Apple TV's Future?

[rayward]

I'm probably in the minority, but I sync nothing to my ATV. I just stream. And as long as my PC is on, my entire iTunes library is on my HDTV at any given time.

I have 2 160GB units, one connected via ethernet and one wireless, and I let those auto sync with iTunes. I have more than 160GB of media on my iMac, so it's not all synced and I never know if I'm watching locally stored or streamed content on either unit.

I also have 2 40GB units, also one ethernet and one wireless, and I sync only photos to those. All other media is streamed, and it's impossible to tell the difference.

I can see the point about direct rental/purchase of content on the device but, in actuality, who has an Apple TV but no Mac/PC that could be used as a proxy for such downloads? In fact, as Apple TVs main function is to project your iTunes library onto your regular TV, I would posit that every single owner of an Apple TV has a computer too!

I wish Apple would come out with a media server, which would then solve a number of issues. That server could be the anchor for your Apple TVs, acting as a proxy for online rentals/purchases, and negating the need for a big HDD in the Apple TV unit. If iTunes could then be adapted to reverse stream media from the server, then that would free up your hard drive space for other things. All this seems like it would be very simple to implement, but Apple have a history of doing what they do without regard for what is simple and desirable to their customers.

 

[fpnc]

You've hit the nail on the head. It's an iTunes storefront and it's flawed. Most people don't want this. It's a failure for the mainstream consumer and even for many Apple fanboys.

HobeSoundDarryl is correct on almost every point.

HobeSoundDarryl is incorrect on almost every point. YMMV.

Also, the Apple TV hasn't been a failure. It's just not been as big of a hit as the iPod or iPhone. It is, however, still one of the best pure digital media players on the market (IMO, and I also own a PS3 and WD TV Live). In fact, on a unit-sales basis it may be one of the most widely used media players. Exact sales numbers are unknown but I've seen consistent estimates in the 6 to 7.5 million range which isn't too bad after just over two and a half years (that's in excess of 1.5 billion dollars in sales). Let's remember that during that same time Apple sold just about 25 million Macs so if you ignore the iPhone and iPod this means that the Apple TV accounted for just about 20% of Apple's CPU-unit sales over that period of time.

Of course, given the Apple TV's price and low margins it isn't making much money from hardware sales alone and this is probably the reason why Apple isn't giving it much attention. In any case, given competition and other factors I'd say that if they don't produce at least a modest improvement in the hardware within the next year then you can basically stick a fork in it and call it dead. That's why I'm expecting (or hoping for) new Apple TV hardware in the next several months.

My guess is that we won't see any radical changes in the hardware (costs being the limiting factor). I'd expect a modestly faster CPU/GPU and larger hard drive options (change to SATA). Other than this, anything else can be done with software and improvements in the licensing with the content providers (the latter may be the most important factor in making products like the Apple TV a success).

 

[balamw]

A movie with H.264 compression is only 1 - 2 gigs, roughly. So you're looking at 80 - 100 or even more movies on a device.

Sorry for not being explicit about it I was using a DVD as a yardstick for future 1080p content. For reference the 720p HD movies on iTunes run closer to 3-4 GB/movie and I was assuming that going to 1080p would add 1.5-2X that, making one H.264 1080p movie roughly equivalent to a 6-8 GB 480i MPEG-2 DVD.

Storing 1000 songs (~100+ CDs) in a portable device the size of a deck of cards is compelling, a game changer. The TV still has nothing like that, as everything it does can be done better with other devices. Including Apple's own Mac Mini and Macbooks.

B

 

[troyn123]

Personally I would like my iTunes library (just the links to the content) included on my mobileme account.
So then I could upload/download a song or movie onto different computers at home and have the iTunes library synced automatically on each computer and apple TV.
iTunes could have an option to view the whole library, or just the content thats stored on that particular computer or laptop for when your away from your home network.

For me it means I don't need multiple libraries and the need to update each library.
For apple they could sell more mobileme accounts.

 

[fpnc]

...I can see the point about direct rental/purchase of content on the device but, in actuality, who has an Apple TV but no Mac/PC that could be used as a proxy for such downloads? In fact, as Apple TVs main function is to project your iTunes library onto your regular TV, I would posit that every single owner of an Apple TV has a computer too!..

I think the problem isn't whether or not the user has a computer, it's whether or not they want it turned on all of the time and whether they want to have iTunes running and accessible 24/7 on that same computer.

Let's consider the case where you have a notebook computer. Do you really want the Apple TV to become disabled (mostly) whenever that notebook leaves the house?

The major advantages I see to synching the Apple TV to a computer are backup, organization, and browsing (using iTunes). Then you have the issue of sharing content with other systems and the iPhone/iPod.

...I wish Apple would come out with a media server, which would then solve a number of issues..

The idea of a media server that runs 24/7 has merit. But even then you'd probably want a computer to manage everything so I'm not sure that really solves the standalone issue for the Apple TV. It would be nice, however, if Apple put an iTunes server in the Airport Extreme and/or Time Capsule. What they really need is an Airport Extreme that can use that unit's USB-connected storage for automated backups and as an iTunes server that every connected device could access. Such a device, however, might be fairly expensive when you consider that it would have to be fast enough to serve multiple clients and pretty soon you might be back to needing a system that is basically a full-blown computer. Maybe that's what Apple wants people to do with the Mac mini and isn't the new iTunes Home Sharing feature pretty much a step in that direction?

 

[BoulderBum]

I share the point of view of others by saying DVR capabilities for Apple TV is like putting a tape deck in an iPod: DVR is an old, outdated way of doing things when you have on-demand digital media available at your fingertips. You have all the shows you want at the push of a button with no cable TV required, and no having to schedule shows (or worry that something malfunctions when it's time to record).

As for Blu Ray capabilities, I'd say putting a Blu Ray player in an Apple TV is unlikely unless/until they all have "managed copies" which can be ripped to iTunes. If and when that happens, you'll see a Blu Ray player in an Apple TV, and you'll see 1080p support.

Otherwise, including a Blu Ray player would be encouraging a competing business model.

In the meantime, Apple has a few areas they might improve Apple TV. Ideally, I think it should have an App Store that might provide for different streaming services (Pandora, CollegeHumor.com, etc.) and casual gaming using iPod Touches/iPhones as controllers.

There has been rumor of getting TV studios to sign up for subscription based TV service, so Apple TV may end up being sort of an on-demand cable box, which would be cool and there was an old rumor of some sort of Apple device allowing the streaming of your iTunes content to your iPhone over the internet, though I think that wouldn't sit well with studios.

To conclude, I think the direction of Apple TV, as others have suggested, has a lot to do with what kind of arrangements they make with producers of content.

 

[rayward]

I think the problem isn't whether or not the user has a computer, it's whether or not they want it turned on all of the time and whether they want to have iTunes running and accessible 24/7 on that same computer.

Let's consider the case where you have a notebook computer. Do you really want the Apple TV to become disabled (mostly) whenever that notebook leaves the house?

The major advantages I see to synching the Apple TV to a computer are backup, organization, and browsing (using iTunes). Then you have the issue of sharing content with other systems and the iPhone/iPod.

With the wake on network capability of (newer) Macs and Snow Leopard, the "always on" issue goes away. Agree your comment regarding the missing notebook situation, I can see how that would be an issue. I don't know why Apple abandoned the 40gig Apple TV unit, because there are people - like me - who just want a box for streaming, and other people who like/need the standalone storage. They still sell the 8gig iPhone 3G, so why not the old 40gig ATV?

The idea of a media server that runs 24/7 has merit. But even then you'd probably want a computer to manage everything so I'm not sure that really solves the standalone issue for the Apple TV. It would be nice, however, if Apple put an iTunes server in the Airport Extreme and/or Time Capsule. What they really need is an Airport Extreme that can use that unit's USB-connected storage for automated backups and as an iTunes server that every connected device could access. Such a device, however, might be fairly expensive when you consider that it would have to be fast enough to serve multiple clients and pretty soon you might be back to needing a system that is basically a full-blown computer. Maybe that's what Apple wants people to do with the Mac mini and isn't the new iTunes Home Sharing feature pretty much a step in that direction?

Right. I use my iMac as my media server currently, but would prefer to have that stuff stored elsewhere. Home Sharing, however, simply allows you to deposit copies of your media in more places, rather than providing a media server solution.

Also, it's a usage thing. Even though most of my hardware is connected via ethernet, it seems that the ATVs all decide to sync when Time Machine is doing a backup and I'm downloading a large file off the 'net. The crunch slows everything down. And I'll soon be ripping Blu Ray disks and creating much larger movie files, so that's going to start to choke my hard drive. I'd much prefer to dump the media off to a single location from where it can be accessed by multiple users.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I think the problem isn't whether or not the user has a computer, it's whether or not they want it turned on all of the time and whether they want to have iTunes running and accessible 24/7 on that same computer.

Let's consider the case where you have a notebook computer. Do you really want the Apple TV to become disabled (mostly) whenever that notebook leaves the house?

But that's just it, the Apple TV isn't meant to store your library. It's meant to let you sync some stuff from your iTunes library to enjoy it. This is why they also allow you to stream. You can do either or, and they have built ample tools in iTunes to allow you to not be left without content on the ATV if you take your laptop with you. Playlists, smart playlists, or the ATV's auto-sync options. Sync unwatched material over, sync your most recent downloads.. there's numerous ways.

 

[Benicio10]

Let's face it ... iPod sales were helped by people's music libraries growing exponentially due to the ease of pirating MP3's.

The Apple TV is a niche product because the process of downloading or ripping, converting, and storing HD movies is too difficult and slow... So instead of buying HD movies on iTunes for $20, i'd rather get the bluray disc which looks better and sounds better for $30 ... And, instead of renting a movie for $4 each, i'd rather do netflix for $9 a month and watch as many bluray movies as i want... and oh yea I can now stream a ton from my xbox or ps3.

Apple will sell a ton of Apple TVs when they can create a way for users to easily and quickly rip BluRay discs within iTunes and store them... the same way they did with CD's and MP3's.

 

[fpnc]

...Home Sharing, however, simply allows you to deposit copies of your media in more places, rather than providing a media server solution..

Actually, Home Sharing also allows you to stream content from another copy of iTunes (on a different computer that has items that are not present on the local iTunes). So, it's nearly the same as a media server if you are running iTunes on both systems.

For example, I have an old G4 Mac mini that is connected via ethernet to my Apple TV and the iTunes content that is on the Mac mini can be accessed from my main desktop system over a WiFi bridge. I use the new iTunes Home Sharing feature to automatically backup the purchased content between my main desktop and the Mac mini but anything that is synced from the Apple TV to the Mac mini can also be accessed from the copy of iTunes that is running on my main system. Thus, if I download a podcast with my Apple TV that will get synched back to the Mac mini and can then be streamed wirelessly from the Mac mini to my main system that is located in another room. What I mean is that you do not need to make a physical copy of every media file that is shared between the two computers -- iTunes Home Sharing also allows you to stream content between the two systems. One drawback, however, is that if the content hasn't been prepared for streaming then nearly the entire file will need to be buffered before playback will begin. That's not a problem for music or short video files, but I don't think it would be practical for high resolution movies that were not optimized (or created) with streaming enabled.

Note in the above I'm specifically talking about the new iTunes Home Sharing feature that was introduced in iTunes 9. With the Apple TV you have been able to access iTunes libraries on a second computer using the Apple TV's "Settings > Computers > Add iTunes Shared Library" feature for quite some time now.

 

[fpnc]

...Apple will sell a ton of Apple TVs when they can create a way for users to easily and quickly rip BluRay discs within iTunes and store them... the same way they did with CD's and MP3's.

That's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is the inclusion of more of the so-called digital copies that are present on some special edition DVDs and multi-disc Blu-ray offerings. That's how I got the iTunes/Apple TV versions of the new Star Trek and 70th anniversary Wizard of Oz movies. Sure, these digital copies aren't HD but they play on my iPhone and the Apple TV and don't even look that bad on my HDTV (in any case, for the latter, I'll use the Blu-ray disc).

 

[GermanSuplex]

Let's face it ... iPod sales were helped by people's music libraries growing exponentially due to the ease of pirating MP3's.

The Apple TV is a niche product because the process of downloading or ripping, converting, and storing HD movies is too difficult and slow... So instead of buying HD movies on iTunes for $20, i'd rather get the bluray disc which looks better and sounds better for $30 ... And, instead of renting a movie for $4 each, i'd rather do netflix for $9 a month and watch as many bluray movies as i want... and oh yea I can now stream a ton from my xbox or ps3.

You are certainly not alone. However, I also think there is a technical hurdle. I doubt a busy man/woman/family person with a 720p (or even 1080p) TV sees a vast difference in quality from iTunes HD movies and Blu-Ray. I think it is a matter of ease of use: with a Blu-ray player, you pop the disc in and that's that. With iTunes, there's a setup process and learning curve that may be daunting for a first time buyer who is only a casual user of iTunes. Many people I know with iPods or an iPhone only have a few dozen/hundred songs on iTunes, they are tagged incorrectly.... and they don't care. It's not an issue.

With Netflix, personally I've never cared for subscription services, I'm more of an on-demand guy myself. I could go with netflix, but I don't like waiting and sending stuff in and the like. If they had new releases and HD downloads with Watch-Now features, that would be cool. But as it is, I prefer just paying three to five dollars for a rental and never having to wait, send anything in, etc. And since I only rent 2 or 3 movies a month, its no detriment to me.

I think the only thing I'd like to see added to Apple TV are how it implements what is already in the iTunes store. Subscription services I feel are going to be more valuable than adding a DVR or Blu-Ray player. Adding a DVR or Blu-Ray player gains nothing for Apple or its content providers, outside of maybe the sales of Blu-Ray. With a subscription service, people get paid. I would even pay a premium for unlimited iTunes streaming. Say, $10 for unlimited music streaming, $20 for unlimited TV/movie streaming, or $25 for both. Just exclude new releases and the most recent season of TV shows. Then Apple would get paid, content providers get paid, and it would likely increase sales. If you can stream the first few seasons of a TV show and the most recent isn't available, maybe you'll plunk down the money to watch it.

There is certainly room for hardware and software improvements, I just don't think Blu-Ray and DVR fit in with the Apple TV/iTunes environment. Afterall, over the last two or three years, iTunes has continued its growth despite Blu-Ray and DVR's being around.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

HobeSoundDarryl is incorrect on almost every point. YMMV.

Well thanks fpnc (or perhaps the geniuses at Apple should be thanking you?). Apple must be right in deciding how things shall be, sticking with that view in spite of very vocal BUYERS asking for relatively modest enhancements to a 3-year old device (predicating their move to actually BUY that product from Apple), and bringing the whole mass market around by doing so. Because BUYERS can't possibly be right, when what they say they want differs from what Apple wants them to want.

Apple must be right by deciding how the market shall like to get its content and in spite of that way being several quality notches below how else such content can be readily had from other sources, it is somehow better because Apple says it is so. So, for example, even though I can use a Netflix or a satt or cable VOD feature, or buy a BD disc so that I can watch a favorite movie or TV show at 1080i or 1080p maxing out what my TV can actually display, apparently I am wrong for wanting that because Apple says I should be happy with handicapped 720p- at best- via iTunes.

Apple must be right by deciding that the market wants to pay a good amount (again) for shows that we already get via our cable or satt subscriptions because the iTunes model is right that everyone shall want to just buy their programming (again) rather than mix & match their sources of content in whatever ways works best for each individual. So sayeth the Apple.

Apple must be right that a show should cost $1.99 per episode, even when I can get that same episode for "free" over the air and capture it with a DVR using Apple's own computers plus a little add-on from Elgato. Why capture something at higher quality at at no cost vs the version available via iTunes, when I should happily pay Apple to get the same program at or below handicapped 720p resolution?

And Apple said, all TV shows are equally priced because all TV shows are equally valuable, and it was right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, all movies are $9.99 or $14.99 because they are all equally valued and thus equally priced, and it was right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, our (limited) mix of currently-available movies and shows are all the movies & shows ye shall want to watch. And though many other movies and shows are available from other sources- often at lower costs- we should like it only as Apple serves it, and that is right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, 720p with minimal bandwith is "good enough" HD for the masses, so ye shall be happy with 720p as we serve it, and not covet 1080i or 1080p even though such content will be readily available- often cheaper than iTunes pricing- from many other sources.

And even though your HDTV might be native 1080i or 1080p, ye shall like upscaling from our handicapped 720p or less rather than getting the same content in 1080i or 1080p, because Apple says so, and thus it is right.

And Apple said, even though we give ye iMovie, which can render your HD camcorder videos at 1080i or 1080p, and we allow ye to import them into iTunes and play them there at 1080i or 1080p native, ye shall be happy with an TV platform that won't be able to push them on to your HDTV because it is so underpowered in (nearly 2010). But that is how we choose for you to like it, and so ye shall... because we said so.

And though ye shall witness many other little boxes demonstrating the capabilities to offer 1080i and 1080p playback hardware, and BD playback hardware, and so on at retail prices BELOW TV pricing, ye shall still be happy with TV and iTunes content as we wish ye to have it, not as ye know it could- and should- be.

For as Apple says it shall be, (select) Apple fans always happily agree. And even when the market of BUYERS are clear that they want modest enhancements, that market can't possibly know what it wants to buy, unless what it wants to buy is an exact match for what Apple sells. For though ye travel through the shadow of Microsoft, the ONE light that is Apple is the ONLY way to the right way for all things Apple does, touches, etc.

Until of course Apple decides it shall be different, and then THAT way is THE one and only way for things to be.

Now I've had a little fun above, and I'm as big an Apple fan as anyone. But in this case, I argue that Apple is wrong to try to force the mass market to come around to their way of thinking. The most basic marketing tenet is "know thy customer" and what an awful lot of BUYERS say- and show that- they want seems to be a bit different than what Apple is delivering with TV "as is". I love my own TV, but it is easy to imagine simple ways Apple could make it a lot more appealing for the masses, so that they can sell a whole lot more of them, dominate that space, win better content deals, and thus deliver a better experience for all involved.

Or, they can stubbornly stick to their guns and risk someone else ripping off their great UI (relative to the current crowd) on better hardware and potentially taking this market from them. I don't want that to happen, but I am frustrated in knowing that Apple could own this space if they only would summon up the will to actually take it. Why they choose NOT to (yesterday) is something we mere mortals (with money) cannot and shall not understand, until the Apple reveals it unto us.

 

[Tilpots]

EDIT: ^^^HA HA! Told ya he was right!


If it's not Apple, whomever decides to combine a internet connected media player with a DVR and a Blu-Ray player will dominate the living room. If the Mini had a Blu-Ray option, it would fit the bill perfectly.

It's a simple solution consumers would jump on... One box connected to your TV and able to interact with (and not depend on) your computer. More functionality, less equipment to buy, and a unified interface.

 

[balamw]

With the wake on network capability of (newer) Macs and Snow Leopard, the "always on" issue goes away.

And yet, the TV is always on. For absolutely no reason at all.

But in this case, I argue that Apple is wrong to try to force the mass market to come around to their way of thinking. The most basic marketing tenet is "know thy customer" and what an awful lot of BUYERS say- and show that- they want seems to be a bit different than what Apple is delivering with TV "as is".

....

Why they choose NOT to (yesterday) is something we mere mortals (with money) cannot and shall not understand, until the Apple reveals it unto us.

I don't think Apple is trying to force anyone into anything with TV. It's very clear that they have not figured out the details of the business model, which is why they call it a hobby and it just doesn't get much attention. As I said before, there are plenty of other devices that compete in this space including Apple's far more capable $599 Mac mini and $999 MacBook, so what makes the TV compelling?

B

 

[fpnc]

If I were to redesign the Apple TV the new system would be based upon NVIDIA's Ion platform (combines an Intel Atom processor with the NVIDIA 9400M graphics/system controller). The only roadblock to a system like that would be the cost, I don't know whether Apple could market a system like that for less than $300 (which I would call the drop-dead price point). The Acer AspireRevo runs between $200 and $350 retail depending upon configuration so Apple might be able to hit the under $300 price point. In any case, I'd also add Bluetooth since that would make a better remote-control interface than today's IR and WiFi.

As a comparison, here is a link to the dual-core, 1.6GHz Acer AspireRevo 3610 at $330. This would actually be a little overkill for a system to replace the current Apple TV, but it would make a truly magnificent, high-end media player.

http://gizmodo.com/5383094/acer-aspirerevo-upgraded-windows-7-ion-graphics-dual+core-atom-cpu

Of course, one additional problem with a device like that is that it would be immediately hacked to produce a low-cost, nettop-like Mac which would compete with the Mac mini.

Well thanks fpnc (or perhaps the geniuses at Apple should be thanking you?). Apple must be right in deciding how things shall be, sticking with that view in spite of very vocal BUYERS asking for relatively modest enhancements to a 3-year old device...

Actually, I was referring to your suggestions on adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV which seemed to be the primary focus in your previous posts. I would not call those "modest enhancements."

I'm all in favor of getting better terms on the iTunes content, but that doesn't require a redesign of the Apple TV. I'm also in favor of improving the performance of the unit with an updated hardware design (who wouldn't want that as long as they can hold the line on prices?). However, I think that only requires a modest update to the CPU/GPU and wouldn't even require going to the lengths that I discussed in my post about the NVIDIA Ion platform.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As I said before, there are plenty of other devices that compete in this space including Apple's far more capable $599 Mac mini and $999 MacBook, so what makes the TV compelling?

Well since you ask, and I've been negative on it "as is" from the perspective of addressing the thread topic, let me take the other side...

• For the mass market, price is about right in that sub $250 level
• The UI is excellent relative to much of what else is out there
• The central link to iTunes for management of various types of media is also excellent
• (Even the) existing featureset is excellent. I would likely pay about as much for the device for any one of several individual benefits it has now

The Mac Mini could be the "pro" version if the TV interface could be run on that hardware, and it it had the HDMI and component ports native "for dummies". But the price at that level is going to cut a lot of buyers out.

A laptop seems overkill, like the tablet rumor that it might be the next-gen replacement for TV seems overkill.

Basically, the TV is elegant, easy to use (grandma proof), relatively well priced, and loaded with a lot of very nice software features. If it had a 1080p hardware upgrade and was "opened up" for others to extend it with apps and add-on hardware, it seems like it could quickly become an "all things to all people" proposition. Want BD? Add the BD option. Want a DVR? Add the DVR option from Elgato. Want more local storage? Add hard drives. Want network storage? Configure it in the networking menu. And so on.

The guy who wants it to be an everything box can buy the add-ons to make it an everything box. The guy who wants it to be pretty much as is, can still enjoy it exactly as it is. If you only want to buy video content at up to handicapped 720p from iTunes, you would still be able to do that. But if you want to buy 1080i or 1080p content, or buy this one box instead of it plus a DVD or BD player to play a 1080p BD disc, or buy this one box instead of it plus a DVR box for DVR functionality, etc, it could be what each person most wants from it.

And an open platform would make it a "sky's the limit" type product, with 3rd party developers thinking up all kinds of possibilities for it. Such a relatively simple evolution for Apple would make it a much more compelling proposition for the masses. My money is ready to buy this next-gen TV. Apparently, I'm not alone. Now if Apple would just read- and heed- this thread (and not strike me down for the sacrilege in my prior post)

I'm also in favor of improving the performance of the unit with an updated hardware design (who wouldn't want that as long as they can hold the line on prices?). However, I think that only requires a modest update to the CPU/GPU and wouldn't even require going to the lengths that I discussed in my post about the NVIDIA Ion platform.

In this we agree. From Apple, it could be as simple as delivering a 1080p full bandwith hardware upgrade. To make all the other BUYER wants have the potential to come true, they could also open it up to 3rd party add-ons, which would put next to no price or hardware engineering heat on Apple, yet making it possible for those wanting it to also be a BD player, or those wanting it to also be a DVR, or those wanting it to also be a _____________, to have a shot at getting their wants met too (by 3rd party players).

Then, you can have that next gen TV as you like it. And they can have it as they want it. Apple need not play God here in telling all of us how we should want it, but instead try to give us buyers as much of what we want as possible. If the did this, they could own the space (FAST!). If they don't do this, they need the mass market to (magically) decide that the future (vision) is THE ONE such that there is no need to enjoy 1080i or 1080p on their 1080i or 1080p TVs now, and so on. I just don't see the latter happening faster than the former. I can see Apple completely dominating the space by giving the mass market more of what it wants though- even if that means giving it at least some means to gain access to options (from 3rd parties) like BD and DVR functionality. Such "openness" seems to work so well for Macs, iphones and ipod sales, wouldn't you agree?

 

[fpnc]

...Such "openness" seems to work so well for Macs, iphones and ipod sales, wouldn't you agree?

Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers. My counter to your suggestions about adding support for DVR and Blu-ray is the following.

You want Blu-ray? Go out a buy a cheap Blu-ray player from Samsung or alike. The overall experience and quality will likely be better than anything that you could cobble together with an Apple TV.

You want a DVR? Get one from your cable or satellite TV company. TiVo is the only other major player in this field, yet according to Wikipedia as of a year ago they had only 3.5 million subscribers in the U.S and the year-over-year trend is down (even today, that's probably fewer than there are Apple TV users in the U.S.).

In any case, how is Apple (or anyone for that matter) going to support a DVR experience that can beat what can be had with a cable or satellite box? CableCARD seems to be dead --

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

-- so in the future the only premium or HD material that you'll be able to DVR is Clear QAM and unencrypted OTA broadcasts. Of course, you could always take a standard definition RF feed or analog output from a cable box but what would be the point of that (i.e. easier and better to just use the DVR in the cable or satellite box).

In any case, these are among my arguments against adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV. Apple should continue to concentrate on downloadable and streaming delivery over the internet, in another five to ten years that's all most people will be using whether it comes from Apple or someone else or even from the current cable companies.

 

[balamw]

Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers.

But wait. All of that content from iTunes is equally available on the wide open platforms of the Mac mini and/or Macbook via iTunes. Both of which are easily attached to most HDTVs.

What is exclusive to TV today again? (besides being the only Mac OS X 10.4 box available to buy new today. )

FWIW I have faith in TiVo. Their new deals with DirecTV (http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-partners/tivo-directv/index.html) and Comcast (http://www.comcast.com/Tivo/) will help them grow again in 2010. The UI and feature set of their DVRs is still far above the standard cable company PVR.

B

 

[fpnc]

But wait. All of that content from iTunes is equally available on the wide open platforms of the Mac mini and/or Macbook via iTunes. Both of which are easily attached to most HDTVs.

What is exclusive to TV today again? (besides being the only Mac OS X 10.4 box available to buy new today. )

FWIW I have faith in TiVo. Their new deals with DirecTV (http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-partners/tivo-directv/index.html) and Comcast (http://www.comcast.com/Tivo/) will help them grow again in 2010. The UI and feature set of their DVRs is still far above the standard cable company PVR.

B

You apparently don't own or use an Apple TV. The Apple TV has perhaps ten times as many HD shows and movies as does the Mac/PC-based iTunes Store. The reason this happens is that the content providers don't want to make the HD content available on an open system like a PC or Mac. This may also be why you can't use the Apple TV's USB port to add additional storage -- the content providers don't want an external disk to be transferred to the Mac/PC for hacking and/or piracy concerns.

The same is true on some other devices. Take the TiVo HD DVRs. You can't attach just any hard drive to a TiVo HD DVR, it has to be a special, certified drive that is manufactured by Western Digital exclusively for the TiVo DVR. Furthermore, you can't use this drive to transfer content to a PC or even another TiVo because the content is stored in manner that can't be accessed from another device.

Of course, the content providers may eventual drop these requirements. We can only hope that this will happen in a timely manner, but I wouldn't design a new system with only the wish that these types of restrictions will eventually be eliminated.

In any case, transparent "openness" for DVR and Blu-ray support goes a lot further than just making the ports available for expansion. There would be all types of user interface issues, concerns about running 3rd-party software on the Apple TV, and issues with the protection of the licensed content, etc.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers.

So Apple can somehow resolve that havoc with that same itunes content flowing to Macs and iphones and ipods, but they just can't make it work with TV???

My counter to your suggestions about adding support for DVR and Blu-ray is the following.

You want Blu-ray? Go out a buy a cheap Blu-ray player from Samsung or alike.

You want a DVR? Get one from your cable or satellite TV company. TiVo is the only other major player in this field...

Exactly, so I'm a mass market buyer and I want to buy a bit of hardware to hook to my new HDTV this year. I can buy a BD player which will max out what my TV can show, or I can buy a Tivo which will give me an elegant, effortless way to record a bunch of "free" shows that I really like, or I can buy an TV which won't give me the 1080i or 1080p quality of that BD player (so it won't max out the quality of picture on my set) and I won't be able to do anything with the programming already flowing into my house via my cable or satt system, instead having to rebuy or re-rent that same content via iTunes if I want to approximate the experience of that Tivo. On which shall I spend that money this year?

Your recommendations are exactly what the mass market is doing. Only instead of adding a BD player or a DVR to an TV, they are choosing to just buy the BD player and/or the DVR, saving the TV as a possible future purchase. Apple gets to sell them NO TV itunes content if they don't get that TV into their hardware setup. And if enough people choose the BD and/or DVR box(es) instead of TV, it will take that much longer for Apple's discless/dvr-less vision to be realized. After all, once I have that BD player sitting there, there isn't a lot of motivation to go out and buy another little box from Apple that will only give me access to significantly downgraded (handicapped 720p at best) content. And once I have that DVR entrenched in my setup, I'm not going to be that hungry to pay Apple for a device that will then require me to keep paying for that same content I'm able to record now at little to no additional charge beyond my cable or satt bill (and at higher resolution by the way).

I don't blame the "dummies" in the mass market at all for choosing a soon-to-be obsolete disc-based and/or DVR model to pair with their 1080i or 1080p HDTV. THEY get to enjoy highest quality video NOW, and for however long it takes for those of us clinging to the Apple vision to finally be offered the upgrade we know Apple can deliver. While they are watching their favorite movies and shows in 1080p on their 1080p television, we "geniuses" can smugly enjoy our handicapped 720p at best quality that Apple chooses as our limit, knowing that eventually the world will come around to Apple's (and our) right way of consuming such content. Boy, I'm glad I'm in the smart crowd.

In any case, how is Apple (or anyone for that matter) going to support a DVR experience that can beat what can be had with a cable or satellite box? CableCARD seems to be dead --

Elgato has been in business for years selling DVR add-on products for Macs. If they can do it, Apple could too. Or, as I endorse, Apple could just open the next-gen TV up a bit so that Elgato-like companies could fill that need if they think there is a sufficient market of foolish people who would buy a DVR add-on for an TV instead of just paying more (via iTunes) for the same content they could record with that DVR add-on.

Besides, most of the highest-rated shows are still coming from the major networks, which are available to much of the masses for free over the air in HD at levels well beyond the finest of iTunes HD offerings. For those that want DVR capabilities who can receive the major networks, a lot of added value would come from just a DVR option for that handful of channels.

Furthermore, iTunes- even the one in that 5+/-year future- seems unlikely to resolve the live sports issue. But a tuner add-on option for an TV box (which is half of the step to a full DVR option) could bring live sports to that little box from the major local networks FOR FREE.

Such niceties would make that next-gen TV much more desirable to the masses, so Apple would sell many more of them. Personally, I don't care if they build in a DVR (or DVR open) option or not. But it is easy for me to see that they would likely sell a lot more TV's if they gave the BUYERS more of what they want, instead of trying to make the BUYERS come around to their vision of how things are going to be.

This thread was started by someone asking about the future of this product. And even that very first post shows a guy wanting a few features that it does not have now (nor can they be added by third parties to this closed system "as is"). Could it have those features? Sure. If it had them- Apple or third party- would Apple sell more TVs? Absolutely.

Don't add them, or don't make it possible for others to offer them as add ons, and don't sell more TV's to those willing buyers. It's as simple as that.

In any case, these are among my arguments against adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV. Apple should continue to concentrate on downloadable and streaming delivery over the internet

I fully support that Apple doesn't need to build a BD option or DVR option into a next-gen TV- just build that next-gen open enough so that those people that want those options could buy them as add-on features (much like adding on hardware (like the Elgato DVR option) to the Mac Mini). That way, the price of the next-gen TV doesn't have to go up, yet it could be a much more compelling bit of AV equipment for the masses.

I also support that since there already is an iTunes, steaming models and so on, Apple should certainly keep focusing on making that as good as it can be. For example, they shouldn't allow Netflix and similar to have any more movies or shows available to stream to BD players with Netflix extensions than TV players with their iTunes connection.

The convenience of readily-available content via iTunes would always entice the guy who bought the stock TV and added on a BD and DVR option when getting to watch something he wants to watch via BD would require a trip to the store if he didn't already capture it via the DVR. If Apple poured it on with iTunes content diversity, and if they sold so many TVs that the studios would be fiercely competing with pricing (driving prices down), iTunes movies could be priced at less than BD movies, iTunes television could be priced at a level that makes cutting the cable or satt cord more acceptable, and so on. Thus, Apple gets to their vision anyway (QUICKER then waiting for the world to magically come around to this way of thinking).

In short, I agree that things seem to be headed where you think Apple is trying to take them. It does look like downloads and internet sourced content is where we are going. But there's a lot of ways to get there. The mass market is only going to buy so many little boxes to sit next to their TVs. Whoever puts the right combination of features in their box such that they entrench in the masses' living rooms will win the living room. Apple could/should be that company. But IMO, clinging to some of what they are clinging to is not going to make it (magically) happen.

Give the buyers more of what they want, and Apple can still get to their envisioned destination. Refuse the market wants, and they may or may not realize that vision. I'm absolutely convinced they could get there- and more quickly- with the former.

 

[fpnc]

So Apple can somehow resolve that havoc with that same itunes content flowing to Macs and iphones and ipods, but they just can't make it work with TV???......[too much additional to include].....

I don't mean to be flippant, but just show me any third-party hardware or software that runs on or with the iPhone/iPod that implements anything like an fully integrated DVR or DVD/Blu-ray player. An unfair challenge to be sure since neither of those devices would have any reason or benefit from such an integration but you can actually do very little with hardware add-ons to the iPhone/iPod. They allow you to have access to the analog audio and video over the dock connector but the Apple TV already does that with its standard outputs (and that's hardly anything like the integration you're talking about). Then there are about ten million iPhone and iPod cases (N/A, I think), some external batteries (N/A), some wireless transmitters (N/A) and a few enhanced docks but those transmitters and docks just use the standard analog outputs from the iPhone/iPod (not much different than attaching the Apple TV to your stereo receiver and TV).

About the only thing that would come close to the type of enhancements that you are suggesting would be one of the FM radio receivers that attaches to the iPods but those devices don't have to worry about content protection and they don't have to seamlessly integrate with the remainder of the iPhone/iPod experience (what I mean is that you're not going to be able to access the radio from within Apple's built-in media player). Besides that, the history of compatibility with the iPhone/iPod dock is littered with products that stopped working with the next device upgrade from Apple.

Interestingly enough, here is a article on how Apple may be bringing FM radio support to the current iPhone and iPod touch. After reading this article, it doesn't sound like the iPhone/iPod hardware is really that open to 3rd-party enhancements.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Apple-iPhone-iPod-FM-Receiver,news-4855.html

As for iTunes on the Mac, just look at all of the copy protection measures that are still in place for the HD video content that is available on that platform. With any of the current Macs you can't even output the HD content to an external display unless that display supports HDCP content protection. And as I noted in a previous post, there may be ten times as much HD content on the Apple TV as there is on the iTunes Store for the Mac/PC. In fact, until just recently that ratio may have been over 100 to 1 (maybe things are changing for the better).

Of course, none of the above necessarily excludes additional, 3rd-party hardware expansion for the Apple TV, but you can't really point to the iPhone/iPod as a prime example of so-called open hardware. Then you have the comparison to the openness of the Mac (computer). Well, why should the Apple TV become yet another Mac mini? If you want that cost and complexity (or flexibility) then just buy a Mac.

So that leaves the possibility of 3rd-party software on the Apple TV. That could happen, but it will undoubtedly run in a closed sandbox that will most likely prevent access to a lot of the hardware and software features on the Apple TV (just as there are limits with the current iPhone and iPod touch applications -- that's one of the reasons why jailbreaking is popular on those products).

In any case, I'll absolutely guarantee you that you'll never see an Apple TV that will support DVR functionality or Blu-ray discs (through 3rd-party enhancements or otherwise). We can probably leave it at that since neither one of us can be proven right or wrong until Apple goes through several iterations of new Apple TV hardware (if indeed that even happens).

 

[Bye Bye Baby]

I think we might see something interesting with the La La purchase. Apple TV could stream content quite easily without any need to upgrade the hardware. At the moment the ATV does everything I want. Namely, it gets all my content from where it is stored to where it needs to be played.

 

[smurfUK]

My Prediction

New hardware will be released 1st 1/4 2010- similar looking to existing model- 1 or 2tb option, same features plus App store- with BBC iplayer app etc... and movies will go from 720p to 1080p. UK pricing will be £249 for 1tb and £349 for the 2tb option.

Replicating the on demand services available by utilising an app. overcomes the DVR issues.

 

[TheAshMan]

Not in my experience

My thoughts are that Sony and Toshiba's war for format was much money wasted. Whereas the DVD format was able to survive in the consumer market for 15+ years, today's options for media now has on-demand "soft" services that require (at the minimum) a home computer.

Other than the obvious audiophlies demands, 90% of the buying public can take advantage of on-demand services today without spending hundreds of dollars for another play device.

I submit that blu-ray will not have the staying power of it's predecessor. A similar situation is that of the CD.

I have a FIOS 25 Mbps connection and even with that speed and very few people doing it, I have had several bad experiences in the half dozen times we have watched (or attempted to watch) streaming movies from iTunes. It is a better experience with the Verizon OnDemand service, but that also leaves something to be desired. Delivering HD content over the wire is a challenge and when it does work, there is so much compression and blips that it damages the experience. Even watching an upscaled DVD is better than the online download experience. The only problem I have with DVD's is the scratched discs that ruin the movie for us about 1/5 the time. I don't have a Blu-Ray yet (a few more weeks I will) but if that special coating prevents the scratch damage to the movies I don't think I would bother with anything but NetFlix through the mail. I may still buy an TV or something equivalent to get content off my computer, but I bet Blu-Ray will be our #1 movie watching vehicle.