Sidebar Sidebar
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

nxent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Haha! Best post in this thread so far! :)
 
Tara Davis said:
Say it with me, children: A mini is a better solution than :apple: TV.
Click to expand...

Besides being an obnoxious comment it is also a subjective one, and ignores the simplicity and convenience of :apple:TV at a much lower price. I love the :apple:TV merely as an AE replacement. The fact that I can sit on my couch and easily watch any video that I choose to make iTunes compatible is a huge plus.
 
psychofreak said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

My Bravia with an Apple TV beats Comcast Digital Cable for the non-HD channels... even the 'crappy' 640x360 widescreen SciFi shows.

Battlestar is a different story, and I have seen a lot of complaints about quality issues with season 3 on iTMS.
 
I'm telling you, by the time the 3G AppleTV rolls into town everyone will have one or want one. It's finding its feet at the moment, give it time. When they get it down to $300 for the 160GB and $400 for 250GB, that's when I think that product will really go supersonic. It'll also be when I pick one up.
 
While this is a positive move, it is just an upgrade and does not have the flash of the announcement made by Microsoft (not that I think it will see the light of day).

Flash wise MS won.
Substance wise Apple won.
 
moonzilla said:
apple should have included the 160gb on the initial release. no excuses.
Click to expand...

I think Apple didn't want to make too many choices for the consumers for the initial release, over the next year I personally think we will see a whole heap of different user defined configurations for the Apple TV.

If the Mac Mini is dead then it's a sure thing that the Apple will take it's place and didn't Steve drop the "Computer" out of the Apple Computers?
 
stevehp said:
hahaha...I find it funny that of all updates we were expecting in the coming weeks, the first one is of a product that has only been around for a few months.
Click to expand...

For this being the year that Apple is blooming, we had so far very little to show for.

Boy looks like that darn phone did a job on Apple management, project and resources.
 
why ?

Hmmm... I don't know about you guys, but I am streaming everything fine over my airport express network from my imac and I don't even need any storage on my aTV.... Who cares about more gigs??? I will just another 500gb lacie on to my imac for $110
 
ManchesterTrix said:
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.
Click to expand...

My bad, Western Digital did come out with a 250GB 2.5 SATA a couple weeks ago. (And it looks like Fujitsu has/will have one too.) When I researched all this for my own Apple TV endeavors the largest was 200GB for SATA, my apologies for not checking on it again.
 
flopticalcube said:
HD content will require buffering. It just too much data, even for n.
Click to expand...

Have you steamed any HD yet ? How do you know that then ? I seem to be able to stream HD trailers over my DSL line and that is not as fast as my 10baseT wireless network. I am going to download some HD trailers and stream them from my imac tonight to see....
 
A positive step that will be useful for many people.

I'm still waiting for the version 2.0, not least because I won't have a HDTV until then, but also because I want a more refined product, one that can do higher quality HD (more than 5mbps!) and has better audio capabilities.

On the other hand, the SqueezeBox is looking mighty fine and it has its own display, if only it had an internal hard drive to cache the most popular songs, so I didn't need to have the SqueezeServer running all the time... Sadly now the company is owned by Logitech the product line will go downhill fast.
 
Do I smell HD content at the Apple Store?

I downloaded 2 Star Trek (TOS and Enterprise) in HD on XBox Live. With those shows and some other stuff the 20 Gig drive is almost full. Hence the new 120 Gig HD.

I can see the neccesity of the new config... makes me feel all "tingly"...
 
Very well ... then please turn on the USB port and allow the Apple TV to add external storage then.

I had always planned on moving the Apple TV to the bedroom if newer, enhanced models came out. I'm not buying the new 160HD model, it doesn't offer anything more that the current model except for storage space of course. And as I said, they should turn ont he USB port to allow for external drives.
 
flopticalcube said:
HD content will require buffering. It just too much data, even for n.
Click to expand...
Nope, the :apple:tv can only handle HD content @ max. 5mbps + 160kbps audio. So no problem for n. The quality is quite good. Just re encoded some 1080p trailer to 720p @max settings for :apple:tv and they look awesome!

About the TV Shows quality in general on iTMS. They look sometimes like they did something wrong with deinterlaceing. It just looks very lowres on high contrast parts. Hope they start encoding in HD and selling them worldwide...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back