll have the concept nailed. As an example, the setting for movies is to sync the five most recent movies. They don't have to be completely sync'ed for you to start watching them, but they do have to be in your sync list.

The plus side is that your music, TV shows, and movies are there, on the ATV, for you to listen to and watch at any time, computer or not. The minus side is that, like the nano, there's some management involved.

And the later, IMHO, is why it's REALLY going to want a bigger hard drive.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[brunascle]

seconded. i hadnt really been paying attention to this thing, i just assumed it was a DVR, but it actually looks like it's just a media streaming device. even if it was a DVR, you're not gonna fit jack on 40GB. the 200GB in my DVR didnt last me long, even with compression. i plan on getting a 500 or 750, so i can leave the shows as mpeg2.

hmm

[mastershake_phd]

Right now my Xbox with Xbox Media Center is more functional than this. It will play just about anything. Including realmedia files inside of a rar.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It will play... realmedia files

that goes in the con column

Re:hmm

[astrosmash]

But it can't play iTunes playlists, which makes it useless to the apparently 110 million iTunes users out there.

Geeks have been hooking up their PCs to their home entertainment systems since the late 90s, so excuse my while I yawn at your XBox hack. But what we haven't seen yet is a successful product that does this for the average consumer in an elegant manner, which is why Apple TV is interesting. That is, to see how well it works and if it succeeds or not.

Re:hmm

[don_bear_wilkinson]

I seem to remember that some pr0n used to come in Realmedia format... maybe he has a large collection of 160x120 vids from way-back. :)

Re:hmm

[hansamurai]

I don't use iTunes but Xbox Media Center has no problem talking to iTunes.

Re:hmm

[Buran]

You can use an AirPort Express and a Y-adapter into your speakers for that.

Re:hmm

[slantyyz]

Yeah, sure it can. Let's see it play back an HD file (i.e., 720p or 1080i) without hiccups or spending hours re-encoding TS files.

XBMC is great (I retired my own XBMC once I got a 1080p TV), but get your fanboy head out of your ass and accept the fact that it has limitations once you move up into real HD.

Re:hmm

[BrowncoatJedi]

But what if you don't want an Xbox in your living room? I am an adult, not a child.

Re:hmm

[mastershake_phd]

Yeah, sure it can. Let's see it play back an HD file (i.e., 720p or 1080i) without hiccups or spending hours re-encoding TS files. XBMC is great (I retired my own XBMC once I got a 1080p TV), but get your fanboy head out of your ass and accept the fact that it has limitations once you move up into real HD.

Well I guess I will just have to wait for XBMC 360 for HDTV.

Re:hmm

[prockcore]

Let's see it play back an HD file (i.e., 720p or 1080i) without hiccups or spending hours re-encoding TS files.

AppleTV doesn't support 1080i either.. and its support for 720p is limited to 24fps.

Plus AppleTV only supports h.264, which has an excruciatingly slow encoder.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? There are adult gamers. Hell did you not see the recent articles about 80 year old women with Wiis!

I own an xbox and i'm 27 years old. My wife also likes playing console games although she won't touch the xbox. (mac user)

Re:hmm

[slantyyz]

Good points for an unhacked AppleTV, but given the hack news today, Apple TV should be able to support at least as much as XBMC in the near future.

I would say that the effort required to hack the AppleTV is significantly lower than a G1 XBOX as well. I tend to think that the GeForce Go 7300 can handle 1080i playback as well, especially if the GeForce 6600 go on my old notebook can.

Eh

[DogDude]

TV as we know it is a rapidly dying market. More than half of the people I know don't have an antenna/cable/satellite TV. I haven't had a "TV" for anything other than games and DVD's for 5+ years. The quality of the content on "TV" is consistently "lowest common denominator" and it's beyond absurd to pay for TV (cable or satellite), and then have to sit through advertisements.

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

how can you comment on the content of TV if you claim you haven't watched any in 5 yrs?

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately for advertisers, cable/satellite, and television companies, the "lowest common denominator" apparently has a very large constituency. Television viewership is still more than high enough for the business model to continue to sustain itself despite your anecdotal claims to the contrary. If anything, I'd bet that some channels of the absurdly priced cable packages like Discovery, History, etc have increased in viewership due to a larger quantity of entertaining (but still interesting) programming. Eh.

Re:Eh

[Paulrothrock]

Depending on how cheaply you can get your Internet access and how much TV you watch, buying a season pass on iTunes could wind up being cheaper than paying for cable.

Unfortunately for me, the only reliable broadband in my area is from Comcast, who charges you an extra $15/month for broadband if you don't get it bundled with their $15/month basic cable.

Re:Eh

[Luscious868]

TV as we know it is a rapidly dying market. More than half of the people I know don't have an antenna/cable/satellite TV. I haven't had a "TV" for anything other than games and DVD's for 5+ years. The quality of the content on "TV" is consistently "lowest common denominator" and it's beyond absurd to pay for TV (cable or satellite), and then have to sit through advertisements.

I've read about you!

Re:Eh

[Klaus_1250]

You underestimate the indecisiveness and laziness of people. TV will take a blow the next few years, but it won't be as catastrophic as some predict. And as long as people don't have 100mbps internet connections, IP-based solutions won't be to offer the same quality anyway.

Re:Eh

[prockcore]

Unfortunately for me, the only reliable broadband in my area is from Comcast, who charges you an extra $15/month for broadband if you don't get it bundled with their $15/month basic cable.

Cox is the same. The difference between Internet and Internet + Basic Cable TV is $3.

Re:Eh

[westlake]

TV as we know it is a rapidly dying market. More than half of the people I know don't have an antenna/cable/satellite TV

and I can't walk six blocks in any direction in this upper middle class sports-minded town without spotting a new satellite dish---which is probably feeding an equally new HDTV. the plural of anecdote is not data.

Re:Eh

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Weird. I gave up watching TV 20 years ago but over the last few years I've discovered Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Rome and a few other series and I suddenly think TV is worth watching again. And when I watch DVDs, they're often DVDs of TV shows. I think we're seeing the best TV in years.

Re:Eh

[toddestan]

I see them on at bars, friend's houses, waiting rooms, whatever. Whenever I do, it pretty much reconfirms why I don't bother with the TV.

I guess I spend too much time at work ....

[nbvb]

I saw "Netgear EVA8000" and thought of HP's midrange disk array.

I'm actually surprised that Netgear chose the name, since it's blatantly similar to this.

Re:I guess I spend too much time at work ....

[brunascle]

i thought of an EVGA 8800 gts.

Re:I guess I spend too much time at work ....

[dr.badass]

Netgear EVA8000

I thought it sounded a bit too much like "HAL 9000", myself. I don't know what that says about me, but I'll pretend to be proud of it.

Re:I guess I spend too much time at work ....

[RazorDaze]

Actually, it reminded me more of giant robots that defend Japan from Angels of destruction.

but does it run linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I mean is apple's implementation of linux (os x) under the hood... or could one install regular os x on it? It would make for a really cheep mac mini with HD video.

I could use a super cheap video editing station much more than an expensive portal to itunes....

Re:but does it run linux?

[CapnRob]

Gad. OS X is much, much, much closer to being an implementation of FreeBSD than it is an implementation of Linux.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[wizbit]

I was going to ignore, but I had to plug Myth2iPod. Singly the greatest hack I've seen come out of the MythTV community. And, it should work with AppleTV - AppleTV plays DivX content, and Myth will happily transcode to DivX. Setup a feed in iTunes, and fiddle with the encoding settings in myth2iPod (e.g., better quality, maybe encode to h.264) and leave iTunes running on a computer in the basement with a network share. Bingo, instant MythTV feed to AppleTV via iTunes and myth2iPod. And that's available *now*. I'm sure some Mac developer will come up with an even slicker solution - you can run the frontend on a Mac these days, after all.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[Hawthorne01]

Well, from reading some of the open-box reviews, it seems that it'll be easy to swap out the HD on it. Now, what that'll do to your OS, etc, God alone knows.

But in general, yes, I agree, DVR functionality is sorely needed, or at least a better, clearer way to turn, say, the iMac in my den into a DVR. I've been trying to sort out for a month what EyeTV/ Miglia add-on I need for my cable setup and which is the most compatible with AppleTV/iTunes. The door is WIDE open for 3rd party vendor to come charging thru on this.

What's the point?

[rizzo420]

i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv. i have a tivo that no only lets me play files off my computer, but also let's me record tv. what's the point of the apple tv (only 50 hours), which costs more than an 80 hour tivo with dual tuner that comes with a 1 year subscription? with my tivo, i can move movies to my computer (currently only windows, but possibly macos as well, i'm not sure), record tv on 2 stations at the same time, have a nice tv guide, watch movies from my computer on my tv, play music on my computer through my tv, show picture slideshows from my computer on my tv, download amazon unbox videos, and watch tivo casts that i get off the internet. what's the point of apple tv if it doesn't even do half of this, yet costs the same? i just don't get it.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

1) Cheaper because it has no subscription costs
2) Easier because it does less

Both of these points were very salient to the iPod's success. Apple expects them to be key drivers for the AppleTV as well.

Re:What's the point?

[Khuffie]

Because: http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.g if

Re:What's the point?

[stratjakt]

Dude.

It's Apple.

Whats the point of an iPod? What's the point of a mac? Whats the point of a Newton? Whats the point of Pippin? What's the point of Lisa? Whats the point of iPhone?

It's trendy. It's branded. Apple fans are loyal to the brand. They are itching to buy something with an Apple logo for their entertainment center.

Also I like tivo too, but it's not high def. Unless you bought a high def one, and those sure aren't cheaper than AppleTV. I've never used it's movie service, does it sell HD content to HD tivos? Not that I need it, I can get it on 360.

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

the tivo is cheaper if you don't pay for the subscription, which is not needed to record shows. you just need to know the time and date of what you want to do and you don't get the guide feature. tivo's interface is extremely easy to use.

i just don't see the point. there's other products out there (like tivo) that do a lot more. i just don't see the point in buying one.

Re:What's the point?

[varmittang]

Think of it this way. Here in NJ where I live I can get HDTV service with all the channels that I would need to be able to watch my show for about $100. Now, if I cancel my service I will save about $1000 dollars a year. These are very rounded number people. Take out a 300 dollars for the AppleTV and I have about $700 worth of iTunes TV content that I can purchase. Then the next year I will have $1000 of iTunes purchases that I can make. This is more than enough money to purchase the TV shows that I want to watch and also keep them for ever. That is what will drive people to the AppleTV over time, the ability to pick and choose the shows they want to watch and only pay for those shows. And also take them on their computer where ever they go and their iPods. To some, its really just simply purchasing only what they want to watch.

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

i don't know if unbox sells HD stuff to HD tivos. the HD tivo costs more, but it also does a whole lot more than apple tv and it holds 300 hours and records HD content off tv in HD.

i still don't see the point of apple tv.

Re:What's the point?

[jfengel]

Mostly this is Apple's way of leveraging the video capability of its iTMS out to your TV, exactly the way TiVo does for Amazon Unbox.

I'll admit I'm mystified why they didn't make it a general DVR at the same time. My best guess is that it's coming but that the software wasn't ready yet; Apple's got very high standards for such things. But I haven't heard any complaints from TiVo customers, and my limited experience with them has been pleasant.

On the other hand I've heard much bitching about Unbox. Maybe Apple felt that they could get ahead of that and make people prefer to download rather than record; they'd rather sell you Lost for $2 than record it for free. They're certainly being way forward-looking by aiming at HDTVs, but they're not selling HDTV content yet, so they seem to be premature or out of touch.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

I'm trying to answer your question, but you seem to keep misunderstanding.

What is the point of an iPod when the Creative Nomad was cheaper, in 2001?
iPod was smaller (same as AppleTV vs TiVo.)
iPod was easier to use (There is no need to schedule, program, or search the AppleTV. Just click and watch.)

The point YOU keep making is there are more features on the TiVo.

The point I am making is that those extra features aren't important. The person who wants an AppleTV doesn't want to "know the time and date", don't want to "program the TiVo", don't want to "Subscribe to get the guide", don't want to "Network the TiVo".

For an AppleTV all you do is:
1) Plug into TV
2) Turn on PC
3) Allow the AppleTV to synch to the PC

This is the same as the iPod:
1) Plug into headphones
2) Plug into PC
3) Allow the iPod to synch to the PC

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

what sort of bitching about unbox? i rented a movie once so far just to try it and the movie was really good quality, but it took about an hour and a half to arrive.

i've had tivo now since christmas and i have to say that i absolutely love it and can't imagine watching tv without it.

Re:What's the point?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the tivo is cheaper if you don't pay for the subscription, which is not needed to record shows. you just need to know the time and date of what you want to do and you don't get the guide feature. tivo's interface is extremely easy to use.

So you can either have a crappy interface that makes you manually look up and program in the times, or you can pay an expensive subscription. No thanks. My PVR lets me choose any subscription program guide I want, including Web based, one that are free with a few banner ads. Also, with the Tivo you need a Cable TV subscription to get the shows in the first place, while with the AppleTV you buy the individual shows you want (more granularity but higher prices per show although at there are no ads.)

i just don't see the point. there's other products out there (like tivo) that do a lot more. i just don't see the point in buying one.

The AppleTV and the Tivo both target people who are looking for really, really easy to set up and use stuff. The AppleTV does not do a lot I want, but my parents could use it. Tivo, likewise only has half the functionality I want and is crazy expensive. I'm not going to buy either, but they are both in the same boat as far as I'm concerned.

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

yeah... sounds like a waste of money to me. more DRM'd stuff from apple who claims they don't like DRM.

Re:What's the point?

[jfengel]

I'm just repeating what I read on the Web. I know some people were griping about its software, which you presumably bypass with your TiVo. Plus there are the usual "DRM is teh 3v1L" comments all over the place.

Re:What's the point?

[badasscat]

The point YOU keep making is there are more features on the TiVo.

The point I am making is that those extra features aren't important.

They are important when you're dealing with video rather than music.

The really important thing that either Apple failed to realize or just discounted for whatever reason is that while there has always been something of a defacto standard in music formats (mp3), there has never been a similar standard in video formats. They are now trying to impose h.264 as a standard, while supporting their own earlier QuickTime formats, but seriously - other than stuff you've purchased on iTunes (which can't be that much because they don't offer that much), how much video do you really have stored in these formats?

Mac owners probably have more than PC owners but even they probably have all sorts of .wmv and other files lying around. PC owners have a mixture of divx, xvid, .wmv, avi files of various types, some quicktimes, some mp4's, some mpeg1 and 2's, etc.

What would be "easiest" for most people would be to have a device that supports all of these formats equally, so they don't even need to think about video formats anymore. What Apple is doing is not easy; they're forcing you to ensure that all of your video is in a format that they support, either through transcoding or by purchasing it from them.

If the Apple TV supported all of these formats and supported up to 1080p through HDMI, then yes, you'd have a useful device there. As it is, it is not a very useful device, nor is it particularly easy to use for anybody that already has a lot of video on their computers.

I mean, when you have to hack the thing to get it to recognize the most popular downloadable video format on PC, something is not right.

Re:What's the point?

[kosmosik]

> i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv.

Me also. :) At last in out-of-the box form that Apple offers it.

But I am in HISTERICAL URGE to get one... $300 is really cheap for a PC with STUNNING FORM/FACTOR, quite modern 1GHz processor, 256MB DDR, quite decent GPU and standard hard drive (can be exchanged for bigger one when you need it). The only pain is only HD (connector) output and optical audio output.

I guess *when* it will be aviable for me (in normal retail stores so somebody can sent it over to me here in Poland) somebody will manage to run Linux on it. Maybe even full blown MacOS X install (I guess it can be made with some hacks) - perfectly legal since it is Apple branded hardware.

Actually my media center consists of P2 400MHz slim factor (old Compaq) PC - this works as media center (movies, music), my home web server as well as fileserver. So Apple TV (I mean the hardware) will be quite nice upgrade for $300 (assuming it will run Linux or full MacOS X).

So actually I'am quite MOIST thinking about this hardware. :)

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the Apple TV does too little. Currently iTunes only sells videos at a max of 640x480. The distortion and artifacts visible at native resolution are bad enough, but the Apple TV will have to upconvert that to 720p or 1080i, and it can only do 1080p at 24 fps (granted almost nobody has a 1080p display, but still). Add to that the fact that it only works with iTunes and a very limited number of formats out of the box. Granted there are end-user hacks for Divx and whatnot, but when I think Divx I certainly do not think HD. The hard drive is also quite lacking in space and (currently) iTunes sells ZERO HD content. But hey, at least it looks good, right? In the end I don't really see the usefulness of this product. It is basically a box that upconverts your iTunes videos for display on your HDTV. THAT'S IT. That's not doing less; that's doing almost nothing.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

Did you think the original iPod was a waste of money too?
Did you consider then that most of the market did not?
Are you surprised, now, at how popular the iPod is?

Re:What's the point?

[vought]

i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv.

It's an iPod without a battery, but with HDTV out. Instead of a cable, it uses wireless to sync with iTunes.

It does what the iPod does - lets you move media that's stored on your computer to other places. Instead of pluggin in headphones and toting it around with you like the iPod, you plug AppleTV into your TV sit on the couch.

Got it now?

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

by media, you mean it lets you move apple-approved media, which is a very slim amount of file types.

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

no, but the ipod was in a market that didn't have already popular products. this is entering as a product that lacks features that products already on the market have, that are already very easy to use, and already have millions of users.

Re:What's the point?

[Zhe Mappel]

1) Cheaper because it has no subscription costs

That's a pretty transparent fallacy.

Since the Apple box only plays iTunes store content, its actual cost is as high as your desire to watch new media.

Only if you use it as sparingly as an old lady does ice skates will it be "cheaper."

2) Easier because it does less

True, in the same way that the mentally deficient are more efficient cogitators because they think less.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

At the time people thought the Creative Nomad WAS a popular product.

Apple then released the iPod and now there are about 1 iPod for every 10 people.

As of March last year the ENTIRE market of DVRs was only about 9% penetration. Put another way, more people own iPods than DVRs, much less TiVos. There is still room for Apple to carve a niche, even if it is only 10% of the population.

You say TiVo is very easy to use. I've used it; yes it is easy, but compared to iTunes, not easy ENOUGH.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar20 06/pi20060302_999595.htm

Re:What's the point?

[szabodabo]

The iPod was a success because there weren't any other players on the market that the consumer really had a feel for. The iPod just made the MP3 Player an easy device to use. Apple TV is going to bomb here because they can't expect the same open market as there was with the iPod. I own a DirecTV TiVo DVR and I love it. It's simple to use, yet it has advanced features. It does exactly what I want it to, with less interaction with the UI and more with the media I want. Currently, the consumer is happy with the TiVo. Making a device that costs the same yet does remarkably less isn't going to declare a surefire victory for Jobs this time.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple TV plays any video in H.264 format, whether you purchased in on the iTunes Store or not. There are lots of programs available that will transcode video from any format to H.264 as well as programs that will rip DVDs to that format.

Re:What's the point?

[Scudsucker]

It's trendy. It's branded.

And the reason it's trendy is because they've made good products to build up the brand.

Re:What's the point?

[jtn]

Alternately, Mr Troll, Apple has usually (USUALLY) come out with products that do as advertised with the minimal amount of fuss and agony. Most Apple-purchasers do not buy for the brand as that would just be silly.

Re:What's the point?

[jtn]

Wrong. Anything encoded in H.264 is playable, not "Apple-approved" media. Do some research before posting next time, please.

There are free H.264 encoders out there. Wikipedia is a good play to start searching.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

The really important thing that either Apple failed to realize or just discounted for whatever reason is that while there has always been something of a defacto standard in music formats (mp3), there has never been a similar standard in video formats. They are now trying to impose h.264 as a standard, while supporting their own earlier QuickTime formats, but seriously - other than stuff you've purchased on iTunes (which can't be that much because they don't offer that much), how much video do you really have stored in these formats?

Unlike music, however, Apple is joining the party BEFORE divx has become the de facto standard. Imagine if Apple had released the iPod in the year 1996 instead of 2001; MP3 would have been limited to college campuses and people running Pentiums. It wasn't possible for the majority of people to encode, or play, in real time and everyone was still on modems.

Today the situation is like this: The majority of people have P3s and P4s that cannot encode video in real time, much less decode HD video. Only 25% of the population has the bandwidth necessary to download DivX files. Yes there are a lot of videos out there, but Apple's goal is not to enter an established market, like it did with the iPod; it is trying to "ride the wave" of the next one.

Right now Apple has only hit 10% of the population with iPods, and there are more iPods than all the media extenders and XBoxes combined. The AppleTV market is on the cusp of maturity, so trying to support 'baroque' video formats is unnecessary. If they had released the AppleTV in three years then your arguments would be crucial to Apple's TV success. As it is TiVo is losing money and seems to be headed out, Windows Media Extenders and Media Centers are too expensive, especially compared to a $299 AppleTV.

It sucks that Apple is ignoring the tech-geek, but then again the true teck-geek will buy the AppleTV to hack into a wireless streaming MythTV frontend anyway.

Re:What's the point?

[Scudsucker]

Apple TV is going to bomb

And it's got less space than a Nomad, lame.

Making a device that costs the same

There's no subscription fee with the Apple TV, so the cost is not the same.

I own a DirecTV TiVo DVR and I love it.

Jobs stated during the unveiling that the Apple TV is not meant to replace a set top box or a Tivo, but rather to be a companion device.

Re:What's the point?

[EggyToast]

It's a lost cause. People who think "iTunes" means "iTunes Store" will never change their opinion.

Re:What's the point?

[EggyToast]

It's essentially "a la carte" pricing. For those who really only want to watch, say, The Daily Show(s) & South Park. The thing that, to me, is going to be really interesting, is how this affects the "nothing" channels that seem to exist simply because of cable royalties or being close to another popular network.

Regardless, a la carte cable shows combined with iTunes functionality is what I think will do it for most people. Technies have already crafted something together that suits their needs, so I think a lot of the criticism on the internet is rather hilarious. People who truly don't get that this has nothing to do with something being broadcast, and only uses the TV as a huge display often surrounded by couches :D

Re:What's the point?

[ColaMan]

But I am in HISTERICAL URGE to get one... $300 is really cheap for a PC with STUNNING FORM/FACTOR.......So actually I'am quite MOIST thinking about this hardware.

madlibs, is that you?

Re:What's the point?

[Karlt1]

"I own a DirecTV TiVo DVR and I love it. It's simple to use, yet it has advanced features"

I have two DirecTV Tivo's and saying that it has "advanced features" is a great overstatement.

-It doesn't support networking
-The USB port is disabled
-It doesn't support Internet scheduling
-It doesn't support Tivo2Go ...or any of the other advanced features of the standalone Tivo

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

I think you misunderstand the existing market.

When the iPod came on the scene in 2001 the MP3 universe had already exploded and there had been hardware to serve the MP3 player role for over two years and every computer could play, share, and rip MP3. The iPod was LATE to the market.

Today the video universe is barely starting. There is the first flush of video players (of which the iPod was current with) but the bandwidth, computing power, and storage necessary for video really is only catching on NOW.

You think that there are other players in the market that the consumer has a feel for right now? You think it's the TiVo? As I understand it only 10-12 million DVRs have been sold of which TiVos only account for 40% of. Then there is the fact that, right now, only about a quarter of Americans have broadband!

So the video market is far from dead. If Microsoft can play the Zune, now, 5 years an 90m iPods later, Apple can release an AppleTV 8 years after the first TiVo.

It's especially telling that TiVo's first six years were unprofitable, isn't it?

Re:What's the point?

[KanSer]

Just a note. The 360 will do any and all resolutions with a multitude of interchangeable outputs.

As for noise; when playing tv shows or movies off of a media center pc it is much quieter due to decreased cpu and gpu activity and lack of a spinning DVD.

Noise is still an issue, but I do think that the PS3 and 360 are much better ways to spend money and get faux-PVR type experiences by tying in to your now-powerful mid-line dual-core PC.

Besides, a combo of those and a pc nets you anywhere between 5 and 12 cores, depending on how you count cells. Now that's proper horsepower. Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

Re:What's the point?

[weicco]

I don't get it either. I have a laptop, I have A/V cables and I have TV. I can play almost any video/audio format there is. I'm not sure if my current laptop can handle HD stuff but then again, I have desktop PC with much more computing power at hand also. I have MediaPortal software and I could use remote control with it but then again, I already have wireless keyboard and mouse.

So why on earth I'd buy an expensive box between my computer and TV?

Re:What's the point?

[grrrl]

Given you can buy a divx/xvid/dvd/vcd/mp3/etc dvd player from Dick Smith (Australian equiv of RadioShack I guess) for $50AUD (as cheap as the cheapest straight DVD player) I think you underestimate the existing video 'other player' market.

My family bought 3 of them. Not everyone has broadband, but everyone knows someone who does, with a DVD burner.

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

Jobs stated during the unveiling that the Apple TV is not meant to replace a set top box or a Tivo, but rather to be a companion device. What's the point of it as a companion device when my tivo already does everything that apple tv does, and more. this is the point i've been trying to make. tivo does all this already, in addition to the normal "tivo" functions of recording. people don't want 18 devices connected to their tv's, they want 1 or 2 devices that does it all. tivo helps keep that number down.

Re:What's the point?

[Scudsucker]

What's the point of it as a companion device when my tivo already does everything that apple tv does, and more.

Tivo will wirelessly play iTMS content? Sweet!

Re:What's the point?

[rizzo420]

no, but it'll wirelessly play music and movies without DRM.

Interesting.

[pavon]

I didn't read your link (somethingawful.com and work computer don't mix). Would someone mind explaining what they did. I would think that it should be fairly easy to get any format that has a Quicktime plugin (like from flip4mac or Perian) to work with the AppleTV.

Re:Interesting.

[yuvi]

That's exactly what they did, but they needed to remove the HD and mount it on a Mac to get at it to copy Perian to the AppleTV.

Re:Interesting.

[astrosmash]

They pulled the HD out of the Apple TV unit and attached it to an existing OS X system. The disk apparently contains a pretty standard OS X 10.4.7 install, so they just added the additional QuickTime plug-ins to /Library/QuickTime/.

Apparently they also enabled ssh. My speculation: They reconfigured launchd and the firewall to allow ssh connections to sshd, and presumably they configured the local user account (whatever it is) to allow public-key authentication so they don't have to futz around with any passwords. All of that can be done by simply editing text configuration files.

Re:Interesting.

[dubbreak]

They used a mac since that was easiest for them to mount HFS, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could do the same with linux (you are just dropping the perian plugin in the correct folder right?).

Re:Interesting.

[dr.badass]

A few details not in the other replies: They used Perian, and they installed it the same way you would install any other QuickTime plugin (meaning that yes, it is that easy, and should work with any codec).

The "hack" aspect of it is just getting in to it. They started by pulling the drive (Torx screws), dropping in the codec, a script to turn off the built-in firewall, and a 3rd-party SSH server. They then used a QuickTime reference movie directed at an XviD AVI file. The method they used to get the reference movie to work right is wonky and not elegant at all. Basically they transfered a "normal" iTunes movie, then replaced it with theirs. Yuk.

In the coming weeks this will obviously evolve into a simpler solution. Clearly, using the built-in SSH, and not entirely disabling the firewall would be better. Using XviD-in-.mov instead of reference movies would be a bit simpler, and iTunes would be able to sync it without any hackishness. And clearly, hacking the "diagnostic" USB port on the thing is going to turn it into a completely software hack. And that, of course, will follow with a hack to install a full copy of Mac OS X, and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

MPEG4/AVC

[ThePhilips]

[...] playback is limited to formats playable within iTunes [...]

I sincerely hope that Apple TV would succeed - if only to additionally indirectly support MP4 format wider adoption.

It's not the best, but among other formats it is only one which is open, free and platform independent.

Re:MPEG4/AVC

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of MPEG4-10 is free? It costs money to even look at the standard to implement http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.Cata logueDetail?CSNUMBER=43058&ICS1=35&ICS2=40&ICS3=. Then it also costs money in order use http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf. Not to mention that the mpegla doesn't guarantee that all the patents they license you for are sufficient to implement the standard. It is only open in that you don't have to have a secret handshake to view it.

Re:MPEG4/AVC

[ThePhilips]

Yeah, well there are patents. And ISO terms.

But compare that to term's of M$ Windows Media Services and accompanying DRM cruft. And as you might have guessed M$ will not give you patent indemnification too.

Thanks to patents, hardly anything can be called "free"...

Re:MPEG4/AVC

[atamido]

MP4 [...] is only one which is open, free and platform independent.

MP4 is neither open nor free, but I guess one out of three isn't bad. It is, however, an ISO standard. You have to pay $$$ for the specifications, and $$$ for licenses to encoders/decoders, but beyond that it's fairly platform independent in that people have illegally obtained the specifications and written parsers/decoders that other people are using on many platforms. I would much rather Ogg/MKV/Vorbis and some good open video codec obtain some traction than MP4.

Re:MPEG4/AVC

[ThePhilips]

I would much rather Ogg/MKV/Vorbis and some good open video codec obtain some traction than MP4.

I second that. Only problem is of course specification. I still recall the stalemate with Vorbis when it is turned out there is no documentation for it - only source code. It might be a good peice of code - but without proper documentation you cannot have alternative (better or simply competing) implementations. It took about year to write spec for Vorbis what ended its unofficial two year community boycott.

Ogg/MKV being containers would be of course easier to specify. Ogg is well specified. Yet, MKV has *no* specification. It has documentation on how and what you might find inside - but in no way the documentation is even close to serve as specification. And piles of stuff inside of MKV are pure Windows specific (e.g. font embedding) what bars any kind of portable implementation.

Technically, supporting MKV/Ogg/Vorbis is no brainer. (It is problem of MP4 which has enormous all encompassing specification nobody yet implemented completely). But legally, for MP4 you have licensing authority and all questions and royalties regarding patents and trademarks are resolved there. As for free formats, it is really can of worms few vendors would risk opening. Patent suit - even if frivolous - could easily bring consumer electronic company down: they live off very thin margins.

Re:MPEG4/AVC

[atamido]

The writer of Vorbis, Monty, has essentially been given the OK (by Red Hat, his current employer) to spend full time working on Vorbis 2.0, or "Ghost" as it is currently called (a from scratch audio codec). It is currently just a bunch of math and graphs, but he is working with Jean Marc, the writer of Speex, and they both have some really interesting ideas. Vorbis psycho models are still being developed by people in the community (but outside of Xiph). Currently Vorbis beats every other codec in the 128 kbps range, but they are hoping to get almost the same quality from 'Ghost' at less than 32kbps. If they can pull that off, it should put Xiph back on the map in a strong way.

MKV certainly has a specification, but it is not as clean as it should be. Why it appears to not define a lot of things is because they spec offers an extreme amount of flexibility. IE, you could have a valid MKV file that had no audio or video tracks, just attachments. Off the top of my head I can think of five different from scratch MKV parsers written by different people, so it is good enough for some people.

As far as being Windows centric, I honestly can't think of what you're talking about. I've never seen fonts attached to an MKV file, but it is certainly possible, and True Type Font files aren't Windows specific (unless Linux and Mac have recently been purchased by Microsoft). Being able to attach whatever files you want to an MKV is not specific to Windows or any other OS. I do know that one of the favorite uses for it is Anime, and a number of the fansubbers for anime use complex SSA subs (a text based subtitling format) for which there aren't any full implementations under Linux (last I looked). It will just display regular text. Is that Windows centric?

MP4 is an ISO standard with strong industry backing, and corporate A/V people almost never use anything that isn't an ISO standard with strong industry backing. There are all sorts of compatibility issues it resolves, but it also ends up being one of the slowest evolving tech groups out there. They use MP4 because in their eyes that is the only option. For people not in that industry, it's a fairly baffling way of thinking.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[Luscious868]

Since no consumer that this product is aimed would have the know how to setup a MythTV box, don't hold your breath waiting for a call.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[wass]

People have already upgraded their AppleTV boxes to 120 GB HD , so larger sizes should be possible too.

If you have MYTHTV?

[pavon]

Why would you want to play your videos on another device rather than on the MythTV box? Just out of curiosity.

Re:If you have MYTHTV?

[wizbit]

Ever tried to setup a remote frontend for Myth? Fiddled with lirc for freakin days to get it right? NFS shares? This stuff is probably trivial to some, but for me it was a major pain in the ass. If the AppleTV is really as easy to setup as Pogue is claiming - literally plug in an HDMI cable and the power cable - I'm buying one for every room in the house. Let the MythTV backend do the recording. Apple has apparently made a really spectacular frontend.

Re:If you have MYTHTV?

[pavon]

Ah okay, for multiple TVs it would definitely be easier and probably less expensive. That makes sense. Thanks.

Re:If you have MYTHTV?

[haplo21112]

I went a way for a few days, anyway...it would be nice to have a small, dedicated device like the apple TV that I could tell to tap the large drive full of MYTH recordings that I have in the Master server sitting in my basement. I have yet to find a device that is Ideal for this, basically that is made (like the Apple TV) to fit and look like ti belongs in the living room entertainment stack. I could build a PC to be a myth front ebd, but then there is drive noise (yes I could use flash drives), processor cooling noise, ETC that needs to be dealt with never mind spending $300+ on a machine that will be extremely under utilized. I'd love a device that is dedicated (has just enough hardware for the purpose) to act as a MYTH frontend. So there you go, potential untapped market run with it, and I'll be the first customer.

Huh?

[PingSpike]

Apple TV Pros: setup is as easy as can be, it's small and silent form factor will be good for home theaters, and the interface and remote control are intuitive. Cons: HDTV only, playback is limited to formats playable within iTunes, and no internet functionality other than movie trailers."

Sounds worse then a regular TV, am I missing something? Whats the big deal with this thing?

Re:Huh?

[Paulrothrock]

I know! And the iPod has no wireless and less space than a Nomad! They'll never catch on.

Re:Huh?

[ClosedSource]

I think it's instructive to remember that there are far more minimally successful or unsuccessful Apple products than there are very successful Apple products. Actually, the iPod is the only one that is a market leader.

So the odds that this product will be a big winner are not that high if Apple's overall performance is considered.

Re:Huh?

[dreamchaser]

It's cute and has an Apple logo on it, you insenstive clod! Nevermind that it doesn't do anything much that hasn't already been done. Pay no attention to the man in the turtleneck behind the curtain...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

A succesfull product is one that earns money. It does not need to be a market leader.
Most of the Apple products have been succesfull.
Even the Cube was a succesful product. Its just that most people thought it was going to be much more succesfull. Expectations were too high and it disappointed.
The iPod has been extremely successful, far beyond anyone's expectations.

Re:Huh?

[dr.badass]

I think it's instructive to remember that there are far more minimally successful or unsuccessful Apple products than there are very successful Apple products. Actually, the iPod is the only one that is a market leader.

This is a shallow observation. Most products are not market leaders. That doesn't mean they aren't successful.

Re:Huh?

[2nd Post!]

In the 10 years Jobs has been at the helm there has only been one real flop: The Cube. The iMac G4 was just okay.

Successes:
1998: iMac
1999: iBook
2000: Cube
2001: Titanium PowerBook, iPod
2002: White iBook
2003: iMac G4, eMac, XServe
2004: iPod mini, iMac G5
2005: iPod shuffle, Mac mini, iPod nano
2006: MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iPod video

If you think again of the AppleTV as an iPod with an HDTV screen then it's niche is much easier to envision.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't count each color of iPod as a seperate product. I guess Dell must have hundreds of successful products if each new generation, repackaging, and form-factor counts as a unique product. Generally speaking Apple has produced the Mac, the Newton, the iPod, the video iPod, and now AppleTV.

Here is what is going to make it worth it..

[BlueBoxSW.com]

What is going to make AppleTV worth the money is this:

Video Podcasting.

There are already a plethera of great video podcasts available, and with AppleTV you can sit and watch them in your livingroom, not on a computer or 2" ipod video screen.

Sure, a bit of effort every day, you can download the same content and burn it to DVD, or get it to play some other way on your TV, but with AppleTV and a smart iTunes playlist, you can have a couple hours of content that's new and interesting and commercial-free every single night.

This isn't a strike at Tivo, this is a stike at Prime Time programming of all kinds.

Re:Here is what is going to make it worth it..

[blackmonday]

Your post is probably the only real insightful commentary I've seen on the Apple TV from any source. To further add to the thought process, imagine the following setup - mac or pc with torrent client connected to tvrss.net feeds...torrent client automatically saves the shows into the iTunes video library...Apple TV is loaded with the forementioned DIVX hack... voila. The cable company has been fired.

Re:The Apple deal

[Stewie241]

Why modded this down?

That was a good analogy (although it was a car analogy...)

Apple loves to use OSS... What OSS has it released? Why isn't OS X open sourced?

Component - Composite

[TheNinjaroach]

It's very easy to convert component video -> composite (single video cord) -- simply mix the signal off all three component outputs into one line. This causes a loss in image quality but it's no worse than you have with any other composite signal.

Re:Component - Composite

[johnmat]

This is not true. While you can mix S-video this way as the chroma is still NTSC/PAL encoded on a sub-carrier frequency; but the Cb/Cr (aka Pb/Pr) signals on component video are simply levels, so if you mix them you will get black-and-white.

Re:Component - Composite

[TheNinjaroach]

I must be confused, I know that the Cb/Cr signals on component are simply levels - when I plug that component feed into a composite jack I get the gresycale you're talking about. I was under the impression the other two signals made up the other half of the SVideo signal (the color info) or could be all three combined for composite. So are you saying the other two signals are not NTSC encoded / unable to be combined?

Re:Component - Composite

[johnmat]

Yup, thats right. Cb/Cr are not NTSC/PAL encoded. The color info they carry needs to be modulated onto a sub-carrier frequency to generate composite. So you are SOL if you want to watch the output of an AppleTV on a composite-only TV, until some enterprising soul comes up with an adapter that has the necessary electronics.

it's all about the 'pods?

[abes]

I get the fact that it's supposed to be the iPod, but for you living room. It makes sense for Apple's perspective. They have content (in this case TV shows and movies) that they want you to buy and watch. What's a primary factor keeping from people watching? They want to use their TVs.

Now in theory you can take the signal from your computer, and send it to the TV. Of course, you might have to buy some of your own cables/get hardware. Thus Apple's solution. Provide a simple box that takes care of all of that for you. It's a small box that just magically streams all your content (across your various computers) to a single point, which can be hooked up to a TV.

BUT, as a consumer this doesn't make sense. I like the idea of picking what shows I want to watch, but I actually don't want to own most of them. If the Apple TV allowed me 'rent' a show, I would buy one in a second. Or if I could pay a monthly fee (say: 10 shows subscription), again, I'd totally bite. But paying premium to own something I plan on only watching once has absolutely no appeal to me. It's too expensive. It's still cheaper in the long run to just get cable if you go above 4-5 shows (daily show, colbert report, myth busters, robot chicken .. there already).

I don't see Apple doing this anytime soon, as it seems to go against their current business model. So instead they seem to get some strange compromise. Something almost useful .. but only if you enjoy spending a lot of extra . It doesn't give unique functionality like an iPod (or any other MP3 player), where portability is essential. It just makes things a little easier.

Maybe Apple has something up their sleeves. I keep waiting, but it isn't looking too likely...

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[stratjakt]

XBox 360 does exactly what you just described (renting shows/movies).

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[prodos]

Ah but its the Colbert Report and Daily Show killing your efficiency there. If you only watched non-news shows from iTunes then you could easily watch 12+ different shows a year before you approached a basic cable or satellite subscription. Now as slashdotters we all live by Colbert and Stewart, but there's a huge market of tv watchers out there that prefer to watch ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX news instead, and all they would have to do is buy one of those HD broadcast antennas and they could get their daily news fix for free, and still pay less than a cable subscription to watch CSI and L&O on AppleTV. Just something to think about.

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...as a consumer this doesn't make sense. I like the idea of picking what shows I want to watch, but I actually don't want to own most of them. If the Apple TV allowed me 'rent' a show, I would buy one in a second. Or if I could pay a monthly fee (say: 10 shows subscription), again, I'd totally bite. But paying premium to own something I plan on only watching once has absolutely no appeal to me. It's too expensive.

Content is the hard thing here. In order to really move to IP based television (which would bring many advantages) the incumbents of content creation need to be persuaded or replaced. I remember reading somewhere that $3 a month from every adult American would be enough money to finance the creation and distribution on DVD of every currently produced TV show in the US. So something like $10 a month for permanent access to all the television show you like would not be an unreasonable rate if production was democratized and there was fair and free competition. I don't see Apple ever really bringing content to the people, be it music or video until the expense is something reasonable and the cartels currently running the show are ousted.

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[BlackSnake112]

It's a small box that just magically streams all your content (across your various computers) to a single point, which can be hooked up to a TV.

not magically, either through your inhouse wireless or wired network.

Which can be a problem for regular non geekie people. Not everyone has a wireless network in their home. I have already gotten a call from three people who couldn't get their movies to work with this thing. Their imacs are connected directly to their modem or router. They do not have a wireless network. The computer is in a different room from their TV. I said they need to get a wireless router (Apple's website says 802.11g/n network like their airport wireless things). They were not happy to hear this.

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[abes]

My understanding was that the IPTV isn't due to come out until the holiday season for the XBox. But I have been keeping my eye on it. I'm more a nintendo Fanboi, but if the xbox can double as my TV viewer, then I'm willing to go to the dark side. Maybe it will provide impetus to the other companies to play catch up.

What will be interesting to see is what it ends up looking like. Will it get all the major channels, or a watered down selection like it appears Joost will have? Will it be reasonably priced? Will it force you to watch ads?

Re:it's all about the 'pods?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have told them to turn on their Airport Base Station feature on the iMac. No WAP needed. Of course, wired or N will be faster.

Re:The Apple deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he replied to a nonsensical first post so his post would be higher on the page.

Typical apple product

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks really pretty- small, sleek, easy-to-use.. Doesn't need to be any good or have many features as long as it is "cool".

just a note about david pogue

[Anonymous Coward]

i knew this guy was a rabid Apple Fan-Boy, but doesn't this article seem particularly biased. He collates information about AppleTV's shortcomings, three at a time, in a single sentence, sweeps them under the rug, and then spends entire paragraphs lambasting each flaw in the rival products (with a heavy emphasis on aesthetic and next to none on functionality).

David Pogue is a case in point on the fallacy of the myth of unbiased media. He aptly illustrates how our media is in the pocket of major corporations and does a delightful job of advancing his corporate sponsors interests while maintaining a blatant disregard for being anything remotely approaching a useful journalist.

Functionality flaws

[SuperKendall]

I'd say network connection issues in devices meant to play video over a network are not just "next to none" in terms of functionality flaws.

I wonder how many other things Pogue got wrong?

[stubear]

I don't now where David's buying his media center remote control but ebgames has the Microsoft Media Center remote control accessory for the XBOX 360 priced at $20. I know Logitech makes a two-way uber MCPC remote for the XBOX 360 that's priced at around $100 but even the Microsoft remote has far more capability than the AppleTV remote.

Re:I wonder how many other things Pogue got wrong?

[MooseMuffin]

He also says that if you use the xbox controller you have to move through the bottom button bar to pause. I'm almost positive that clicking one of the analog sticks pauses.

Re:I wonder how many other things Pogue got wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

stubear (130454) wrote:

I don't now where David's buying his media center remote control but ebgames has the Microsoft Media Center remote control accessory for the XBOX 360 priced at $20. I know Logitech makes a two-way uber MCPC remote for the XBOX 360 that's priced at around $100 but even the Microsoft remote has far more capability than the AppleTV remote.

Difference between the Apple TV remote and the Xbox remote:

• The Apple TV remote comes with the Apple TV.
• The Xbox controller comes with the Xbox.
• The Xbox remote does not.

Not having used either, I can't say which remote is better. Generally, though, simpler remotes are better than more complicated ones (as long as they aren't too simple). "More buttons" generally isn't considered a plus when it comes to remote controls.

MooseMuffin (799896) wrote:

He also says that if you use the xbox controller you have to move through the bottom button bar to pause. I'm almost positive that clicking one of the analog sticks pauses.

When you're designing a device that grandma is supposed to use, "almost positive" doesn't cut it.

Re:I wonder how many other things Pogue got wrong?

[MooseMuffin]

Who said the xbox was designed for grandma to use? The 360 isn't even really competing in this space. Its $100 more and offers these features as a secondary bonus for people already comfortable using the controller for gaming. I was merely saying his statement was incorrect.

Honestly, the 360 should really only come up in the context of "What does apple TV offer to existing xbox 360 owners?" The answer seems to range from 'nothing' to 'quite a bit' depending on if you're already an itunes user.

S-video tv-out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who has been using a tv-out s-video cable plus a wireles mouse and keyboard? I have full access to my desktop, I can play any kind of media files my PC can, surf the internet, play games and I dont have to deal with DRM or crap media center and itunes software.

The opposite problem

[pvera]

I got three Macs in the house, and two Xbox 360s. I use Connect360 so the Macs can impersonate media center (or whatever they are called) PCs, which lets the two Xboxes browse through the iPhoto libraries, stream anything of iTunes as long as it is not DRM'ed, and pull any movies in ~/Movies.

The only problem is that it only plays the movies if they are WMV. Everything else is perfect, it even plays MP3 and AAC's fine.

I would love an AppleTV, but that's a lot of money for just a bit more functionality than what I am getting with Connect360 and my Xboxes.

Re:The opposite problem

[PopeRatzo]

I got three Macs in the house, and two Xbox 360s. I use Connect360 so the Macs can impersonate media center (or whatever they are called) PCs, which lets the two Xboxes browse through the iPhoto libraries, stream anything of iTunes as long as it is not DRM'ed, and pull any movies in ~/Movies

Has your family considered an intervention?

Re:The opposite problem

[rtechie]

The only problem is that it only plays the movies if they are WMV.

Bitch to the Connect360 people. This has nothing to do with limitations of the 360, which can accept virtually any video source on a Windows Media Center PC.

How about mounting and playing DVD ISOs?

[swb]

That would make much more sense to me, as would a front slot for ripping them to the backend storage.

Re:How about mounting and playing DVD ISOs?

[walter_f]

To get that functionality, you might better look elsewhere:

http://www.macpower.com.tw/entertainment/mm/tvisto

You get MPEG-1, MPEG-2 (AVI, VOB), ISO, MPEG-4 (AVI, DivX, DivX VOD, XviD) for Video; WAV, MP3, MPEG-4 (AAC) ****, WMA, AC3, OGG Vorbis for Audio; Firewire (and USB) for connectivity to your computer; and NTSC/PAL Composite Video, S-Video, Analog YPbPr Video, SCART RGB, VGA (1024x768), HDTV (480p, 720p, 1080i) for plugging the Tvisto into your TV.

You add the 3.5" HD of your choice, like one of these quiet Samsung SpinPoints, format it in HFS or HFS+ (in case you prefer it over FAT32 and NTFS ;-) and off you go, playing back ISOs of DVDs.

There is no recording of video or ausio with the Tvisto, though.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated to MacPower in any way, just pleased with most of their products.

Walter.

Re:How about mounting and playing DVD ISOs?

[swb]

That looks nice. The only thing missing, though, is networking; it'd be nice to just plug it in and have it monitor a shared disk somewhere else.

Re:The Apple deal

[blankaBrew]

"What OSS has it released?"

How about Bonjour, Darwin Streaming Server, XNU Kernel, Launchd Services and the forthcoming iCal Server which might help the OSS community finally have a competitor to Exchange.

"Apple loves to use OSS... What OSS has it released? Why isn't OS X open sourced?"

Oh....sure.... apple should open source their whole operating system...that makes a lot of sense for them and their shareholders. You sir are a moron or a troll.

Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HDTV

[patiwat]

The summary is wrong.

Summary: Cons: HDTV only

Article: The heartbreaker for millions, however, is that Apple TV requires a widescreen TV -- preferably an HDTV. It doesn't work with the squarish, traditional TVs that many people still have.

Apple TV will still work if you don't have an HDTV. It just requires a widescreen TV.

Re:The Apple deal

[shadow349]

What OSS has it released?

I don't know you from Eddie, but I'd be willing to bet that the answer is somewhere north of a metric fuckload more than you've released.

Another thing to put into the iRack

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_MkWgbt3k

Lame review

[wumpus188]

The damn thing runs 10.4.7 ... that alone would make it a nice firewall/router/imap home server.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[zero1101]

Shouldn't the fact that we now know how to get into the AppleTV OS (via the SomethingAwful hack) mean that it's trivial to install the OSX version of MythTV frontend? Or am I missing something important?

Re:The Apple deal

[Stewie241]

didn't realize they released stuff OS, but I wonder how much they release Open Source that they don't have to in order to comply with license restrictions? (just curious?)

AppleTV is the Apple version of Microsoft MSNTV

[Orion Blastar]

At first I thought Microsoft would make MSNTV to counter AppleTV, but turns out AppleTV was created to counter MSNTV instead.

Re:The Apple deal

[blankaBrew]

As far as I understand it, iCal Server was written by Apple using no other OSS, yet they are releasing it as OSS. Therefore, they were not compelled by a license to opensource iCal...they just did it.

I think Apple missed the ball on this

[brokeninside]

By leaving out the tuner, they left out two of the four killer apps for a set top box: pausing live TV and season passes for time shifting TV shows. Of the other two killer apps (streaming content from the internet and from one's private network) one is a bit of a pain because you have to go to a dedicated workstation to buy movies off of the internet. As of right now, I'd rather buy a Mac mini with an EyeTV dongle and add DVD playback and a tv tuner for just over double the cost of the AppleTV.

Too bad I can't afford to do that.

Not that I'm arguing that this product won't be successful. It just won't be as successful as it could have been. I'll wager, though, that Apple will add the missing feature by the end of this calendar year.

Re:I think Apple missed the ball on this

[TheRaven64]

The idea behind avoiding the tuner is that you can then avoid the cable or satellite subscription and just buy the shows you want from the iTunes Store. Then you get them on-demand and without adverts.

I see the main market for this being fairly casual TV viewers; people who only watch one or two shows a week, but pay for a subscription service in order to get them because they are broadcast on subscription-only channels. If you watch two shows a week, and can buy them both from iTunes, it will cost around $16/month. If you are paying cable / satellite more than that then you will be paying less and watching fewer ads.

Of course, if you aren't in a rush to watch the latest episodes, a subscription to something like NetFlix would probably be even cheaper...

Re:I think Apple missed the ball on this

[stewbacca]

Too bad I can't afford to do that.

No offense dude, but if you can't afford $600 worth of stuff, I don't think you are Apple's target demographic.

This thing will sell to lazy people with disposable incomes.

Re:The Apple deal

[Stewie241]

Good on them.

Aargh

[tsa]

From the blurp: ...it's small and silent form factor will be good for home theaters...

It took me three reads to realize there was a spelling error somewhere in there which made the sentence absolutely incomprehensible. Please /. staff, be better than your users!

Re:Aargh

[winomonkey]

From the criticism: From the blurp: ...
Blurp is not a word.
Perhaps you meant something along the lines of blurb.
Please, critics of /. staff, be better than the subject of your scorn!

Re:Aargh

[tsa]

Hehe, you're right. Stupid me... :)

Not HDTV only

[wsanders]

Technically, it's not "HDTV" only, as reported by Mossberg this week in Wall Street Journal. It *does* require 16:9 widescreen, which not many non-HDTV's can accomodate. Whatever.

I don't see how a tuner would add great complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn it on. Hit pause to go take a leak and grab a beer. Hit resume when I'm back on the couch. Hit fast forward during the commercial to catch back up to the live tv.

Not to mention, a season pass isn't exactly complicated either. Bring up the program guide. Pick your shows. Watch at your leisure.

While the subscription fee certainly has kept me from buying a TiVo, I'd not even consider buying an AppleTV without a tuner. For that matter, I'd even hesitate to buy one without a DVD player. With a DVD player and tuner, I'd be able to replace two really fugly boxes (VCR which mostly gets used for taping OTA broadcasts, and a DVD deck) with one sleek one. That would be good.

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[Anonymous Coward]

Yuck. You still need ANOTHER pc running. which is crap. this thing should be able to grab that rss feed directly. The netgear mentioned in the summary is also crap as it needs a windows PC running universal media plug and play server which sucks.

Honestly the Mediagate 350 is the absolute best choice of ANY stand alone HD video playback device, it can play from the internal hard drive (up to a 500gb) as well as network shares and play every single video format file I can find to throw at it. (I bet it runs mplayer in it's linux os)

I am tired of these medicore devices that come out that require a PC to make them play the content I want. No PC people. the perfect device is a unit that will have some hard drive in it and can play any feed from democracy or RSS feed. Anything else is crap.

Yes I am calling the apple tv product crap. Its great for the locked inot Itunes world, but for real iptv it is utter crap.

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[argent]

OK, I'm not a TV geek, so this might be a dumb question... but... how many people would have a widescreen TV that isn't HDTV?

Re:Give me a call when it plays my MYTHTV recordin

[jedidiah]

In general, the consumers that are targeted by this device don't have the technological saavy to use this device.

Perversely enough, homebrew PVR users are proabably Apple's biggest potential userbase for this thing. This includes MythTV users as well as users of SageTV, WinMCE and other PVRs.

This is a problem with devices of this kind in general. You can't just setup a windows file share somewhere and put files on it. You need to futz with some speciality server software.

This thing doesn't even play the full range of things that a Mac with a robust iTunes install could play. If it did then it could play nice with MythTV by just plugging it into the same LAN.

Bit more?

[geekoid]

Not being lock into one format is more then a 'bit more', don't you think?

I don't use wmv, and I have almost never have needed it. Theraare a couple of porn sites that use it, but even the porn industry is moving back away from it.

Re:Bit more?

[spoco2]

How is being locked into wmv different to being locked into the iTunes formats?

Basically neither of these do what I want, which is just to play any video format I want with a nice interface on my TV, hence I use MediaPortal, nice, easy to setup Open Source media software... A+ from me.

Re:The Apple deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget WebKit. It's based on KHTML. Initially, Apple just released their changes with the bare minimum of information necessary for complaince with the KHTML license. Some people complained that wasn't enough to be useful, so Apple released the whole CVS history.

Also, Apple recently ditched their own "Apple Public Source License" (or whatever it was called) and started releasing everything under the Apache license.

Re:The Apple deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic, but if you're asking what OSS Apple has had a hand in: There's this thing called "Darwin" and something called http://www.macports.org/ that might be worth a peek at.

As to why it isn't entirely open sourced- for much the same reason that you're not going to give away your name, bank account number and PIN. Some information wants to be expensive.

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[bluskye]

Another Dumb question : Why require HDTV inputs, ala HDMI, but not have HDTV Content? "DOH". This product is pretty stupid. DRM infection is the answer btw.

what the heck?!!!

[dont_drop_tha_f-bomb]

Take a cold-chill apple. Make a universally compatable TV and I shall be satisfied....

Re:The Apple deal

[Falladir]

He can't be a moron *and* a troll. If he expects the reaction, he's a troll but not stupid. If he doesn't expect it, he's in earnest and not a troll.

Just sayin'...

Exists

[Midnight Thunder]

See this link: http://phorums.com.au/showthread.php?t=57817&goto= nextnewest

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[ratboot]

You could have a regular TV that does 16:9 vertical compression (squeezes the square frame to make it appears rectangular, with the same number of lines, 480 that is).

Its not a strike....barely a foul ball.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering there are other similar products, this isnt a strike.
This is more like throwing at a batter when your team is up by 12 runs.

I know, I know,...because Apple hit the goldmine when they came out with their mp3 player, so now it seems that whatever Johhny Come Lately product they have out, people expect it to revolutionize that field.
We saw it when they came out with a drawing of the Apple phone, fanbois were drooling over it because it was going to do to phones what the iPod did for MP3 players, no matter if Asia is littered with touchless screens and LG won already some award for their version.

Perception is a result of marketing.

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, pretty much any recently purchased TV is widescreen. This is one of the reasons why HDTV isn't gaining much traction over here. In the US, moving to HDTV is bundled along with moving from 4:3 to 16:9 and from analogue to digital. We've already moved to digital for satellite and cable and there is much more content available over the air in digital than analogue form. A lot of broadcasts in SD are widescreen and so end up being squished or cropped on a 4:3 TV. Add to that the fact that SD PAL sucks a whole lot less than NTSC, and there doesn't seem to be a huge attraction in HDTV.

Neither play DIVX or Ogg Vorbis?

[skintigh2]

I know Apple doesn't play DIVX or any standard other than their favorite, and I kinda assume the don't do ogg. Am I wrong?

I checked out the EVA8000 page and was surprised to see they don't support DIVX or Ogg either. WTF?

I'm not huge into music and video lately, and I'm getting old, so maybe I'm just completely out of it. But I stated using ogg because it was far more efficient than mp3s and my portable can play them, and I use divx because when I occasionally download something it's always in divx, and I even have a DVD player that can play divx, so I assumed it was popular. Am I wrong? If not, why the hell don't either product support it?

Re:Neither play DIVX or Ogg Vorbis?

[mr100percent]

From Roughlydrafted.com:

Most DVD extractors strip the CSS DRM off of DVDs, leaving behind a huge disk image of .VOB files. VOB is the MPEG-2 container format, which holds MPEG-2 video multiplexed with AC3 audio.

Just as raw AIFF audio on CD is ripped to compressed MP3s, once the DRM is stripped from DVDs, they need further compression in order to take less space. Unfortunately, a poor choice of codecs was made.

Hackers cracked Microsoft's Windows Media V3 format, which was an "embraced and extended" variant of MPEG-4 that--unsurprisingly--wasn't compatible or compliant with anyone else's MPEG-4.

Microsoft intended V3 to use its new ASF container exclusively, but hackers simply dumped a data stream from a copy of the V3 codec into the older, obsolete AVI container instead.

The result was given the name DivX, as a joke on DIVX, the ill fated attempt by Circuit City to offer exploding DVD rentals. XviD is a fork from DivX which uses the same underlying technology.

Most of the world's pirate movies are in a DivX-related format, using the cloned version of Microsoft's tainted MPEG-4. Since then, Microsoft has delivered successive versions of its video codec under the name VC-1, and thoughtfully offers this as an alternative to standard MPEG-4.

Will the Real MPEG-4 Please Stand Up
Apple meanwhile, pushes for standard MPEG-4 containers and formats, which means the .mp4 container file, the H.264 Advanced Video Codec, and the Advanced Audio Codec. Apple unsurprisingly sells content in iTunes using these formats, and delivers professional and consumer tools to create and process those formats.

The problem that exists for bootleg content ripped from DVDs is that it's stuck in a conundrum of messy crap: it's DVD MPEG-2 / AC3 content ripped into the DivX clone of the nonstandard, proprietary V3 video codec and dumped into an archaic AVI container format. Bleah!

Pirates are now annoyed that Apple doesn't work to reverse engineer this mess for optimum playback. Perhaps instead of ripping off Microsoft's junk, hackers should use industry standards and develop more elegant and modern techniques.

what not even...

[Ixlr8]

Cons: HDTV only To make matters worse, there's no floppy drive!

Re:what not even...

[stewbacca]

not to mention the hdtv only claim has already been disproven

Re:The Apple deal

[PitaBred]

That's a metric fuckTON, silly. A load isn't a unit of measure (or if it was, it'd be about the same as a tablespoon, nowhere near as impressive as the ton).

Innuendo fully intended.

AppleTV crippled iTunes and Quicktime updates suck

[Pinback]

Even if you don't buy an AppleTV, you will be given the option of installing the 7.1 and 7.1.1 updates to iTunes and Quicktime.

7.1 and 7.1.1 are sacks of shit. Try watching a video podcast on a MBP while doing anything else which uses CPU. When your second core goes to 100%, the video/audio stutters and stops like cheezy players from 1998. Any iTunes download activity will also cause things to shudder to a halt.

It is nice that Apple sends out updates, but as far as I can tell, there is no easy way to reject an applied update. (Windows seems hi tech by comparison.) You can go to the "Genius Bar" at a physical Apple store and get a copy of iTunes 7.0 on CDR, but the uninstall/reinstall process is counterintuitive for anyone who isn't an old skool Mac'ie.

Welcome to teh Apple Suck.

Seems like a lame device

[bumptehjambox]

I don't own an iPod, any portable music device, or even a cell phone; but I understand why the iPod sold like it did. I also don't own a Tivo, yet. But what is so enticing about spending $2 per episode of television shows, rather than record as many as you damn well please from such a wider selection that is cable and Tivo? Is this really intended to be an all-inclusive entertainment experience? Are people going to be ditching their cable TV service and paying per view from a piss poor selection? How could Apple possibly believe they can compete with every network in the world, both cable and satellite. If this is just an attempt to get their foot in the door of internet->living room content delivery, what could possibly persuade you to actually adopt it right now?

Extremely weak hard drive (about 20% the size of Tivo) and exclusive access to the iTunes store for overpriced, compressed, non-HD, DRM crippled media. I swear I read every word of the artice, but still I ask, what is so great about this device? I'd even settle for thoughts from a blatant fanboy at this point.

Re:Seems like a lame device

[ericm666]

You need to consider that almost no one who posts on slashdot is a potential customer/consumer of an appleTV device. So It's no surprise you can't see the use... it's to simple/basic featured for you anyway :)

Re:Seems like a lame device

[jelton]

Let's do some number crunching, shall we?

Time Warner digital cable: $61.30/month x 12 months = $735.60/year.

I want to watch the following shows, which cost the following amounts on the iTunes Music Store:

• Lost $34.99
• Robot Chicken $19.99
• Venture Bros. $19.99
• Inside the Actor's Studio $9.99
• The Daily Show $119.88
• The Colbert Report $119.88
• South Park $23.99
• MythBusters $25.87
• The Shield $21.89
• The Riches $22.99
• My Name is Earl $36.99
• The Office $34.99
• Scrubs $34.99
• Law & Order $35.99
• NOVA $29.99
• Battlestar Galactica $34.99
• Stargate SG-1 $37.99
• Stargate Atlantis $37.99
• Psych $28.99
• Total $722.38/year

What's that, I can get all the shows I watch on iTunes and get movies and play my music all through one interface? I can't imagine why people would go for this...

The only downside is that that you can't browse cable tv offerings at 3:00 AM, the shows aren't currently HD and the price break is dependent on how much content you use. I expect that, within the next year, Apple will offer a subscription-based service (betcha it's still tiered, based on usage) and will start offering HD content. It may not be exactly the same thing as cable+DVR but it's pretty close to being competitive. Not too bad for version 1.0.

Re:Seems like a lame device

[stewbacca]

I'd even settle for thoughts from a blatant fanboy at this point.

I'll take a stab. At the moment, I see no need to fork out $299 for this, because it doesn't do anything my MacBook doesn't already do. The only advantage is it offers the convenience of not having to get up and hook my MacBook up to the tv. Other than that, it offers nothing. Is that worth $299? Not to me. Not yet.

When (not if) third party add-ons become available for me to play other video formats other than what iTunes handles, and when it becomes capable of recording tv shows, I might spring for it.

Re:Seems like a lame device

[wibald]

Why does everyone think this is an either/or device? Either use appleTV or cable? That's nonsense. Most people who buy it will still have cable and will simply use the appleTV as an additional source of audio and video content.

I don't know about you but I've missed eps of BSG or SG1 due to my crappy Comcast DVR resetting in the middle of the show and rather than wait for SciFi reruns I've just bought the eps from iTunes. Now I really love my 12" Powerbook for just about everything just not for watching widescreen tv shows in my living room!

It's a one time purchase, no subscription fees, and at $299 it probably won't kill anyone who's just spent $2k on a HDTV. This really isn't so earth shaking folks.

Why can't I import my DVDs?

[sycomonkey]

Why can't I import my DVD's into iTunes yet? Because of CSS? Psh, that cat is out of the bag, the DVD consortium would be well advised to fully legalize circumvention so that, like a CD, I can just stick a DVD into my computer, spend some CPU cycles encoding in high quality 720x480 H.264 *.mov files, and make a fully searchable database of all my movies and TV shows, which with an Apple TV, I could then stream to my television at will! THAT would make it worth $300! If Apple honestly thinks everyone is going to repurchase all their videos, again, but this time DRMed to death, just so they can stream it, they're nutty.

Now would be the time for people to point out third-party solutions to this issue. Have at it...

Re:Why can't I import my DVDs?

[mla_anderson]

Well you can ...but you may not.

Re:Why can't I import my DVDs?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

There's nothing stopping you from importing quicktime transcoded h.264 or other MPEG4 style videos into iTunes.

S-video is pretty awful...

[Cyno01]

For anything above 480i. I bought a 15" LCD EDTV as a replacement second monitor and unfortunately it didn't come with a VGA cable. I had to use S-video for a few days while i waited for the VGA cable and at 1024x768, text was completely illegible. The only thing it was any good for was video. On the other hand i have a network enabled DVD player hooked up to my HDTV via component and even the tiny menu text looks fantastic. Same with text on the internet channel on my Wii with component. I have a friend whos struggled with his media center PC for a long time, especially getting text to look right on a SDTV, first thing he commented on was how fantastic the text looked via component on my DVD player.

LinkTheater

[cfoushee]

I have been watching all my tv on my link theater from Buffalo for over a year now. It plays everything I download flawlessly. I don't have to use windows media center or anything. Sure their interface is a little rough and the music and photo stuff is a little buggy but for wireless streaming its awesome. There was originally some plans for plugins but that has since got dropped. Unfortantely it doesn't appear that linktheater has caught on but why all the hype with this inferior Apple product that took about 2 years to come out after them. I guess that is why Apple can maintain its proprietary way of doing everything -- they have a loyal fan base. Don't get me wrong for the most part Apple products are superior, but they are still proprietary in nature.

Microsoft's OneCare security suite???

[IvanTheNotSoBad]

From TFA:

(The solution was to uninstall -- not just turn off -- Microsoft's OneCare security suite.)

That alone just made me lose (or loose as a lot of people here say) credibility for Pogue. Probably even worse than saying he had to uninstall Norton Antivirus.

I don't necessarily hate Microsoft, but a technology blogger "in the know" that trusts Microsoft enough for security? C'mon!

Tivo Transfer for Mac

[Franklin Brauner]

Toast 8 for OS X currently ships with Tivo Transfer, which I use on my MacBook to download shows, watch 'em on the go, and burn when I feel. It's highly elegant, though a bit slow downloading shows via my home Airport Extreme network. Downloading remotely would be nice, as now you can only download locally...but still, it's liberated me (as fay as that sounds).
--
Franklin Brauner

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[westlake]

but... how many people would have a widescreen TV that isn't HDTV?

in the states, no one.

the leap to widescreen digital HD is being made in one big jump from the console TV little changed since the introduction of color in the 'fifties.

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[argent]

It's got composite output, so it can't require HDMI.

oh come on

[commodoresloat]

The last time Apple offered this sort of thing it did wonderfully! I still have some great notes about it in my eMate... I don't watch the MacTV too often anymore though because I'm too busy playing games on my Pippin!

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[patiwat]

how many people would have a widescreen TV that isn't HDTV?

Here's one: a Hitachi 51" Widescreen Rear-Projection CRT SDTV, Model: 51F59, $900.

The ATSC defines widescreen SDTV as 704 pixels × 480 lines with 16:9 aspect ratio.

Re:The Apple deal

[novakreo]

Why modded this down?

That was a good analogy (although it was a car analogy...)

Apple loves to use OSS... What OSS has it released? Why isn't OS X open sourced? http://www.apple.com/opensource/

I'll bet it needs power too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry your friends were disappointed to hear they need a wireless network to stream data from a computer to a box attached to a TV in a different room, without wires.

I'm a sales exec for a small company that produces a wide range of digital music converters for PC's & Macs, and I think I have a solution for you. One of our products can transmit your collection of music files from a computer via tiny vibrations in the air which are then picked up by small receiver devices located on either side of the listener. It works through walls too. Call us at 1(800)WIR-LESS, and we'll arrange to send you a demo unit.

Don't forget to ask about our fine line of wireless power supplies!

T.J. McBird

Re:AppleTV crippled iTunes and Quicktime updates s

[mr_matticus]

What? Just don't install the updates if you don't want them. If you're particularly lazy and don't want to reinstall if you don't like, copy iTunes.app to another folder before running the installer. If you don't like the new version, just drag the old one back into /Applications. It's not like Windows applications can just roll back to an earlier version, and just try drag 'n drop with a Windows application folder if you want to see high tech.

Re:Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HD

[bluemonq]

You can still find EDTVs (Enhanced-definition television, same number of lines as SDTV, but progressive scan, not interlaced [aka 480p, coincidentally the highest resolution for the Wii]) these days, though they're less common now that HDTV prices have begun their slow price slide.

competing products

[ksheff]

Many of the products that the apple tv machine is compared to appear to just offer streaming. Are there any that have a hard drive that can be used to create a local copy of what you have on another computer? I'd rather load up the device with a bunch of videos and watch them later, rather than streaming them. Can you copy divx videos from a shared drive to the Xbox 360 for playback at a later time?

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG u nubcakes, its spelled POUGE!@ lol

Movies on units at Apple Store look terrible

[mmw]

I was at the Palo Alto Apple Store yesterday and saw that they had the Apple TV on display. They have three of them setup in the front right display area hooked up to some very nice Sony Bravia XBR LCD displays. The photo slideshow that was running on the unit I tried looked very nice but when I switched to watching a movie the video quality was horrible. I'm not sure what the exact resolution of the source material was but it looked no better than 480i/p and may have even been the standard 320 x 240 of iTunes videos. On top of that the bit rate the movies were encoded at was very low and there were compression artifacts all over the place. I tried three movies, The Incredibles, The Little Mermaid, and National Treasure and they all looked terrible. There was a couple standing near me at the other unit and they were commenting about how bad the video quality looked as well.

For a company that spends so much effort honing their marketing message this seems like a major blunder to me, though I don't know if this problem is unique to the Palo Alto store or endemic to all their stores worldwide. Now if these are iTunes movies (I've never used iTunes so I don't know what the videos are supposed to look like) it's commendable that Apple is following "truth in advertising" principles since their marketing slogan for the Apple TV on the Apple Web site is "If it's on iTunes, it's on your widescreen TV". However, they really need to get some DVD and HD quality movie clips on there to show off the true potential of the unit.

The other minor quibble I have with the unit I tried at the Palo Alto store is that the movie trailers that you can select don't appear to be already stored on the drive (I tried 3 of them) and you have to wait for them to download, which on the PA store's connection was really slow so I cancelled the download every time. Again it's nice that they are trying to show what the actual user experience is like but maybe they should have at least some of them preloaded as well. My guess is that some of those trailers are probably in DVD or even HD quality, given how long it was taking to download them, which would again help show off what the unit can do.

AppleTV remote

[Anonymous Coward]

Is AppleTV remote really intuitive? Can you use it on any video website (e.g., YouTube) other than iTune? If you see a hyperlink on a TV commercial, do you have time to move the cursor on top of that hyperlink? Regrettably, I am promoting a new TV remote that functions like a laser pointer. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/in dex.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070306006245& newsLang=en

Re:The Apple deal

[blankaBrew]

Read my comment. I said moron OR a troll.

flawed argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlike music, however, Apple is joining the party BEFORE divx has become the de facto standard."

You are very, very, VERY wrong here. Divx /Xvid has quite certainly become the defacto standard for video data stored on computers for consumer viewing. This is why you can buy DVD players that will play a disc full of Divx files, but not a DVD player that can play a disc full of H.264. It's also why those DVD players cost about £30...

"Imagine if Apple had released the iPod in the year 1996 instead of 2001; MP3 would have been limited to college campuses and people running Pentiums."

Mmmm, I remember that period well; when the decent MP3 players were CD players with mp3 disc support (ooh! what a parallel!) and when minidisc had a cat's chance as a consumer format (if you want to see a product that ipod killed, look at minidisc players...)

Also, importantly, consider that the period where only college students etc had MP3s in numbers nevertheless drove the adoption of MP3 as the surviving standard in audio files. Only a tied-in player/store combo allows microsoft's and apple's proprietary formats ANY space in the market at all - anyone with a brain would rather itms sold MP3, and given the choice between MP3 and almost any other format would usually chose MP3.

The thing that apple did with itunes/ipod, as you've said elsewhere, was to see a growing demographic of people who had MP3 files they wanted to play on the move, and to provide a very simple system that did that for them. (setting the system so that by adding the new mp3 to your media player, it would magically appear on the ipod when next charged was the "clever step")

Note that apple did NOT release ipod without the ability to play MP3 and try to push everyone to apple's choice of format - it would have been the death of the product. Given that the college student etc demographic is now leading the charge to digital video file ubiquity - and doing so using divx - releasing video products without support for that format is likely to be, well, lets say somewhat of a hindrance to the product

In the video arena, apple is turning up a little later to the game. There are already multipple competitors in the "serve video from a computer to the TV" space, and in the "record TV to a computer" space.

Unfortunately in this case the "clever bit" is making the file format irrelevant for the first case, and "magically" recording things you will like in the second case.

Making the file format irrelevant means supporting all the formats you can, and apple has (terminally) dropped the ball here - as I said, the vast, VAST majority of video sat on computers waiting to be played on the TV is in Divx or Xvid format.

The "magic" recording has been done already by tivo and sky+, yet apple has decided not to bother with it.

To be clear; I'm not a college student (my net access is at home, paid for by me), but I am in the demographic with a LOT of digital video ready to stream from a computer (gigs and gigs of it). Guess what format its in? It ain't MPEG4, and it most certainly isn't H.264!

I'd be in the market for an iTV, except that it can't play ANY of my existing media, not the DIVX, not even my DVDs - so what the fuck use is it?!? I'm honestly at a loss to see how apple thought it was a viable product...

Re:The Apple deal

[toddestan]

How much of that stuff has Apple released because they had to (as per the GPL and other agreements), and how much of that stuff has Apple released on their own?

Re:The Apple deal

[Falladir]

ah! right you are.