Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Official: The New Apple TV
- Thread starter GermanSuplex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As some others stated, apple dished up a heaping plate of Meh with the new apple TV.
Its addition through subtraction. They're telling you that you're getting more when they actually took features away
I was hoping for a more expansive device that could be more of a media center then a box to stream tv shows/movies.
I don't see this being any more successful then its prior incarnations. More so if they cannot get other networks on board.
One positive aspect is the beautifully designed product. It is stunning, but at the moment it seems looks are only skin deep.
Its addition through subtraction. They're telling you that you're getting more when they actually took features away
I was hoping for a more expansive device that could be more of a media center then a box to stream tv shows/movies.
I don't see this being any more successful then its prior incarnations. More so if they cannot get other networks on board.
One positive aspect is the beautifully designed product. It is stunning, but at the moment it seems looks are only skin deep.
The remote is not new. Been around for a while now.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC377LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That does become the hope. But I got to think that if it had this particular feature- probably the number 1 gripe related to the old one- that it would have been touted to fire up sales (and shut up those whining about it). For 4 years through thread after thread here and elsewhere, an enthusiastic market segment has spoken time & again, wishing for a couple of things, and this one has been consistent. To leave it an unspoken benefit would be surprising. I'd love to find out that the new one can indeed exceed the specs shown on the Apple website out of the box. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.
As to some future software update unlocking this feature, if I haven't given up and gone with something else by then, maybe Apple will get my money then. I have 720P max
TVs now. I need something with the rest of the HD formats.
The iPhone 3G and 3GS were HD capable and the feature was never touted or activated (that I know of).
So I noticed that on my desktop I had to update to iTunes 10 to see TV rentals, so I'm assuming there would need to be an Apple TV software update for the old models to do the same. Then I came across this article...
Hopefully they're just talking about the new features like Netflix and AirPlay, etc. Has anyone checked to see if there was an update on their existing Apple TVs?
Hopefully they're just talking about the new features like Netflix and AirPlay, etc. Has anyone checked to see if there was an update on their existing Apple TVs?
Just playing devils advocate here... Over your "average" home wireless network, would streaming a 1080p movie be much different than streaming a 720p movie? Like significantly longer times when fast forwarding and all that... I wonder if Apple took that into consideration.
My $.02 is that they missed the mark here. I would have loved to have seen something with built in storage to sync. I know Steve said people don't even know what that is but we all do it with our iPhones and iPads so why is that any different for thetv? I can see trying to make a cheap solution for the "average" person but most apple products, other than iPods, are not for "average" people. Macs, iPhones and iPads are going to people with money and people that want more than something "average." I could have seen a base tv for $99 but then one with built in storage, maybe 80GB, 120 or 160 (you don't have to go overboard here) for the folks that do want to sync. I have a macbook and I don't want to keep it on all the time to stream. I am also one of the people that downloads content from the internet and I store it on my macbook and sync it with one of more of my toys (iPhone, iPad, tv) to watch. I don't rent or buy movies from apple now and I don't want to in the future. Netflix or Hulu Plus just gets a "meh" from me. I really like my current tv and don't anticipate getting one of the new ones because it doesn't meet my needs.
My $.02 is that they missed the mark here. I would have loved to have seen something with built in storage to sync. I know Steve said people don't even know what that is but we all do it with our iPhones and iPads so why is that any different for the
tv? I can see trying to make a cheap solution for the "average" person but most apple products, other than iPods, are not for "average" people. Macs, iPhones and iPads are going to people with money and people that want more than something "average." I could have seen a base tv for $99 but then one with built in storage, maybe 80GB, 120 or 160 (you don't have to go overboard here) for the folks that do want to sync. I have a macbook and I don't want to keep it on all the time to stream. I am also one of the people that downloads content from the internet and I store it on my macbook and sync it with one of more of my toys (iPhone, iPad, tv) to watch. I don't rent or buy movies from apple now and I don't want to in the future. Netflix or Hulu Plus just gets a "meh" from me. I really like my current tv and don't anticipate getting one of the new ones because it doesn't meet my needs.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There were about 10 "major" enhancements to tout when those came out. It wasn't a crucial feature to tout to motivate the crowds to want a 3G/3GS.
TV is a much simpler, much more narrowly-focused device. You hook it to your TV, and arguably, it's #1 benefit is putting great video on the screen (sure it does a few other things too), but it seems like that should be the #1 thing. We can't use it as a phone. It's not an iPod we carry around. It's not the internet in our pocket. It's not launching with thousands of third party apps. It's lacks 3G inside for anywhere access. Tethering doesn't make sense. No GPS. Etc.
It's job(s) is much simpler: pump iTunes or our media to the best video & audio equipment in the house. The audio side is pretty well covered- even with the old one. The video side was pretty well covered with the old one, except that it was "barely HD" at 720p24.
Jobs pitched that they listened to their customers and these were the "X" things they wanted. I believe that customers did want some of those things. But I believe there are some other things that customers wanted more than that list.
Here's my take: had it launched with 1080p, everyone interested in that new feature would have got what they wanted. And all the "720p is good enough" crowd would have still been able to enjoy their 720p to the fullest. Relative to this particular issue, we all would be gushing together about how great it will be to have up to 1080p playback for all of our media.
Instead- again- its apparently capped at 720p- again. The cheerleaders are out justifying 720p with the same old, tired arguments as if there would have been some kind of loss for them had a bit better hardware been built into the thing. Or maybe they're on Apple's payroll?
I sincerely hope that Apple decided to build in hardware support but hold back the announcement for somewhere down the road. I'm buying probably more than 1 as soon as they make that announcement. But the buzz would have been bigger- and more positive- if a few simple tech buzzwords could have been thrown out in answer to what customers want. One of those- clearly- was "true HD". Then, Apple would be offering an alternative to the "bag of hurt" that meets it head-to-head in the most important aspect: picture & sound.
Instead, we have to be told that 720p is good enough, or pretend that higher than 720p30 doesn't exist, or hear a bunch of cheerleaders reference "the chart", "until nation-wide bandwidth is expanded", "until iTunes store has 1080i/p content", etc in the same old, tired justifications of why we should like exactly what Apple chose to give us. Again.
Nobody would have lost with 1080p hardware. 720p'ers would have enjoyed a max quality output of 720p. 1080p'ers would have finally got what they wanted too. Apple would have sold more units to both camps.
And instead of the 720p'ers trying to convince the 1080p'ers that we are wrong to want the thing to max out what our HDTVs are capable of displaying, we could all be cheerleading in unison that BOTH CAMPS got what they wanted this time.
If files would have been streaming from Apple at 1080p, we all would have lost. Storage problems, data speed problems, etc. The infrastructure simply isn't there for 1080p yet. Hard drives aren't big enough, internet connections aren't fast enough, wifi isn't fast enough. 720p is the common sense choice, and for 99% of Americans, they'd never know the difference. It's not a smart business decision to fundamentally damage the experience for everyone by trying to meet the ridiculous expectations of a select few people.
I think you nailed it on the head. The device is capable of 1080p, but isn't likely enabled because of infrastructure. People who don't know crap about computers would complain there 1080p content was stuttering when trying to stream it from iTunes because their internet connection can't handle it. On a 7Mbps download speed, I have a hard time handling Netflix "HD" streaming, and I use "HD" lightly.
I'm excited about the new Apple TV. I've had the old one for 3 years now and have hacked it every way possible. I've tried building my own Media PC's (Linux Based, Windows 7, XBMX, Boxee, etc...) and while they do certain things nice, they don't respond well to technically challenged wives. My wife liked the Apple TV the best because it is easy to navigate. My problem with the Apple TV was it couldn't handle my Rips of my Blu-ray library but handled SD content beautifully with chapter skips and fast response when fast forwarding through a movie.
Now, the new HW looks like it will have more then enough horse power to handle 720p rips of my content and I will probably rip them as 1080p since the new Apple TV should be more and capable of down converting to 720p. I just hope the Apple TV will recognize the file as I know in the past, if you ripped something in 720p at 30fps, it would appear on the Apple TV.
So I ordered my new Apple TV (we get a employee discount through my job, so I got it for 91) and am excitedly waiting for it.
1080p comes when it is ready for primetime. MOre important to get the price down to $99 than to have 1080p. More important that the device works reliably and quickly than have 1080p. More important that multiple devices easily work in a home than have 1080p. More important to keep it simple than have 1080p.
Cable and sat don't broadcast 1080p. No one streams 1080p that I know of either. Cry me a river.
Why don't the 1080p folks also cry a river for the sd-only folks or the component video only folks or the composite video folks .......
Cable and sat don't broadcast 1080p. No one streams 1080p that I know of either. Cry me a river.
Why don't the 1080p folks also cry a river for the sd-only folks or the component video only folks or the composite video folks .......
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Same old tired argument. 1080p hardware would not immediately require that everyone has to shift to 1080p software downloads, buy massive hard drives, demand major expansion to broadband pipes, etc. 1080p hardware would play 720p to it's maximum. 1080p hardware would play the SD files in the iTunes store to their maximum.
720p'ers would not be forced to download a single 1080p file EVER. Like 128K AAC audio files when iPods could handle lossless audio, SD & 720p video content could still be the primary offerings of the iTunes store and you could continue to enjoy those video files exactly as you do now. There could be NO DAMAGE to the experience when the experience could carry on exactly as it does now.
1080p would be an added benefit for those so hungry to match set top box capabilities with their 1080p HDTV... much like building tethering hardware into iPhone long before the software and infrastructure caught up, or building i7 Quad Cores and grand central into Macs long before the software caught up.
There would be NO LOSS WHATSOEVER for the 720p camp. But the 1080p or bust camp would have the reason they sought to buy and enjoy
TV too. The argument is not to force everyone to 1080p video or nothing, or that all video in the iTunes store had to be exclusively available in 1080p or nothing... just like there's no argument to make all audio in the iTunes store lossless or nothing. The argument is that it would have been easy- just as cheap- etc. to build in 1080p hardware so that everyone could have gotten what they want on this issue, instead of choosing to again cap max video quality at 720p.And I doubt that many would agree that it is a "ridiculous expectation" in 2010 for a set-top box of this nature to offer all the HD specs instead of just the weakest one. I've owned a 1080HDTV for about 8 years now. We've had 1080HD Camcorders for at least 4 years. We've had iMovie versions capable of editing 1080HD video and rendering 1080p since at least 2006... and those renders will pop right into iTunes and play there. We just can't get them from iTunes to our 1080HDTV... again... because a choice is made to build a hardware cap into this new version... just like the version from 2006. Clearly, other set-top boxes prove that 1080p hardware could be there and the price could still work at $99... so why not?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I got 4 years of 1080HD camcorder video... precious home movies that would be a total delight to enjoy on demand via
TV. Down converted to what- apparently- is "ready for prime time" the experience is lessened. For what reason?You imply that they couldn't get to $99 had they used a 1080p chip. Look around, there's a lot of 1080p playback set top boxes- some with other significant hardware inside selling for <$99. You can buy boxes that stream netflix, etc and have a disc drive and laser all on 1080p for <$99. I'm pretty confident that Apple could win the same kind of cost deals on those chipsets if they so chose.
So let's not justify 720p by pretending that it would have been impossible to hit $99 with 1080p. Clearly, it's absolutely possible.
As to reliability, it could have been just as reliable. 1080p hardware doesn't automatically make it lose reliability. As a matter of fact, superior hardware would play inferior software even better than hardware limited to that software.
As to keeping it simple, it would work exactly as it does now. There are no complications added to it. You could still download exactly the same 720p or SD video from the iTunes store and the simplicity of the experience would be exactly the same. That's the trick: better hardware can meet the desires of everyone satisfied with lessor software; it just doesn't work the other way.
If you find what you seek in this, that's great. Other's were hoping for a little more than just about the same hardware limitations that we had in the 2006 version. Had our desire been met, nothing had to change for you. But since your desire was met, we still don't see what we wanted.
Rationalize with these same old arguments all you want, but the simple fact is that everyone would have won had it had 1080p chips. 720p'ers would have enjoyed the exact same experience they expect to enjoy with it "as is". The "1080p or bust" camp could have finally had their wants met as well. And Apple would have sold many more units (to both camps).
I got 4 years of 1080HD camcorder video... precious home movies that would be a total delight to enjoy on demand via
You imply that they couldn't get to $99 had they used a 1080p chip. Look around, there's a lot of 1080p playback set top boxes- some with other significant hardware inside selling for <$99. You can buy boxes that stream netflix, etc and have a disc drive and laser all on 1080p for <$99. I'm pretty confident that Apple could win the same kind of cost deals on those chipsets if they so chose.
So let's not justify 720p by pretending that it would have been impossible to hit $99 with 1080p. Clearly, it's absolutely possible.
As to reliability, it could have been just as reliable. 1080p hardware doesn't automatically make it loose reliability. As a matter of fact, superior hardware would play inferior software even better than hardware limited to that software.
As to keeping it simple, it would work exactly as it does now. There are no complications added to it. You could still download exactly the same 720p or SD video from the iTunes store and the simplicity of the experience would be exactly the same. That's the trick: better hardware can meet the desires of everyone satisfied with lessor software; it just doesn't work the other way.
If you find what you seek in this, that's great. Other's were hoping for a little more than just about the same hardware limitations that we had in the 2006 version. Had our desire been met, nothing had to change for you. But since your desire was met, we still don't see what we wanted.
Rationalize with these same old arguments all you want, but the simple fact is that everyone would have won had it had 1080p chips. 720p'ers would have enjoyed the exact same experience they expect to enjoy with it "as is". The "1080p or bust" camp could have finally had their wants met as well. And Apple would have sold many more units (to both camps).
You're full of sht. Where are all of these 1080p streaming boxes for under $99? Where? Where are the ones with disc drives in them as well?
And where all the ones that actually work? I mean people streamed video on the internet way before it ever worked well and yet they'd swear up and down it was the greatest thing ever.
Where are the shows that are being streamed or broadcast via 1080p?
And since when did Apple ever undercut anybody on price?
YOu're full of crap. If you waited 4 years to stream your 1080p content from a 1080p camcorder you bought 4 years ago for a pretty penny you can wait another year or two.
Or you can do like I did. Go find a site that talks about product you actually want and like. That's how you find what you seek. You don't go to sites and threads where the product isn't what you want. That's how find what you don't want.
Go buy one of these under $99 streaming boxes with optical drives if they exist and work so dam well. I mean wtf. You're crazy if you hang out here whining about a product you don't want while telling us there are cheaper better products elsewhere. I think that's the definition of insanity. Especially if you've been doing it for 4 years.
I don't think he was advocating for iTunes content to be 1080p, merely that the device be capable of doing it.
I'd guess that most (if not all) of that difference is VAT. Blame your government not Apple!
Netflix streaming on the PS3 is butt. Slow and laggy with a cumbersome interface. I would MUCH prefer to stream on my older ATVs, which are also 802.11n as opposed to my (criminally) 802.11 g/b PS3, which is only 1.5 years or so old.
Since I much prefer the old ones with local storage, here's to hoping that Apple updates the old one's one last time to give us Netflix, and if we're really lucky, Pandora.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Are you kidding?
How about: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Digital_WDBABY0000NBK_NESN_WD_TV_LIVE_HD.html or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...rives+-+External-_-Western+Digital-_-22136472
How about: http://www.roku.com/
How about: http://www.electrozone.com/product.aspx?pf_id=BDC5500-NT
Do you need more: just do searches for BD Players and there are lots of 1080p players (with a disk drive and it's laser) that can also be connected to the Internet and access more sites than Netflix and Youtube for $100 or less.
If you're willing to take refurbs, you can get these for as little as about 60-75% of these price. For example: http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/218844 is < $50.
I appreciate your love for Apple & all (I own a lot of Apple stuff myself), but it's pretty easy to look around and find set-top boxes with 1080p and more features & benefits for around- or even less than- $100.
These brands are not no-names. And there are plenty of reviews to prove that they do what they say. Apple's not the only company in the world that can make streaming from Netflix, etc work.
While I believe there are more than 1 source (VUDU comes to mind: http://www.vudu.com/product_overview.html), I've never argued that Apple must supply 1080p content (though they do have movie trailers already on hand). The hardware must LEAD so that those who control the software can eventually get tempted (by greed) to test the profitability of 1080i/p iTunes content. Apple's not in the content-production/ownership business. They're just distributors. Set up enough people with the hardware capable of it, and the greedy distributors will come wanting to sell it through iTunes. Don't and there's no reason for the Studios to even try.
Never said they had to undercut anyone on price. $99 is amazing for an Apple device like this. But, for myself, I'd happily pay substantially more for the exact same little box if it had 1080p playback (I paid substantially more for 2 comparable Apple TV boxes missing some of the features and horsepower in this one). However, as proven by links above, it is absolutely possible to put 1080p playback chips in a set-top box and retail it for <$99. So, Apple could have done that too... if they had just chosen to do so.
Search around. There's a lot of 1080p settop boxes from reputable names for <$99, $99, and a little more than $99. 1080p chipsets are commoditized.
It wasn't a pretty penny: about $1200 back then. Now you can get 1080p camcorders for dirt cheap. For example: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...=20951801511&OVADGRPID=31627748399&OVNDID=ND1 or http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280HFR100/Canon-VIXIA-HF-R100.html?tp=6662 And there's many others; just look around.
So yes, I can wait a few more years. Or I can try to find some other non-Apple solution. Or I can dedicate a Mac Mini to this purpose. But it sure would have been nice if Apple had included this one little bit of enhanced hardware, so that you could have gotten what you want, and people like me could have gotten what we want. Everybody wins that way.
But apparently, anybody who desires something other than what YOU want is "full of sht" Sorry, we can all try to check with you in the future so that we can be told what we want.
Again, what about people with Fat32 formatted drives who aren't tech savvy and try to download a 1080p movie bigger than 4GB, only to get errors?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I have a couple of old ones (just updated one today with a 320GB hard drive). They are terrific. However, I'm under the impression that they can't be updated for Netflix. I believe Netflix feeds are in something (Silverlight?) that the old hardware can't deal with. But I'd love to be wrong about that.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Look, you can offer 1000 of these old arguments against 1080p. What about the FAT-based people who want to download a very long movie like Godfather or Return of the King in 720p? Some of those can exceed 4GB too. Perhaps there shouldn't be any 720p if we're going to worry about this particular issue?
First, I could care less about iTunes having 1080p content for rent. I could care less. I could care less. My own desire for 1080p hardware has NO RELATIONSHIP associated with 1080p software (content) for rent/sale from iTunes.
But, even if they did put 1080p optional movies in there, this little problem is easily addressed in the "are you sure" box when you are choosing to download any movie...
"You have selected the 1080p version of this movie
1080p movie files are very large, and may exceed the storage available on your Windows computer. Because of their size they will also require a longer amount of time to download and/or stream, even on a fast Internet connection. Would you like to proceed anyway, or would you rather download a smaller 720p of 540p version?"
Is that really so hard? We already get the "Are you sure" screen, even if we want to download an SD video. And the above would even let them insert a little dig at their (Windows) competitor.
So, in summary: I could care less about 1080p rentals/sales in the iTunes store. My 1080p is self made, already here at my house. My home network has the wide pipes for pumping it to the HDTV... no pipe issue. Comcast doesn't bill me more for files pumping from my Mac to my
TV, so no tiered cost issues. I'm all Mac here, so no FAT issue. I've seen "the chart" but everyone at my house CAN see the difference, like night & day. Etc. All these lame old justification excuses do not apply to my situation. But this isn't about just me. Others may want to download 1080p, just like some people with dialup might want to download 720p or SD. They'll quickly learn what does and does not suit their own situations and adapt accordingly. That would be much preferable to Apple deciding for us.Will there be some people with FAT who try anyway? Sure. But there's people who buy OS X software and try to install it on Windows machines and vice versa. So should we ban OS X software so that Windows people don't have to suffer through that misery too?
You've made about 20 comebacks to why I should be happy with 720p. It's terrific that it works for you. Congratulations. Had this box arrived with 1080p platform, you could have still got every bit of the same experience and quality out of your 720p files. Every bit. But don't try to make those wanting a higher quality of resolution happy because it works and/or makes sense for your own needs.
My viewpoint and we BOTH would get what we want out of it. Your viewpoint and only YOU get what you want out of it. See the difference?