Yeah, this is another one of my complaints, and reason why I will never buy an AppleTV in its current incarnation. Again, Apple needs to step up if it wants to be a legitimate player in this space.
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
Yeah, this is another one of my complaints, and reason why I will never buy an AppleTV in its current incarnation. Again, Apple needs to step up if it wants to be a legitimate player in this space.
Share price is only relevant as a function of market cap, earnings per share, etc. You're right but not for the reason yo u say.
That is only half the story. Or maybe only 1/4...
First, I think we can agree the difference in retail price on the 40 vs. the 160 gig Apple TVs is 100. Cool.
Your price- 160GB hard drive on Newegg is around $110- which you insinuate is the Appple cost... like Apple is loosing 10 bucks a pop on these. NOT.
But you forget, they get to take OUT a 40 Gigger in there (or did I miss the part about two internal drives???) At Newegg, thats a 50-60 dollar item...
So, you pay Apple 100 bucks for a 60 buck upgrade in hardware- yep, thats a good deal.
But you also forget Apple gets better prices than Newegg... so, the upgrade is probably costing Apple 30-40 bucks more than putting the 40 Gig in... not the 110 dollars you insinuate.... and certainly not the $100 difference Apple is charging.
So, for every 160 Apple TV they sell they get 60-70 bucks MORE in profit- for FREE! And THAT is why Apple stock is at 118, and they are very good at it: get the fanbois to want to pay them more for less.
D
1. Lack of support for discrete surround sound. (And don't link yet again to that ***** "top 10 myths" page. TheTV 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.
True enough, but ask yourself how many people right now listen to files in surround sound from their computer (hardly any) or have a surround sound set-up in their living room (not as many as you think). For many, surround sound isn't even a concern. For others, Pro-Logic II will suffice for now. AV nuts the market does not make. Do you think that all those people buying iTunes content care about surround sound, or that others are thinking "I'd buy content if only it had Dolby True HD 7.1! Curse you Apple!" No, they're not.
2. Price. Let's face it, the
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.
Because for some (read: most) the point is to get rid of the overkill computer interface, not replicate it. Others don't have computers near their TV and don't want them there. Your same arguments would hold for DVD players as well, but people don't want to use a mouse and keyboard just to watch a movie. Normal people don't buy computers for living room entertainment.
3. Lack of format support. "If QuickTime can play it, so can
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.
So follow the hacks and put VLC on the thing. The codec thing has been beat to death.
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
My toaster doesn't play DVDs either, but that's okay. My Xbox doesn't play HD DVDs without paying $200 for a redundant drive. AppleTV is meant to supplant physical media. Sure, you could theoretically remove a component if AppleTV played DVDs but physical disc players and digital streaming are different beasts: one is dying and one is in it's infancy. If ANY entertainment device would be the one to not have a DVD drive, this is the one. It has to start somewhere. Buy your movie from Apple or rip it. Ipods didn't play CDs but they seemed to sell okay... it's the same principle here.
I'm not sure what you're talking about... AppleTV has component video out. AppleTV content comes from your computer anyway, so encryption at the AppleTV end wouldn't even matter.
Say it with me, children: A mini is a better solution than
Don't even try to tell me that the mini is "too expensive" for some people.
It IS too expensive for some, but more importantly it's just too clunky and too "much" for a living room device. There's reasons why DVD players don't boot into Windows...
Obviously, if you are the type who hooks computers up to their home theater, the AppleTV is probably not necessary for you. I don't get why people with computers hooked up always act so "insulted" by the AppleTV. AppleTV is a cheaper, simpler, more streamlined solution. If you want more than it offers, then stick with your computer and let the other 99% of the world consider the AppleTV.
Don't fool yourself. The studios do not put 5.1 sound on EVERY DVD because only 5 people listen to that. I would agree if we are only talking music... but when you add in movies, its a totally different beast. 5.1 audio out is a MUST for any SERIOUS movie presentation system.
The point of this thing is that you should HAVE to hack it, it should work out of the box. ANd it does not. Look at all the hoops you have to jump through to watch any movie... it has to be encoded like this (and there goes 2 hours or more), it has to be in iTunes. Why can't it just be a media player and play ANY media????
But at least you CAN play DVDs in an xbox... and HD DVD if you want. Can't do that at all with an Apple Box...
You miss the point, I think.It is WAY too expensive for what it does. It needs to do a lot more.
Streamlined? Sure, if you use handbrake, and know how to hack it. For the vast majority of users, I think that knowledge, and the drive to fix all their stuff up for use with iTunes/Apple TV is more rare than the folks who like 5.1 with their movies....
Who, apart from AV nuts, would buy a $300 - $400 wireless gizmo that's nothing more than an alternative to simply plugging your laptop into your TV when watching on-line content in the living room?
The
TV is a *luxury* item, and it should target the luxury market.Most of the people who are not "AV nuts" don't even want to spend $300 on a new TV, let alone a device that saves you the hassle of connecting to your computer to it directly.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
My post was all about why I am not interested in an
TV and why making the hard drive bigger fails to address the reasons why I'm not buying one. I'm not interested in discussing what all these non-"AV nuts" you are talking about might think about it, whoever they are. If, like me, you want to have a really great living-room entertainment system, the TV is not the best solution for making it happen, or even one of the best. I look forward to what the next revision of it will look like, but as it is now, it's the biggest dud since the HiFi.Yeah, Apple should never offer improved products, so that users of the older product wouldn't get offended.... I heard that the owners of PowerBook G4's were pretty upset when Apple released MBP's that were better and faster than their laptops were.
That's easy. Its the same reason you can only play MP3 and AAC on an iPod. Its called lock in. Apple wants people to buy their videos off iTunes and not on DVD. Wouldn't you do the same if you were Apple. I get the idea that the aTV is really only a way to boost sales of TV shows and Movies off their store. Why it is even sold in Europe is beyond me. I guess people are such fans they are willing to spend hours encoding their dvds and videos to work in iTunes.
That's another reason I'm not buying it. Its just another machine in my Home AV setup. I really want everything in one if possible. So if apple adds a BD player and tv recording capabilities I'd be much more interested. Just playing movies from iTunes isn't worth anywhere near $300 let alone $400 for me.
Not a bad upgrade
I don't think it's that expensive. Keep in mind this is a 2.5" laptop drive and those are quite a bit more expensive than 3.5" drives.
Of course I still think there are some problems with appleTV (no optical drive???,..... What
)
I don't think it's that expensive. Keep in mind this is a 2.5" laptop drive and those are quite a bit more expensive than 3.5" drives.
Of course I still think there are some problems with appleTV (no optical drive???,..... What
)I use my TV almost exclusively as a music player, streaming my music collection which is on a giant HD attached to my 802.11n Airport Extreme, and as such it works beautifully--being able to browse my music collection from the couch w/ album art on the TV is just fantastic...and with music as its primary purpose, the lack of 5.1 is a nonissue. As for it being required in a serious media player, I agree--which is why I own a PS3, which is now probably the best upscaling DVD player on the market thanks to the 1.8 upgrade.
My only real complaint with the TV? If you select the "use album art as screensaver" option, it will ignore the album art and use the first frames of videos synced to the TV if there are any...and, um, I've found the TV to be a very convenient means of watching internet pr0n on my TV. If the "use album arts as screensaver" feature actually used album art as the screensaver, I'd have no complaints. Oh yeah, Internet radio wouldn't hurt either.
TV almost exclusively as a music player, streaming my music collection which is on a giant HD attached to my 802.11n Airport Extreme, and as such it works beautifully--being able to browse my music collection from the couch w/ album art on the TV is just fantastic...and with music as its primary purpose, the lack of 5.1 is a nonissue. As for it being required in a serious media player, I agree--which is why I own a PS3, which is now probably the best upscaling DVD player on the market thanks to the 1.8 upgrade.My only real complaint with the
TV? If you select the "use album art as screensaver" option, it will ignore the album art and use the first frames of videos synced to the TV if there are any...and, um, I've found the TV to be a very convenient means of watching internet pr0n on my TV. If the "use album arts as screensaver" feature actually used album art as the screensaver, I'd have no complaints. Oh yeah, Internet radio wouldn't hurt either.
I know loads more people who have surround set-ups than ones who own
TV HD ready TVs are selling like hot cakes in the UK and in the electrical super stores where the majority are sold, they all seem to have the option to add a surround package for around £100 - £150.
I agree that the Apple TV should have come with a larger drive up front. But, this is a decent upgrade. Does seem to signal the coming of HD content on iTunes.
The support for YouTube is also great for users. Here is hoping that Apple continues to open up the Apple TV and allows other partners access.
The support for YouTube is also great for users. Here is hoping that Apple continues to open up the Apple TV and allows other partners access.
Who, apart from AV nuts, would buy a $300 - $400 wireless gizmo that's nothing more than an alternative to simply plugging your laptop into your TV when watching on-line content in the living room?
The
Most of the people who are not "AV nuts" don't even want to spend $300 on a new TV, let alone a device that saves you the hassle of connecting to your computer to it directly.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
My post was all about why I am not interested in an
It's so that my girlfriend can listen to our music and watch movies when she has friends over without having to call me and go "what plugs in where"? Yes, it's entirely a convenience device, but it's really worth it. I was skeptical, but hey.
It's much like the ipod nano. I can get a 3rd party mp3 player and a 4gig SD card for under $100, but the hassle of the 3rd party interface makes it worth it for me to just buy a nano.
Who, apart from AV nuts, would buy a $300 - $400 wireless gizmo that's nothing more than an alternative to simply plugging your laptop into your TV when watching on-line content in the living room?
The
Most of the people who are not "AV nuts" don't even want to spend $300 on a new TV, let alone a device that saves you the hassle of connecting to your computer to it directly.
Why do you keep assuming that everyone owns a laptop? You're isolating the demographic to a much smaller subset than what this is targeted at. Most of the target demo does not have a desktop close to their living room and many if not most do not have laptops. Many have spouses and kids to consider, and a laptop with an HDMI cable next to the TV is not an elegant option.
This device is great for people who have put a lot of their content into iTunes, have purchased some videos from the iTS, and who want their living room to be easy to use. When they sit in their living rooms they don't want to use a combination of devices, they want to watch a show. They want a little remote control and a responsive interface that takes them where they want to go, and then gets out of the way.
Just try to remember that we geeks are a minority. A very small minority. And we make our own solutions to problems, so the consumer market doesn't really work too hard to make our dream devices.
I don't know that much about the sound processing of home theaters, so I don't think I understand the importance of this 5.1 controversy. Since the movie or song will be in a file format from your computer, what's wrong with letting the AppleTV send the sound portion of it out the optical audio out or HDMI out, to your receiver, and then let the receiver split it into 5.1? This is assuming the sound portion of the file is even encoded as 5.1 sound. I think the receivers have those 5.1 processors in them don't they? I guess I am missing something here, unless you guys are saying that a portion of the sound file is lost coming out of the optical audio out.
Well, IF you entertain guests at home or listen to music or watch movies, it is actually a pretty cool device. If you don't see a use for it, it most definitely isn't for you. No reason to waste money.
I have mine hooked up to a Bose Lifestyle 48 and a Hitachi HD projector. It looks and sounds great. I've got 3 computers with music and movies (my converted DVD and CD collection almost 300GB worth) streaming to it.
I love sharing my favorite podcasts (ex. Ask A Ninja) with everybody in the living room (much better than huddling around a computer screen). It's nice listening to my favorite songs on real speakers again rather than on headphones or computer speakers.
The other thing I like is the fact that somebody can come over and turn their computer on and we can access all of their content too. It's really cool.
The only problem I have with the device is the fact that it doesn't STREAM photos, so you have to eat HD space with them if you want to watch them on the TV. I will probably stop syncing my music and only Stream it. Then I can sync my photos with the little HD space I have.
Somebody mentioned earlier, "They should have released the 160 GB drive originally".
Oh well, you live and learn. I still like it.
I am sure it does. It is still buffered. That is why there is a delay for a second or two before it plays. It may not be buffered to disk but it is still buffered.
Yeah I guess you are right, it does pause for about 5-10 seconds before the file starts playing and then plays the whole file through perfectly without skipping, etc. I guess my point is that it doesn't have the "play 30 seconds, pause, buffer, play 30 seconds, pause, buffer" effect going on at all.