Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Introduces 160GB Apple TV for $399
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know that all upgrades can't be great upgrades but I thought the whole point of this box was to stream content from your computer so why do wee need a larger HD?
Is this the final nail in the Mac Mini coffin
Apple has always overcharged for things like drives and memory so the pricing is no suprise.
Is this the final nail in the Mac Mini coffin
Apple has always overcharged for things like drives and memory so the pricing is no suprise.
Hmmm... I've thought about getting an aTV but for 300 euros (or assumingly 400 euros for the new one) it really doesn't do much at all. I bought a 30 euro DVI -> HDMI cable and hook up my Powerbook. Works great and I have full functionality. I think I'd rather spend my money on something else until apple has figured out what they want to do with this TV market.
god damnit. lol I already have the 40GB. Oh well, i just gotta sit down one day and mod this biotch anyways.
I wonder if Apple will ever consider partnering with a company such as Joost... hmmm...
That would actually make this device useful
Wow. Lack of HD space was far from the main thing keeping me from buying a shiny new 
TV
Much bigger factors:
1. Lack of support for discrete surround sound. (And don't link yet again to that ***** "top 10 myths" page. The TV DOES NOT do proper surround sound, meaning it does not output anything other than a stereo PCM signal. Yes, it will do pass-through, just like the optical out on the mac, and yes, you can fake it with Dolby Pro Logic using the STEREO signal you will get from all of your QuickTime files, including the AAC 5.1 files, but that's not the same thing as encoding to AC-3 for an actual surround signal that can be used by actual existing hardware.) For a home theater device, the current state of affairs with audio on this box is absolutely pathetic.
2. Price. Let's face it, the TV amounts to little more than a wireless monitor connector. A remarkable feat, in some ways, but why would I ever want to pay $400 when a $50 DVI-HDMI cable will do? Heck, it doesn't even supplant the need for a cable, because the TV still needs to be wired to your monitor.
For less than $400, you could easily score an old G4 mini off Craigslist or eBay or whatever, more than likely already upgraded with 1GB of memory, which will play h.264 just as well, and will also do so much more.
3. Lack of format support. "If QuickTime can play it, so can TV." Hey that's swell. But I've never quite been able to delete VLC off my media room Mac, because there are an a fair number of files out there which you flat-out can't use with QuickTime (even with Perian, Flip4Mac, and the AC3 patch installed), and a lot of other files which QuickTime does not play quite as well as VLC, for various reasons.
Also VLC offers a lot of that QuickTime perhaps never will: AC-3 and DTS support via S/PDIF, powerful de-interlacing options, switchable subtitles, multiple language tracks, etc.
4. Lack of media bay.
If I want to play a DVD from NetFlix, I just pop it into the Mac that is right there in my media room. If an TV user wants to do the same, they either need to keep a separate DVD player hooked up to their TV along with their TV, or they need to go into whatever room their computer is in to stream it. Lame.
5. Lack of analog video output.
The big media companies are desperate to "close the analog hole" by moving everything to formats which use encrypted digital video streams that go all the way to the monitor. It's one reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are so slow to determine a winner: Few people want anything to do with either one of them.
If a media device can't output component video, or at the very least VGA, it's worthless for connecting to a great deal of the TV sets and projection systems out there.
Say it with me, children: A mini is a better solution than TV.
Don't even try to tell me that the mini is "too expensive" for some people. We're talking about an HD media device here. Anybody who "needs" an TV is usually going to be somebody who was willing to drop a few grand on an HDTV and a top-notch audio system to go with it. It seems penny-wise and pound-foolish to hook up that glorious home theater to such a limited device when a little more money (or a little wiser shopping) gets you so much more.
You can't even dismiss me as an Apple-basher, because I'm actually strongly advocating Apple products. Just not this one. It's completely inferior to another solution offered by the same company.
TVMuch bigger factors:
1. Lack of support for discrete surround sound. (And don't link yet again to that ***** "top 10 myths" page. The
TV DOES NOT do proper surround sound, meaning it does not output anything other than a stereo PCM signal. Yes, it will do pass-through, just like the optical out on the mac, and yes, you can fake it with Dolby Pro Logic using the STEREO signal you will get from all of your QuickTime files, including the AAC 5.1 files, but that's not the same thing as encoding to AC-3 for an actual surround signal that can be used by actual existing hardware.) For a home theater device, the current state of affairs with audio on this box is absolutely pathetic.2. Price. Let's face it, the
TV amounts to little more than a wireless monitor connector. A remarkable feat, in some ways, but why would I ever want to pay $400 when a $50 DVI-HDMI cable will do? Heck, it doesn't even supplant the need for a cable, because the TV still needs to be wired to your monitor.For less than $400, you could easily score an old G4 mini off Craigslist or eBay or whatever, more than likely already upgraded with 1GB of memory, which will play h.264 just as well, and will also do so much more.
3. Lack of format support. "If QuickTime can play it, so can
TV." Hey that's swell. But I've never quite been able to delete VLC off my media room Mac, because there are an a fair number of files out there which you flat-out can't use with QuickTime (even with Perian, Flip4Mac, and the AC3 patch installed), and a lot of other files which QuickTime does not play quite as well as VLC, for various reasons.Also VLC offers a lot of that QuickTime perhaps never will: AC-3 and DTS support via S/PDIF, powerful de-interlacing options, switchable subtitles, multiple language tracks, etc.
4. Lack of media bay.
If I want to play a DVD from NetFlix, I just pop it into the Mac that is right there in my media room. If an
TV user wants to do the same, they either need to keep a separate DVD player hooked up to their TV along with their TV, or they need to go into whatever room their computer is in to stream it. Lame.5. Lack of analog video output.
The big media companies are desperate to "close the analog hole" by moving everything to formats which use encrypted digital video streams that go all the way to the monitor. It's one reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are so slow to determine a winner: Few people want anything to do with either one of them.
If a media device can't output component video, or at the very least VGA, it's worthless for connecting to a great deal of the TV sets and projection systems out there.
Say it with me, children: A mini is a better solution than
TV. Don't even try to tell me that the mini is "too expensive" for some people. We're talking about an HD media device here. Anybody who "needs" an
TV is usually going to be somebody who was willing to drop a few grand on an HDTV and a top-notch audio system to go with it. It seems penny-wise and pound-foolish to hook up that glorious home theater to such a limited device when a little more money (or a little wiser shopping) gets you so much more.You can't even dismiss me as an Apple-basher, because I'm actually strongly advocating Apple products. Just not this one. It's completely inferior to another solution offered by the same company.
Hopefully it's a portent for DVR/PVR functionality.
Sadly that is never going to happen.
This is what Steve Jobs said about it today:No, we've wanted to do this for a few years. But we thought of this as a set-top box replacement. The minute you have an STB you have gnarly issues, CableCARD, OCAP... that just isn't something we would choose to do ourselves. We couldn't see a go-to-market strategy that makes sense. But wait, there are a lot more DVD players than STBs, we just want to be a new DVD player for the internet age. And that's what we can be. So our model for the Apple TV is like a DVD player for the internet.
Say it with me, children: A mini is a better solution than
I agree completely, and have for a long time. (I made my decision in December, and I have not seen a single speck of evidence to make me reconsider)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this device is a bad deal.
They need a dickless one
They don't need to sell a more expensive bigger one, they need to sell a 0GB version (maybe with a gig of flash for the OS only) that streams only for $149.
They don't need to sell a more expensive bigger one, they need to sell a 0GB version (maybe with a gig of flash for the OS only) that streams only for $149.
I don't have one, but have heard that the Sony Bravia TVs they use are awful at the interlacing (or something technical), and most TVs are much better looking with iTS video on AppleTV
You've got that completely backwards. Sony's TVs have phenomenally good scalers. Better than any other brand I've used. (One of the reasons they're worth the money).
Regarding this announcement. Yawn. It's still a niche product.
Bingo! Essentially an Airport Express with Video, utilizing Front Row.
That's all I need!
Boo to me for being an early adopter.
Then again, I already have got a lot of good use out of my AppleTV and I've been thinking about buying another one and an LCD TV for the bedroom... 160GB living room... 40GB bedroom... not bad!
Then again, I already have got a lot of good use out of my AppleTV and I've been thinking about buying another one and an LCD TV for the bedroom... 160GB living room... 40GB bedroom... not bad!
I've heard that the Bravia's techno stuff doesn't blend well with AppleTV, so it looks worse on a Bravia than on another TV
i propose that whenever apple wants to upgrade a product line they confer with the macrumors community and strive to obtain a 2/3 majority vote. in this specific case, the 160GB upgrade to the Apple TV might get struck down in favor of the 250 GB model that came with free bj's. only then will the incessant whining about product upgrades or lack thereof cease.
A painful question (seriously) because I really don't want the mini to be discontinued. Of course, my Mm isn't going to blink out of existence just because the line gets discontinued (if that happens in the near future, which I doubt).
But I do and will continue to push the Mac mini as a media center PC, even if it does get discontinued. There'll be good used ones around for a while. By 2010 or 2011, we'll probably have devices that make both the Mac mini and the
TV look pathetic And 2160p 
Its hard to get excited about Apple TV, killing Mini may pave the way for something better or a reshuffle of the whole lineup.
Not much difference in size? Between a 2.5" and a 3.5" HD? I suppose if you're only looking at one dimension.
I disagree. The hard drive in the Apple TV is a laptop 2.5 inch drive. On top of that, it is a PATA, not a SATA drive, so there are limitations to the size since most manufacturers are focusing on SATA now. Right now 160GB is the largest made for PATA 2.5 inch drives. They would have to change the interface to SATA, increasing cost in order to get a larger laptop drive, which would only be an increase to 200GB. In order to go larger, they'd have to increase the footprint or height of the Apple TV to accommodate a 3.5 inch drive. $100 is a great deal as you can see that there are people buying 160GB drives for their Apple TVs for close to $295 at a macservice.com and weaknees.com and ebay. This is definitely something in high demand. The best option in my opinion is an add-on that uses the USB port to daisy-chain as many drives as you want. If Apple made it look and fit right under the Apple TV, that would be perfect, then as your library grows, you can add more storage.
Not entirely true. Western Digital released a 250 gig SATA drive for less than Fujitsi 200 gig SATA. I ordered it for my MacBook Pro.
Here's a reason (not saying it's good, but clearly a design guideline which impacted
TV.No power brick
If you want no power brick, you'd better not need too many watts in this puppy since the on-board transformers can only do so much.
If you want a bigger hard drive, or a 3.5" hard drive then the heat output of the device goes up. It's obvious for a 3.5" drive since the disc is bigger and hence the outermost edge has a higher linear velocity than the smaller disc. It's less obvious why a larger capacity increases heat output, but for some reason it does.
Once you have extra heat you have to find a way to cool it down.
No problem, we'll add a fan. DOH! Now we need more power than we can pull on an ICB transformer.
The
TV is always on, so needs to have low power requirements. So, bottom line, it's a design trade off.As to why the 160GB drive (which in this case is almost the same heat output) wasn't there in version 1, well, there could be any number of reasons, but my guess would be that they decided the price point of $299 was a bigger target market to hit. Plus a $299 product launch is more palletable than a $399 one.
In other words, it wasn't a technology reason. So while people on this forum might say "No reason not to do this in rev A" they should be saying "no _technical_ reason not to do this in rev A."
Apple is a company, it wants to make money. Give them a break.
be well
t