Apple TV's Future?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

SmurfUK, I hope your prediction pans out. I'll be first in line for that one.

fpnc, my arguments generally revolve around how Apple could sell a lot more TV units (by giving the market more of what it wants rather than trying to make the market want it as Apple wants to give it to them). You're coming back with "they can't do that because it's too hard", "they won't do that because it's not compatible with the iTunes vision", etc. type responses. How do they entrench this box in the mass market's living room with such logic?

TV is more like a little (albeit underpowered) Mac Mini. Out of the box- with hacks- it is capable of being extended by third parties with a few features the market wants (and is willing to pay more for). For example, some BUYERS want more storage on the box than 160gb. There's a hack for that, and some people pay upwards of $50 more for that hack. In turn, they get a variation of the TV that is more to their personal wants. Would it be too hard for Apple to build in that "hack" (that is normalize the USB port that is already there, and add a bit of code that will make a big hard drive attached to that USB port become much greater local storage for it)? Definitely not. It's obvious that even the current incarnation could have some coveted features to make it more appealing. Apple merely chooses NOT to incorporate such features.

Yes, there are not DVR dongles hooked to iPhones giving us full-fledged DVRs on that portable device. But there are Elgato USB sticks hooked to Macs that give a pretty nice incarnation of DVR functionality for that computer. It is EASY to imagine an Elgato linked to the USB port of an TV bringing that level of DVR functionality to the TV (except that the current gen lacks the hardware punch to be able to handle it, though a next-gen- well past due- could easily step up the processing punch without having to jack up the price). Would an Elgato option for the TV be enough for the "I won't buy one until is has DVR options" crowd? Maybe. But at least there would be something to move that crowd toward buying one.

It is NOT too hard for Apple to normalize USB expansion ports in a next-gen (if the hackers can do it, I'm sure Apple is smart enough to be able to do it too) and leave the rest to third parties. They simply choose to tightly close this piece of their product portfolio for some reason, ignoring the calls of BUYERS saying they would buy if only it had one or more features (or feature options) that cater to individual wants. I easily grasp that, and easily see that they would sell more units if they delivered on that. I also see that they don't sell those units by choosing to stick with things "as is".

In the meantime, the mass market is buying electronics to hook to their new HDTV's this Christmas. If they want to spend about the price of an TV on a new toy, what's it going to be:
1. A BD-player, perhaps with some extensions to link to the Netflix library, that can put 1080p quality on their 1080p set
2. An HD TIVO/DVR so that they can easily capture content they are already paying for, probably in 1080i or full 720p
3. An TV that will max out at a very limited incarnation of 720p, and involve them having to pay again if they want to somewhat replicate the programming availability of that DVR. What gets that money this year?

If Apple doesn't own the living room before someone else takes it, the guy with a dedicated BD player and TIVO/DVR will not be very motivated to go out an add yet another box- an TV- so that they can enjoy lower resolution programming than their BD player offers, and so that they can re-buy shows already flowing to their DVR at added cost, because that's the way Apple chooses to make such content available to them. The vision doesn't come to pass very quickly if this is how it plays out. A next-gen TV needs to have the features (or feature add-on options) to be so compelling it is the first choice of the next bit of AV equipment the mass market wants to buy. If it can be seen as potentially one box to rule them all, then it is a way for nearly every individual to meet their respective needs by buying it over a stand alone BD player or DVR. If the mass market sees it as a third, fourth or fifth option, it may never entrench, which means that the discless/DVR vision would likely be fulfilled by some company not named Apple for those people. If those people are the mass market- not us dedicated Apple lovers- that's an awful lot of business Apple is choosing NOT to take.

What is the most coveted smart phone on the mass market's wish list? That's easy. Now what is the most coveted set-top box that the mass market wants to hook to their HDTV? Not quite as obvious. Yet is could- and should- be... if only Apple would choose to make it so.

 

[balamw]

You apparently don't own or use an Apple TV.

I have a 40 GB unit (later upgraded to 160 GB) bought the day it was announced. I admit I don't use it very much.

I just don't rent digital content piecemeal, and that may be why I don't find the TV compelling.

I still buy BR/DVD discs of movies and I really like and get 1-2 NetFlix per month for movies that are not on the channels I get, but most of my TV time is spent watching what's already on the TiVo available for instant viewing.

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.

And you apparently don't own or use a TiVo.

Just because only the WD "PVR Expander" drive is the only one supported out of the box, it doesn't mean that your expansion capabilities are limited. First off the TiVo HD XL's stock 1 TB drive is enormous. A wide variety of upgrade kits and paths are available from other sources (i.e. http://www.weaknees.com and http://www.dvrupgrade.com).

TiVo Desktop/TiVo2Go and the third party iTiVo/pyTiVo let you move content back and forth over the network to/from your PC/Mac, including most HD content. (You are limited on what you can do with some VoD content you rent, say from Amazon or Netflix, but that is to be expected).

After almost three years of owning one, I find the TV to be the least compelling of the many Apple devices I have owned. I use the rest of them daily, while the TV only gets dusted off once in a blue moon. And then, I could just as easily have connected by MacBook to the TV since I don't rent content on the TV.

I've already got a cable subscription+TiVo service that delivers most of the content I want when I want it, and even suggests other programs I might like included for a monthly fee.

Maybe this is the kind of think Apple is trying to get the content providers to sign up to. Some sort of subscription service. Get 2 movies and 3 TV shows for $20-30/month. Though with the recent acquisition of NBC/Universal by Comcast I would no hold my breath to see them help create even more competition against standard cable.

B

 

[stonewall123]

My biggest problem with the TV is that it is not designed to sleep unlike every other Home Theater device (with the notable exception of PVRs). If I had a Mac mini hooked up to my TV 90% of the time it would be in sleep mode just waiting to be awakened. As it stands today, all the TV does 90% of the time is dissipate heat.

B

That's exactly why I haven't gotten one yet. Apple has done a great job reducing power consumption on nearly all of their hardware EXCEPT the appleTV. There is no way I'm buying one of those until they have better power management...

 

[smurff]

Give us blu-ray

I agree with pretty much everything HobeSoundDarryl says. It just makes sense to me to push the ATV that way by giving people options. Blu-ray players are everywhere this Christmas season; I want a second one for my second tv so I can watch the movie either place; actually I'd like one in my iMac also so I could watch the movie in the bedroom if I wanted too.

If there was an ATV with a blu-ray option that would be what I buy but there's not so I'm forced to buy a standalone player. And some of them even stream your audio/video from your computer. Once I have that am I going to then go buy another device? Maybe or maybe not but I'd rather have one device that does both than to have to have 2 separate devices. As Apple has said many times they are in the hardware business.

Also, I don't buy the argument that Apple doesn't want blu-ray because it competes with iTunes. If that is the case then they wouldn't put DVD drives in their computers either. There are way more DVD movies sold than blu-ray movies and DVD is a direct competitor to iTunes so why would they allow you to have a DVD player in your computer when you could just buy that from iTunes?

I've also heard the argument about a blu-ray being overkill for a laptop or computer because the screen is so small you don't get the benefit of the hi-def. My argument would be it's not about getting hi-def on your laptop or pc screen but about convenience. If I bought a blu-ray movie for my home theater then why would I want to buy the same movie as a DVD to watch on my computer? Shouldn't I be able to just put the blu-ray in the computer and watch it? Come on Apple, give your computers a blu-ray option also!

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I like the way you think HobeSoundDarryl and I hope Apple is listening!

 

[mstrze]

Also, I don't buy the argument that Apple doesn't want blu-ray because it competes with iTunes. If that is the case then they wouldn't put DVD drives in their computers either. There are way more DVD movies sold than blu-ray movies and DVD is a direct competitor to iTunes so why would they allow you to have a DVD player in your computer when you could just buy that from iTunes?

Because DVD is now the de-facto software delivery and burnable storage medium. It has nothing to do with movies.

If what you were saying was true, then Apple would have made it simple to rip DVDs into iTunes, which they have not without additional applications. Since a run-of-the-mill user can't just simply drop a DVD into their iMac and add it to iTunes without jumping through hoops I don't think this is a valid argument. It is MUCH easier to add a movie though the iTunes store then by ripping from a DVD.

Costlier, sure...but also a simpler process. I bought the HD version of Star Trek and was watching it on my AppleTV within maybe 2 minutes. Could you do that through any other means involving ripping and the like? (Handbrake, etc)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If what you were saying was true, then Apple would have made it simple to rip DVDs into iTunes, which they have not without additional applications. Since a run-of-the-mill user can't just simply drop a DVD into their iMac and add it to iTunes without jumping through hoops I don't think this is a valid argument. It is MUCH easier to add a movie though the iTunes store then by ripping from a DVD. Costlier, sure...but also a simpler process. I bought the HD version of Star Trek and was watching it on my AppleTV within maybe 2 minutes. Could you do that through any other means involving ripping and the like? (Handbrake, etc)

You're making an apples & oranges argument. His point was that if a BD player or player option will somehow undercut the precious iTunes revenue flow to Apple, why should Apple include DVD (or even CD) options either, as both ALSO cut into that iTunes revenue model. Why not just reset iTunes in the next version so that all content NOT purchased from the iTunes store will no longer work with iPods, iPhones and TVs? That is the maximum implementation of the discless, buy everything from iTunes at qualities chosen for you by Apple, vision. But we all- even Apple fanbois- would not accept that variation of Apple is right because how they choose to serve it is how we shall like it. Imagine the backlash!

Apple iTunes doesn't have an easy DVD rip option because of legal limitations, which are much more onerous than those governing CD ripping. So, yes it is EASIER to buy it (again) from iTunes rather than jumping through the the ripping hoops. But the point is that if someone already has the content, why not give them a next-gen option to play it through that box, instead of pushing them toward buying some other box instead that is compatible with the content they are already getting or own? I might counter that it is easier AND CHEAPER for content captured via TIVO/DVRs (not to mention higher quality) than buying and downloading it (at lower quality) from iTunes, but its not solely about how easy things are, but about being able to make the most of whatever content sources each individual has available. Apple could own this space if it wanted to do so.

In his case, a BD player built in or or as an optional add-on product would yield a sale of an TV. Since no such option exists, he is instead buying a SECOND BD player. What a fool to want to be able to enjoy his 1080p content NOW throughout his home, rather than just waiting until Apple finally gets around to serving up a 1080p capable TV so that he can then buy that same content again through iTunes, What dummies some of us are for desiring an option to play what we already own with that ONE box (to rule them all)- the one that Apple could easily build (and open up enough for third parties to fill in the pieces they don't want to offer themselves).

 

[mstrze]

I don't think it was an Apples and oranges argument from my point of view Darryl...

smurff said or at least implied that DVD drives are included in Macs only to allow movies to be played or stored and if they weren't, Apple would not include them.

I simply pointed out that nearly every piece of software you bring home in a box today comes on a DVD and the DVD burner allows you to store gigs of data for archiving purposes, burning movie projects...etc. DVD is the current 'floppy'.

Including one in a computer has nothing to do with an ability to view movies at its core...it's a happy option!


You make some good arguments, but I still feel a BluRay option probably won't be tried, if only because most folks shy away from all-in-one concepts fro home theatre. I'm sure a few people would like an all-in-one solution, but most like to hook up new items to a receiver as they show up on the horizon:

Let's say I had a reciever with a built-in LaserDisc (the BIG ones) player, tape deck and phonograph. In the early 90s, it was all you could want, in one package. BUT, LD goes the way of the Dodo...but the 'drive' still handles CDs so I would be OK...yet DVDs show up...I have to buy a new player for that.

I guess I am saying that the all-in-one concept has been eschewed by the buying public over the last 20-30 years or so. Stereos with tape/8-track/phono were all the rage in the 70s, but it's rare to find complete all-in-one system now, or when you do, it's very limited.

I may be wrong, but I think the plug-and-play aspect of a home theatre system almost demands the ability to add and remove one thing at a time. Multi-units tend to be ignored by most.

And to change the AppleTv design to incorporate a drive, a BluRay drive at that ...a format that many say is already waning...seems like an odd prospect.

Sure, some folks may want an all in one unit like that...heck if itwere no more expensive or included by default in a souped-up ATV I would buy, but at this point I have no BluRay player and currently do not see a need to migrate toward another 'hard-copy' format again thanks to iTunes/ATV and the like.

I suppose though, for people that already have BluRay and for some reason need a new unit, your idea has merit.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I am not arguing for an all in one product. I'm arguing for an open product that can have add-ons from Apple or third parties. That is very much analogous to the receiver example you included. Think of this imagined next-gen TV as the "receiver" to which you can mix & match present day 8 track, Laser Disc, and so on pieces to suit individual tastes. Then all these buyers that would buy it if it only had __________ would at least have a way to get what they want from it. And when we arrive at the discless/DVR vision that is apparently preventing this from happening, those add-ons would just get used less and less, until they are finally pulled off the "receiver" and packed away or sold (just like other obsolete AV gear hooked to regular receivers).

I DON'T WANT APPLE TO FORCE AN ALL-IN-ONE TV on us as a sole next-generation option. What I would like to see from Apple is a 1080p full bandwidth core platform (very similar to today's model with mostly better (modern) hardware inside) with some extra expansion ports for them- or third parties- to be able to extend this "receiver" with add-ons for those that want it to do more than it does now (+ 1080p). The "one more thing" is an app store to open up the software side to third party extensions, and wallah! THAT would be one HOT product. I'll take 2 or 3 of these on day one. This concept can keep the price about the same (accessible to the masses), give Apple the Apple margin it likes, and make this thing the CE AV equivalent of the iPhone to the smart phone world.

If someone chooses to build and market a BD player add on (like that mini-stack box for the Mac Mini) and there is NO market for such a thing, then Apple loses nothing. But if there is a market for it, then Apple sells more TVs to guys like Smurf who is instead going to buy a SECOND BD player because he has that kind of content but NO WAY to play it through an TV purchase. Apple can't sell him ANY content through iTunes if there is not an TV added into his AV stack. So sell him one for his BD needs now, and win his "easier" (to download it from) iTunes business when he can't run to the store, or can't wait for netflix to deliver the discs, etc.

If someone (like Elgato) chooses to build and market a DVR add on, and there is NO market for such a thing, then Apple loses nothing. But if there is a market for it, Apple sells more TVs.

See the pattern here? It doesn't sell many TVs by locking into the opposite view though.

I guess in very simple terms, I think EVERYONE would be better off if Apple let the market decide what it wants from a next-gen TV rather than arbitrarily deciding for us. Apple knows this works by relatively open(?) options with its computers, and with the massive success of the app store, etc. So why not?

From my own point of view, I could care less about BD or DVR options, but I can get behind an open system that would allow such options to be added on for those that want them. What irks me to no end is that I have all these precious home movies shot on a 1080p camcorder, rendered in 1080p by Apple's iMovie package, on Apple's machines, inserted into Apple's iTunes where it will playback just fine, but the one remaining link in the chain just can't pump that content to the HDTV that can otherwise display it (without a very noticeable downgrade in picture quality). For me, just a 1080p capable next-gen TV would be "enough", though I love the idea of what a more open platform could lead to in terms of add-ons and app store applications dreamed up by innovative third parties (just look at some of the cool stuff the hackers have done with the existing platform FOR FREE).

 

[mstrze]

Agreed Darryl....

I can't imagine that a 1080 option wouldn't be available IF there is a refresh of ATV. I also am in your camp that that would be 'enough' for me...yet I would gladly stick with my current unit as, unlike others here, I use it far more than anything else. We even dropped DirecTV for 6 months as a sort-of experiment to see if we could live without it. We can and do...watching HDTV live and seeing any shows we want on AppleTV. I'm sure we are missing some things, but the cost savings is awesome...even with purchasing shows through iTunes.

I guess we will see this coming spring? Maybe a true Apple Television is the way they are going? Or something completely different? It's happened before.

Since the screens are getting so huge...won't be long before the iMacs rival the HDTV on my wall...it's already as large as my family's old console TV from the 70s. LOL. Just set up your iMac in the TV room and attach it to the wall!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Since the screens are getting so huge...won't be long before the iMacs rival the HDTV on my wall...it's already as large as my family's old console TV from the 70s. LOL. Just set up your iMac in the TV room and attach it to the wall!

Well just when I was about to buy the Quad 27" iMac, now I'll have to wait for the 65" version.

But more seriously, part of my business is about helping companies sell more of their products. And when I see an opportunity this big- and this obvious- it makes me a bit crazy to not see the company who could do it the best not pouncing all over it. I love my TV. Several features on their own easily justify what I paid for it. But it is obvious how much better it could be if Apple only summoned up the will to make it as described.

Getting entrenched in everyone's living room resolves a lot of related issues offered up as excuses (such as "there's no need for a 1080p TV until there is 1080p content available from iTunes"). Get entrenched in every living room... outsell the BD and DVR players and the Studios will make the deals to sell their content through the device that is dug in the deepest. Or, stick to the guns "as is", and watch those studios- and others- show more support for everything else to try to keep Apple from gaining dominance over the video industry (like they have with the music industry).

I fully believe this is Apple's to take... or lose. And I can't understand why they don't take it (yesterday). It is a massive business, probably many times bigger than the "tablet", bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the Mac side. And it's begging for someone like Apple to fill in the missing pieces and (again) WOW the public.

If this next-gen TV I've described in this thread was available now, how many do you think they would sell as gifts to non-Apple fanatics this Christmas?

 

[fpnc]

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...

I doubt that Apple will be transitioning to 1080p movies anytime soon. The infrastructure for quality, internet-based 1080p just isn't here yet. The only thing that might force this is a consumer stampede to competitive services that offer highly-over-compressed 1080p-like streams (such as the 2Mbps to 4Mbps streams being offered by YouTube and Microsoft). Frankly, I hope we don't see that happen. I'd rather have a mildly over-compressed 720p movie at 4Mbps (today's iTunes format) rather than some horribly over-compressed 1080p format that is HD quality in name only.

Furthermore, if they begin to offer 1080p movies what is going to happen to the existing Apple TV owners? Will Apple have to download three separate versions of the movie (iPod/iPhone, old Apple TV 720p, new Apple TV 1080p) each time someone buys an HD movie from the iTunes Store? For pure streaming (i.e. not purchased downloads) they could auto-detect the playback device but then we're back to the infrastructure question. You'd need about 2X the current data rate of 720p to support 1080p. Let's say 8Mbps which would probably exceed the available bandwidth for the majority of current users (in fact, it could be worse than that since you'd need some extra bandwidth to prevent hiccups in the system -- let's estimate at least 12Mbps).

You also then have the issue of on-demand 1080p going head-to-head against Blu-ray distribution. The content providers aren't going to jump on that bandwagon anytime soon (at least not at competitive prices and near-equal quality).

If I had to put a timeframe on wide adaption of internet-based 1080p content I'd say it will happen in another 5 years or so at which time Apple could just completely drop support for new 720p content. Of course, for this to happen Apple would have to have introduced an Apple TV capable of 1080p playback which will probably happen within the next year. This would give them several years of installed base with the new hardware before they basically end-of-life the original Apple TV.

As for drive capacity, the more the better (at reasonable costs). However, there aren't any 2TB drives in the 2.5" form factor and even 1TB drives in that format are rare (and somewhat costly at $200+ per device). Apple could switch to using full-size 3.5" drives in the Apple TV but that would make the device larger (obviously) and it might also increase the power draw and heat generated by the Apple TV (neither of which would be a good thing).

As far as storage capacity, what Apple needs to do is work out a deal where content can be stored on a externally attached drive so that users can easily upgrade their storage when needed or desired. This might require some new licensing terms with the content providers but I would think that Apple could work out some kind of deal where the content on the external drive would receive additional forms of copy protection (perhaps with encryption of the entire device).

 

[fpnc]

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.

...And you apparently don't own or use a TiVo...

Why is that? Everything I said is true. Whereas you said in your original statement:

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

Which is demonstrably incorrect and the reason I presumed you had little experience with the Apple TV.

As for the remainder of your comments about the TiVo, I never disputed or even touch upon those other topics. I was merely using the TiVo DVR hard drive situation as an example of the limits that are typically placed on the devices that are used with protected content.

Specifically (which is all that I said originally), you can't use one of the TiVo/WD DVR Expanders to physically transfer media between two systems (that is, you can't disconnect the drive from one system and attach it to another and still retain access to the media that was recorded/stored on the original device). Is that not true?

Frankly, however, I've owned two TiVo DVRs over the last several years but I stopped using them because it was actually cheaper to rent a digital DVR from the cable company. That and the fact that the hard drives in DVRs typically fail about every two years (and if you rent you just need to return the defective device, not repair and/or buy a new one). I base that failure rate upon the four or five DVRs that I've used over the last ten years.

 

[JoEw]

AppleTV needs to have more then just allowing users to stream music and video on there TV. They need to market it as the ultimate media device for there TV Entertainment Center. It needs to be able to play DVD/Blu-Ray, needs to have radio, and high end stereo receiver features. At the moment AppleTV's appeal is only for watching TV and Movies people purchase or rent on iTunes. And if they want AppleTV be successful it needs to do more then just that.

 

[NightStorm]

AppleTV needs to have more then just allowing users to stream music and video on there TV. They need to market it as the ultimate media device for there TV Entertainment Center. It needs to be able to play DVD/Blu-Ray, needs to have radio, and high end stereo receiver features. At the moment AppleTV's appeal is only for watching TV and Movies people purchase or rent on iTunes. And if they want AppleTV be successful it needs to do more then just that.

All of that for $200?

While I agree, the AppleTV needs to have an expanded feature set (although I don't see Bluray/DVR functionality), I think you are taking it to the far extreme.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

All of that for $200? While I agree, the AppleTV needs to have an expanded feature set (although I don't see Bluray/DVR functionality), I think you are taking it to the far extreme.

Agreed. That's why I think the "open" platform with add-on options (for additional costs) is the way to go. Thus if he wants all that in one box, and (probably) third parties choose to actually make all that available as add-on options, he could spend that (probably) $700-1500 more to get that kind of ultimate box.

But these people that just want it to also be one more thing (a BD player, a DVR, a central iTunes content repository, etc) could spend just a little more for those add-ons to get what they want.

I really don't want Apple to (again) arbitrarily decide on closed features of a next-gen TV (such as building in BD as a fixed feature, thus forcing those of us who want a better TV- but not necessarily BD hardware in it- to have to accept Apple's new mandate of how we want to get it as they want to serve it to us.

But if Apple would develop an "open" platform for the next-gen, then they or third parties could offer additional options at additional cost so that all those more mainstream features it lacks now could at least have a way to get addressed for those who are willing to pay for them. Apple could keep the cost around the current level by just building in 1080p hardware (and we know they can do it because there are many other little boxes on the market retailing at less than TV pricing with 1080p hardware cores), with even a few open USB ports for third parties like Elgato to potentially fulfill these other wishes. That so much makes sense to me, and seems like it would be win:win for everyone involved.

 

[JoEw]

All of that for $200?

While I agree, the AppleTV needs to have an expanded feature set (although I don't see Bluray/DVR functionality), I think you are taking it to the far extreme.

obviously i think it would cost a lot more then $200 the point i am trying to make is that i would rather pay 500 or 600 for a full on media center then 200 hundred for something that plays my stuff i have purchased from itunes.

 

[JoEw]

Agreed. That's why I think the "open" platform with add-on options (for additional costs) is the way to go. Thus if he wants all that in one box, and (probably) third parties choose to actually make all that available as add-on options, he could spend that (probably) $700-1500 more to get that kind of ultimate box.

But these people that just want it to also be one more thing (a BD player, a DVR, a central iTunes content repository, etc) could spend just a little more for those add-ons to get what they want.

I really don't want Apple to (again) arbitrarily decide on closed features of a next-gen TV (such as building in BD as a fixed feature, thus forcing those of us who want a better TV- but not necessarily BD hardware in it- to have to accept Apple's new mandate of how we want to get it as they want to serve it to us.

But if Apple would develop an "open" platform for the next-gen, then they or third parties could offer additional options at additional cost so that all those more mainstream features it lacks now could at least have a way to get addressed for those who are willing to pay for them. Apple could keep the cost around the current level by just building in 1080p hardware (and we know they can do it because there are many other little boxes on the market retailing at less than TV pricing with 1080p hardware cores), with even a few open USB ports for third parties like Elgato to potentially fulfill these other wishes. That so much makes sense to me, and seems like it would be win:win for everyone involved.

I like the idea of having some sort of extension platform but knowing apple it would not likely be open source i think it would be a lot like the app store.

there should at least be DVD/CD slot. It is pretty inexpensive for apple to build in. I might consider buying it if It could have least play DVD/CD's and had as you said some sort of 3rd party apps to run on it.

 

[balamw]

So, in a limited time window, some content may be available for rent exclusively on the TV that's not (yet) available on iTunes for Mac/PC/iPod/iPhone.

I am happy to wait until it becomes available on "regular" iTunes, or just find another way to get the content delivered to me (VoD, NetFlix, buy the disc...)

That may be the key difference between us, and why you find it more compelling than I do at this point. I don't get to watch what I want to watch when I want to (I have young kids) so I am well used to waiting to watch something. If I really can't wait, I've already seen it in the theaters. So rentals are wasted on me 'cause I can't guarantee I'll get my money's worth.

Pre-Hulu I found some utility in being able to buy a missed episode of a favorite show from iTunes and watch it on my TV, but now if we miss something for one reason or another it's just easier to hook the MacBook up and watch the show on Hulu or the station's website. I have also bought several seasons (mainly of of kids shows) on iTunes, to get things off of the DVR and compensate/encourage the creators of content I enjoy.

Youtube on the TV was fun for a while too, but the TiVo has it too, and in many ways it's just easier to watch on the iPhone

I was merely using the TiVo DVR hard drive situation as an example of the limits that are typically placed on the devices that are used with protected content.

My point was slightly different. The port may be limited, but the function is not.

While you are not able transfer content by sticking a random HDD or flash drive into the TiVo's USB (or eSATA) port, most content can easily be transferred/moved/archived/converted using network tools provided by TiVo as well as some written by third parties.

So, in reality how is that a limitation?

And while you are strongly encouraged to use a WD PVR expander, there is still nothing stopping you from performing a DIY drive-ectomy, just like you can with the TV.

Again, where is the limitation?

FWIW I've owned 6 different DVRs over the past 12 years myself, three of them flavors of TiVo. None have failed, though I did upgrade the hard drives on 3 of them myself. Usually they were replaced/upgraded before they had a chance to fail.

I only managed to tolerate the most-recent non-TiVo for 6 weeks this summer. I could save about $1.99/month going back to the FiOS DVR, ($14.99 vs. $12.99 + $3.99) but it just doesn't fit our viewing style due to the crappy UI and its tiny non-expandable HDD.

Due to our viewing style I really need to be able to put a movie "on ice" for a few weeks or a month before I get around to watching the whole thing. (Due to the whole kids thing). I can't do that with a tiny 40 GB HDD.

B

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I like the idea of having some sort of extension platform but knowing apple it would not likely be open source i think it would be a lot like the app store.

Just to clarify, when I refer to "open", I'm not thinking "open source". By "open" I mean normal USB port functionality, maybe a programmers kit to build onto a core platform (just like the one they have for the iphone/ipod touch), and maybe another USB port or three (so that a couple of add ons could be added on without also adding a port multiplier). All that still can keep the cost at or below the current price level- even with 1080p hardware upgrades.

 

[fpnc]

So, in a limited time window, some content may be available for rent exclusively on the TV that's not (yet) available on iTunes for Mac/PC/iPod/iPhone...

Like I said previously, the ratio is at least ten to one which isn't my definition of "some." You can confirm this yourself even without having an Apple TV by noting how many of the movies include the following disclaimer on the iTunes Store: "Also Available in HD on Apple TV."

Furthermore, on the Apple TV you can randomly select movies under different categories and genre and you'll find that about 25% of the movies are available for rent and/or purchase in HD. That suggests that there are several thousand HD movies available on the Apple TV when up until last month there were only about twenty available for rent/purchase on the Mac/PC. In any case, it now appears that there are one to two hundred HD movies available on the Mac/PC, but the numbers still vastly favor the Apple TV. Here is a link that documented this change:

http://www.theiphonespot.net/2009/11/11/apple-greatly-increases-itunes-hd-movie-selection/

While you are not able transfer content by sticking a random HDD or flash drive into the TiVo's USB (or eSATA) port...

I guess that's your confirmation that my original statement was correct. It's actually worse than that, however. Isn't it true that if you remove the DVR Expander disk from the TiVo you lose all of the content that was recorded/stored on the TiVo (i.e. even content that was on the internal drive)? What this basically means is that once you attach the DVR Expander to a TiVo it is basically mated to that one device permanently (unless you'll willing to lose all of the content that you've added since the disk was attached). This is actually a pretty clever mechanism since it dissuades you from even trying to detach the external drive.

I'm not certain why this behavior is so onerous, but I suspect that it is a system to enforce managed copies (or sharing) of the protected content on the TiVo DVR. That's my only point, I'm not claiming that the TiVo lacks options or that it isn't a good product.

As for my use of the Apple TV, I actually purchase or rent very little TV or movie content from iTunes. I do, however, purchase a fair amount of music and music videos since iTunes is probably the best source for that form of content. I also watch a fair number of podcasts, to be honest I think some of the free podcast content on iTunes is better than what you'll typically find on the TV networks. For example, the TED podcasts ( http://www.ted.com/ ) are often both entertaining and informative.

 

[balamw]

I do hope Apple finds a way to turn this hobby into a business! They just haven't found a niche that scratches one of my itches for long with it though...

The iTunes store is a wonderful thing, and I am a good customer in both the music and TV departments (as previously mentioned archival seasons of kids shows mainly). However, it's still not the only game in town. I do check Amazon's MP3 store and if it's a newer album I particularly like look to see if I can get the CD for the same price as the download, or if it's an older album, check to see if it might be available on yourmusic.com for $6.99.

I'm not certain why this behavior is so onerous, but I suspect that it is a system to enforce managed copies (or sharing) of the protected content on the TiVo DVR.

However, copies are handled via the network connection. It's not very good enforcement if you can achieve the same end through a different port.

What you describe is just a by-product of the way they chose to organize their file system. Effectively when you use a two drive TiVo (even if both drives are internal), the two drives become part of a software-quasi-RAID with content scattered between the two drives, probably for load balancing reasons**. When you remove one of the drives you could be removing half of the transport stream for one movie. Hence, once the drives are "married" they can't be taken apart without losing data.

(** Which I think arose more from the fact that they were right on the edge of performance when they first came out. Think about what the original Series 1 devices were capable of doing. Encoding two analog streams to MPEG2 and saving them to HDD while decoding another. All this using an ATA/100 bus and much slower drives than we have today. The new machines have it easy since the stream comes in already in digital form, and the drives are on SATA.).

B

 

[fpnc]

...However, copies are handled via the network connection. It's not very good enforcement if you can achieve the same end through a different port...

That's called managed copy (see my previous post), because they can still control what you can share or transfer. I think you've already said that there are some restrictions on what files you can transfer (i.e. not every file can be moved to your PC, etc.). The same is true on the Apple TV, there are certain protected sources that you can't transfer back to your Mac/PC.

What you describe is just a by-product of the way they chose to organize their file system. Effectively when you use a two drive TiVo (even if both drives are internal), the two drives become part of a software-quasi-RAID with content scattered between the two drives, probably for load balancing reasons**. When you remove one of the drives you could be removing half of the transport stream for one movie. Hence, once the drives are "married" they can't be taken apart without losing data...

That's true and it's one of the reasons I previously called this a "clever mechanism" because it's so easy for them to implement, but it doesn't change anything that I've previously discussed and it may be more than just a happy coincidence that this also prevents you from using the drive to move anything you want to another location (like your friend's PC). While you could always remove both drives (internal and external) and try to move or copy managed content that's just too inconvenient for most people and thus it's probably enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread hacking of content that they don't want moved to another TiVo or PC.

 

[joelusa]

Apple TV + Apps = the future

I say let the Apple tv run apps from the App store. Let the market determine what the Apple tv is.

 

[godslabrat]

Just to use myself as an example: I have a dedicated DVR and BluRay player. I like them. I chose those devices specifically because they suit my home theater. However, I also have several smaller sets around the house, and two parents who could use some sort of on-demand content device for their home. As it stands, I won't buy an AppleTV for my house because BluRay players are so cheap, and if I'm going to have just one device, that'd be it. I'm strongly considering putting an AppleTV in both my mother's and father's houses... but am very annoyed at the low specs of the unit.

HOWEVER, if Apple were to give me the option to use it as a DVR or BluRay player, I wouldn't even be thinking about this. I'd have an AppleTV in each room of the house, and would have another two on their way to mom and dad. Adding this functionality would change me from "Well, I might buy one, if it ends up being the way to go..." to "How fast can I have four?" And that's four AppleTV units that could be buying iTunes content as well.

At LEAST add 1080p support. There is just no reason not to.

 

[jlasoon]

At LEAST add 1080p support. There is just no reason not to.

The difference between 1080p BluRay and AppleTV 720p is irrelevant on anything smaller than 60 inches. I have both units and to be honest I've found myself renting more and more from itunes than I have from Netflix. I'm down to 1 BluRay movie out at a time with Netflix, and I might just drop them altogether. The BluRay concept isn't compelling at all.

The difference is minimal and definitely not a game changer. I would much rather have a dedicated app store for the AppleTV.