Slashdot Mirror
Third-Generation Apple TV Lands With a Thud
DeviceGuru writes "Although generally overshadowed by the iPad 3 debut, Apple also introduced the third incarnation of its Apple TV streaming media players this week. Sporting a revamped icon-based UI, the third-generation Apple TV doesn't add much to its predecessor beyond a truly-HD 1080p video output mode. Although Apple TV is still not supported by an Apple Apps Store plug-in apps ecosystem, its new UI (available as a free update for 2nd-generation Apple TVs) does seem to imply that this capability is coming soon. Meanwhile, Roku is gearing up for a $50M IPO, so this cord-cutting story is far from over."
Give it an app store so I can have Plex just like on my iPhone and iPad.
I promise to buy like 3 of them minimum.
It seems like all the headlines since CmdrTaco left have been really negative, misleading headlines. Do negative headlines really bring in that much more traffic? I stopped reading boing boing because of their terrible headlines, and it looks like Slashdot is headed down that route too.
I used to come here for my daily dose of news and interesting topics, now all the headlines are used to cast doubt on company's futures, failed products and missed deadlines.
I don't mind hearing about "Your Rights Online" and the negative aspects of SOPA, etc, but it's gotten to the point where slashdot is no longer that shining beacon of interesting, exciting NEWs. Why would you spin a minor product improvement (720p->1080p) as a negative headline? What do your readers get out of it? Does it really improve traffic that much? Slashdot goes from being interesting and standing out as a good source of news, to just another "me too" BoingBoing style blog. Please don't do that.
moox. for a new generation.
Apple never pushed or stated that the Apple TV was anything revolutionary; Especially compared to their Phone, Tablets, and Laptops, they consider it a hobby.
The iPad now has all the technical bits in place to become the household computing center for most people. It has built in e-mail, web, video consumption, photo and video management, music, basic document creation and, critically, built in always available cheap broadband internet connectivity (via LTE).
The final nail for the iPad is to get decent dependable TV and movie programming. Once that is in place, iPad covers most people's media needs and the Apple TV is an accessory for the iPad like the Camera Connection Kit but for displaying content on a traditional TV.
Assuming Apple gets its programming, the cable (and DSL) companies are going to get wiped out without ever realizing what hit them.
looks like the Apple TV 2 was 720p so that the next one would bring 1080p as an incentive for adopters to upgrade or buy a second one.
really? who would believe being limited to 720p was a real technical limitation? I guess you would have no trouble getting 1080p output from a graphics card made in 1999. that said it's a cheap and tiny computer with an ethernet port. it's tempting to get, but does it support the standards (DLNA, samba shares etc.) or is it locked into iTunes, I don't know.
for people outside of the U.S. (I guess the U.K. works now too). Although I live in a country that is well behind on licensing agreements, I can at least use the AppleTV to view legally purchased or rented movies from the iTunes stores (one of the only functioning alternatives in Austria), stream from my media server, and mirror my iDevices displays.
With the Roku I can use plex.
I'm even less impressed by the Roku than the new AppleTV.
The expression "lands with a thud" implies poor a poor market reception and poor sales. There has been no time whatsoever to gauge the new Apple TV's market success or lack thereof, and neither the poster nor the linked articles add a lick of information. The headline is as stupid as a headline "Third-Generation Apple TV Destroys All Competition!" would be.
Want eyeballs? Just put "Apple" in a negative headline. Mission accomplished; no time wasted on actual thought.
720p format is "truly-HD" according to the ATSC broadcast standard. Furthermore, it's very hard for most people to even perceive any visual difference between the 720-line and 1080-line formats. You'd have to be sitting very close to a very large display to even have a chance. 1080p is sort of like the camera Megapixel Wars: a way to slap a bigger-and-better sounding number on your product while the main practical effect is to waste bandwidth and storage.
"Gather round the TV, kids; honey, can you dim the lights? It's time for my Keynote about the JCR family vacation!"
Pre orders sold out less than 8 hours after its announcement. Just because a few tech geeks can't twist the hardware to perform all their desires doesn't mean it still isn't a popular consumer good with a much larger buying public. You can't please everyone, and Apple runs a business so they please the largest buying group first.
A few months after I quite cable, I bought a Roku box. It's pretty nifty. AppleTV doesn't do much beyond what the Roku box does. Should Apple bring their app store to the Apple TV, that will help that. But Roku already has apps. Granted, they don't have very many. But my device came with Angry Birds and there are other apps out there. I suppose what the Apple TV would offer is the whole world of iPad and iPhone apps ready to go. That would be a decided advantage.
But, aside from the premium content, the one thing that I really miss from having cable is the set top box that doubled as a DVR. The ability to pausing live TV is really a killer feature. The ability to record shows and watch them later is also a killer feature. I also really miss nodding off during a drama and being able to rewind to the point where I fell asleep. Or beng able to the REC button to grab the last fifteen minutes of a movie while I'm off to eat dinner or go out with my family. If an Apple TV allowed me to do that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Instead, my next AV equipment purchase is probably going to be a Channel Master DVR with dual ATSC tuners that costs three times as much as an Apple TV.
I can understand why Apple is taking this approach. They're playing the long game. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before most over the air (OTA) broadcasts are also streamed. At such time OTA tuners will be obsolete equipement. Unfortunately, I suspect that such a development is 5 to 10 years down the road. For the present, you can have my ATSC tuner when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
And yet all they need to do is allow third party development, and in no time there will be 100s of thousands of apps for it. At $99 that would be a hell of a value proposition.
There seems to be no reason that they wouldn't do that. I suspect that they they wanted to get the new icon based interface out first, just in case the blogosphere decided to be critical about it. Let opinions about it die done... in a few months everyone will just accept it as the norm. Then announce 3rd party apps. At that stage, no one can spin it as a bad thing, it would be all good.
Was the smartphone, or tablet, or laptop, or music player revolutionary when apple released it, or was it the device they copied from that was revolutionary.
Take the iPad as an example, yes it was revolutionary. Microsoft and others had been trying tablet concepts since the late 1980s. Sometimes calling them tablets, sometimes slates, sometimes pads. Every last one of them was a flop.
Apple launched their iPad and it was an instant success.
Using the political connotation of revolution, this is the difference between a few people grumbling, and having a revolution that takes over the country, transforming politics from then on.
Apple didn't copy any of the previous tablets, why would they? They were all flops. Since Apple's iPad revolution, every tablet manufacturer now bases their tablet designs on the iPad though.
The intelligent person doesn't deny that a revolution took place, it clearly did. They work out what it was about Apple's design that struck a chord with the public. That made it a phenomenal success where all before had been failures.
The lack of major improvement in AppleTV features makes me think perhaps something else is coming. Recall how Steve Jobs was saying he had finally cracked integrated television? It is hard to believe he would make that statement with respect to what is currently on offer from Apple.
Except my smartphone. And my calculator. And my keyboard, mouse, controller, blood pressure meter, AHCHD camera, calibrator, flash drive, remote, headphone amp, and so on. No nothing at all.
These by the way are just devices laying around my house I can think of. There's more, and more at work as well. USB is kinda of used by, well, damn near everything that likes to plug in to a computer which is damn near everything. As I said, even my blood pressure monitor has USB (so you can download the history of your BP).
But hey if you want to add to the cost and complexity of every device, and reduce the battery life, as well as require an AP for them to work, sure let's go all 802.11.
Buy Roku. ( and any other major competitor ) It works for other huge companions with billions in the bank. Instant customer base.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In the sense that previous attempts at such devices did not in fact create a revolution, while Apple's did, it seems that the answer is obvious.
What many people find difficult to grasp is that Apple creates a product revolution, not by being the first to make a device of a particular type, but by being the first to do it really well. And they do it over and over again. They don't invent the mousetrap, they invent the better mousetrap.
or more simply put:
Asking if Apple is responsible for the "revolutionary" devices like the iPad, iPod, iPhone vs the first devices in the class is like suggesting George Washington wasn't responsible for a good portion of the American revolution but instead it was all some guy in a bar who was bitching about the British before everyone else was.
Clearly, the killer feature for the AppleTV would be access to the App store. But doing it right is not trivial. Ideally, the AppleTV would run most iPhone apps, with the capacity to use a separate iPhone or iPad as a touch (and voice for iPhone 4s) controller (or a separate extra-cost hand-held version of the Magic iPad for those without an Apple touch-enabled device). Specially enabled apps would run simultaneously on AppleTV and iPhone/iPad, providing a dual display.
Maybe with the next generation of AppleTV...
Apple users are clearly willing to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars to avoid having to use an unsightly cable. It's pretty funny, actually.
I don't respond to AC's.
In a nutshell, yes. Thanks.
Apple doesn't care if this device gets much fanfare. It's user-subsidized research for them. You pay Apple $99, and they put a little media box on your shelf that studies how you use it. This is just a way for them to do a mass-study on how to best go about tackling the TV project. Better to get it right first on a cheap, tiny box than jump straight into selling a big, expensive TV.
The new "app" layout and the fact that Netflix can bill directly to your iTunes account is a pretty clear sign that they're now gearing up to allow more third party content providers on it.
That said, I've got a 2nd gen one, and I like it. Sure, it's not full of features, but it does a better job at Netflix than my PS3 and I love streaming music on it to my big stereo system.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
In the sense that previous attempts at such devices did not in fact create a revolution, while Apple's did, it seems that the answer is obvious.
What many people find difficult to grasp is that Apple creates a product revolution, not by being the first to make a device of a particular type, but by being the first to do it really well. And they do it over and over again. They don't invent the mousetrap, they invent the better mousetrap.
I thought they invented the mouse!!! But hey look how smart they are, now they make mouses as well as mousetraps, but isn't the mighty mouse too smart to get trapped? Does this mean we get a MousetrAppStore as well?
The iPad wasn't a revolution, it was an evolution of the iPhone. Without the iPhone and its apps the iPad wouldn't have been the success it has been. Apple's genius was recognizing that they could extend the striving ecosphere of the iPhone to another device, and thereby kickstart its adoption. That's the major advantage they've had over other people trying to launch tablets, and it's an advantage that they created, so I'm not belittling it. The device in itself wasn't revolutionary.
Some people don't want their living room to look like a scene from Brazil. $100 is a small price to pay.
Well except for people like me... I take the train home from work. I'm watching a movie on my iPhone, and it's all over.. all except for the last 15-20 minutes of it. So I get off the train, put on my headphones so I can listen to music from my iPhone/Pandora while walking to my car. When I get to my car, I take off my head phones half way through a song I like, plug in my iPhone to my car stereo, and listen to it on my way home through my car stereo (Kenwood KDC-BY948HD btw). When I get home, I pull into the driveway. Half way through another song, I unplug my iPhone, hit the airplay button and switch the output to my Pioneer VSX-1121 receiver, and now that song picks up exactly where it was only now it's playing in my house. I make make dinner, then sit down in the living room to eat it. I hit the video button, select the movie I was watching on the train, hit airplay, and select "Living Room Apple TV", the receiver stops playing music and the TV starts playing the last 15-20 minutes of the movie I was watching on the train in 7.2 surround sound. If/when that movie is over, I pick another one using the Apple TV remote to stream one directly from my PC in the office.
Could I do that with a laptop/another vendors tablet? Perhaps, I could come up with some bastardization of hardware/software combo that would come close, but nothing I've ever seen comes even close to the simplicity and ease of use, nor one that has a half way decent UI. The Apple TV UI is the best I've seen for a DNLA type player, and I've looked at quite a few.
What's the point of e.g. a YouTube channel if all you have to navigate with is the minimalist Apple Remote? And no Bluetooth or USB so you can't connect a keyboard for doing text searches.
Basically, you need an iPad for this to be useful, and then why bother with the AppleTV Youtube channel at all? Just find what you want on the iPad and use AirPlay.
Yes, it's on the back of any PC on your network.
No, Douglas Englebart invented the mouse. But Apple's Magic Mouse is by far the best one that I've ever used.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
There's something that annoys me about streaming high-quality video to a battery-operated device, and then for that device to send it back over a the same half-duplex network to the Apple TV. I know tech is there to do our bidding, but it just seems so...wrong
Or, I could sit comfortably on my couch, without a long wire running to my TV, and show my friends a new app I bought. Then, my friend could whip out there iPhone and show me a video they think is funny.
I guess with your solution, one of us could kneel by the TV and control the tablet. Then, if the other person wanted to show something, we could trade places and swap the wires out.
Brilliant.
AppleTV already does offer all of the iPhone and iPad apps - you can stream anything on your iPhone or iPad to the AppleTV. I can play Angry Birds on my AppleTV. I can watch YouTube, and the AppleTV will actually take over the streaming. The first time I played Pizza Vs Skeletons was in a room full of friends, and we all just passed the iPad around and watched each other play.
Is that the sort of decided advantage you were talking about?
Yes. And they buy tablets for their USB ports. There just aren't very many of them.
Yes, because plugging your laptop into the TV is just the same thing as having anybody in the room able to wireless send whatever they want to the TV from the tablet they're holding in their hands.
The Apple TV is a $99 wireless video receiver with excellent quality. The crappy analog ones they sell in Radio Shack that require a dongle on your device still cost $79-200.
If it bothers you, stream it directly to the Apple TV.
> Meanwhile, Roku is gearing up for a $50M IPO, so this cord-cutting story is far from over." Wow! You mean Roku might be worth a speculative 50m? Apple has nearly a trillion dollars IN THE BANK. Think on that a moment. This post is junk. AppleTV has made an incremental step forward, not bad for a hobby.
they spent about 3 and a half seconds covering the new ATV (2 seconds were spend on the new UI), the rest was ipad demos and bashing phone apps stretched to tablet size (they were not hesitant at talking a few jabs @ Android).
What a load of bullshit.
3rd party developers are already there and making this turd into something useful. They are doing this despite the fact that they aren't even really allowed. They only thing they are lacking is some degree of legitimacy so that non-geek users don't have to "jailbreak" the device first.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
looks nice, but way above the "magic" $99 price point.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
"So why no Slashdot hype for the Popcorn Hour"
because there's no such thing as popcornhour.slashdot.com whereas this is apple.slashdot.com?
er.. dot org. /sorry
It has better connectivity -- not just HDMI, but any old display device that'll take video. It has (far) more channels. It has open-source, non-walled-garden channel creation code. It has more outputs. More inputs. More stuff to watch and listen to. It's cheap (the low end one is *really* cheap!) The remote is (way) better. In fact, the only thing I don't like about the Roku is you can't put it to sleep and you can't really turn it off... it takes too long to boot to turn it off.
Apple is way behind the curve here. They don't understand the market. And I have to say, that doesn't bode well for any upcoming television sets; if they're thinking integration of the Apple TV with a display screen is going to be the new hotness... no, it isn't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's not really the same thing. You can effectively do that with one of Apple's iPad to HDMI cables. Sending the output to the Apple TV isn't the same thing as playing a game on the Apple TV. For example, it you went out into the hallway to take a phone call, all of your friends would have had to stop playing Pizza vs Skeletons. That doesn't happen if the Apple TV can actually play the games.
You're thinking of iPhoto slide shows. I'm talking about business presentations. Most of the conference rooms I've seen in the last five years have an HDTV on the wall.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Correct, I could do this with a cable, but then we'd be confined by the length of the cable. I also doubt I'd be leaving the room to take a phone call on my iPad.
OTA broadcasts, when in HD, are far superior to most digital cable HD feeds. There are exceptions, but most digital cable providers compress or use other tricks so that they can fit more channels on the same feed. OTA channels don't have to worry about this for the most part. Anyway, most new content from the networks is vastly improved by 1080p sets. The local news may not be. The latest episode of The River (or whatever the cool kids are watching these days) almost certainly will be.
Which leads to another issue. Reruns of syndicated content is rarely HD. It may be digital. The picture may be the same size. But it is rarely HD. If vendors want, they can scale the picture size up without actually adding pixels. Many do. When this is done, you're not going to get any benefit out of a higher resolution set because regardless of what resolution the set is capable of, the source is still in the same resolution.
I love my apple tv/air display and integration with ipad/iphone, but had to jailbreak it for XBMC to open up the content sources. Since the iOS is shared with iphone/ipad, seems like apple could pretty easily enable app development on the platform. And ideally the development would enable integration with the content streams. Imagine apps that grab and modify the video/audio streams, just like current iOS apps do with the camera now. Of course much of the media industry would scream foul, but just think of the potential apps. That would be a revolution past all other products in the domain simply fighting it out over content.
I really don't care all that much about using Apple TV for buying iTMS content until Hollywood gets their acts together (which I don't suspect will happen any time soon). I'll happily use one in the entertainment center, though, to stream music through or watch Netflix, etc. I currently use a PS3, but it uses a LOT more energy to do so.
However, what I think has most of us really excited about the Apple TV is Airplay, especially with it coming to OSX (it already is there on iOS). This really is a pretty big thing for folks who use Apple products. Also, for people who give presentations, the Apple TV is a great product to hook to the projector, and then just use an iPad to wirelessly give the presentation. I only with the Apple TV had a built-in wifi router to save me lugging an Airport Express. (That said, an iPad, Apple TV, and AX is already a pretty portable package!)
My brother has a PCH. It's really not all that great, even when it first came out and didn't have AppleTV to compete against.