tv will stream it from your iTunes Library to your TV without a problem. Other formats won't play directly in iTunes, even if they play in other applications.
yes if it plays in iTunes it should be able to be streamed to the
TV max specs: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html, it should play just fine on the TV. TV can't handle anything above 720p30fps in the right format for iTunes (so I have to down convert the home movies to play on my TV).
To slightly correct this, if it plays in iTunes AND it falls within the
The difference? Let's say you own a 1080HD camcorder (like me). You can shoot your home movies in 1080HD, import them into iMovie, edit and render them out at 1080, and they'll import and play in iTunes just fine. But
Nit-picky? I don't know. That might be info that matters to the OP.
tv doesn't do 1080 either.
TV", but that's definitely NOT true. iTunes is far more capable than TV, and Quicktime (the underpinnings of both) is far more capable than iTunes. It's too bad that all that Quicktime can handle is not enabled out of the box. Maybe the hackers will be able to add such capabilities to this new model?
TV-like boxes (see Roku, WD, etc) that can do 1080p now, and they too are retailing for <$100.TV.TVs for 4 years now, and the old ones had tangible bonus features like on-board storage and more connection options.TVs, and hope that either:TV is not 4 more years away
TV's myself), I would bet a good number of the 1080p'ers would have been happy to pay up for the 1080p version, even if that was all that differentiated it from the 720p MAX version. Personally, for my own applications, I could care less about download speed, file sizes & storage, internet bandwidth, "the chart", etc. I'd just like to have something as iTunes-connected as the new TV capable of 1080p playback like other little set top boxes from Roku, WD, etc.Of course a lower resolution at a fixed Mbps rate is going to look better than a higher resolution at that same Mbps rate; who do you think you're fooling with that kind of comparison? Following this logic, SD quality @ 2Mbps looks better than 720p at 2Mbps, or 320x200 quality at 500K looks better than 720p at 500K. Both SD and 320x200 will have less "artefacts" than 720p if we cap the resolution so that these even-lower resolution files look OK vs. 720p. Should we all compromise to 320 x 200?
It's good that you're happy to compromise... especially since it works out that your compromise just happens to line up perfectly with what Apple is delivering. That makes it very easy for you to buy exactly what Apple is selling and get exactly what you want out of it. How convenient!
Consider though, that had this little box had 1080p hardware in it, you could still get every bit of the exact same experience, still download 720p files, just like you can download SD versions instead of 720p now, etc. AND those of us who were hoping for a little more (than 6 more frames per second over what the 2006 version could do), could have got what we wanted too.
Most simply: a 1080p capable box would have given the "720p is good enough" crowd everything they're getting now, exactly as they apparently like it now. And the "1080p or bust" crowd could have also got what they wanted too. Even Apple would have won by getting to sell more units to both camps.
You wouldn't have been forced to download only 1080p content and thus have the Zune download experience again, anymore than someone with a broadband connection slower than yours is forced to download only the 720p version now.
Why is it that in this one thing from Apple, all these people are so quick to argue "less is more" yet we all want the latest & greatest in our Macs & iDevices. It's especially puzzling where in this particular thing- 1080p- it is easy to see other little comparable boxes with 1080p selling for < $100. If they could do it, so could Apple. Why do we have to come up with all these justifications for why it makes sense that we're paying just as much as other set-top boxes and getting less hardware capability for that money?
Lastly, while I'm not President of the "1080p or bust" crowd (and I do own a couple of
Well, since you guarantee it, I'll assume you have insights into Apple that I don't have. My assumption is the much bigger player (Apple) would at least have the same bargaining power for 1080p chips as the relatively tiny players like Roku. But maybe you know that Apple is incapable of striking as good of a deal?
Well since your entire post revolved around an assumption that 1080p would have automatically made Apple's set-top box a lot more expensive than $99, does the above proof of smaller companies rolling out 1080p set-top boxes retailing for less than that change your opinion at all?
TV at $999, you would be equally certain that because they priced it there, that's exactly where it should be priced. Or, there's no room for any other value proposition- including relative value propositions- because Apple always prices things exactly right.Uh, come on. The decision making process was simple. The A4 chip only support accelerated 720p playback. Had they gone with all new hardware for the Apple TV, the parts cost might be equal or cheaper but it would not have the full force of iOS development behind it and it would not have come out as quickly as it did (being a "hobby" project).So first you were so certain it would be a lot more than $99 if it had 1080p hardware. Then, I show you very solid relative evidence it didn't have to be priced at any higher than $99.
So now the logic is that Apple priced it exactly right for what it is. If it had anything better built in, it would have to be priced higher? Well that's as sure an argument as possible... the best comeback to an improper assumption to justify Apple's decision-making as I've ever seen.
I suppose then, that if Apple would have priced this new
I can't come back with anything against that kind of logic. I would need Apple to officially post that they mis-priced it at $99, or that they forgot to mention that it includes 1080p for $99.
I suppose when iPhone 1 or 2 first launched at one price, that was the exact right price because Apple priced it as such. Then, (was it) a month or so later when they cut the price of it (because sales plunged after the initial fan base), that that lower price was also the right price because Apple priced it as such. Seems like the exact same hardware was involved. But I suppose Apple was pricing it exactly right for what it was... at 2 different prices?
TV had it's own hardware platform. That was engineered before it was even a "hobby". It's not like they had a pile of A4s laying around and they needed something to do with them.TV is a very simple device: no touch screen, no accelerometers, no 3G, no gps, no ______________, and so on. It is a minimal device compared to the "big 3" iDevices. Even the UI borrows heavily from the UI running on a Pentium D (I think) plus a graphics coprocessor on the old one. TV (vs. say- an iPhone) that their only option was an A4 core and no 1080p coprocessor options. TVs. But I retain the ability to recognize shortcomings in product design choices where I see them. 4 years ago, they gave us an TV to hook to (only) HDTVs and it had graphics hardware limited to 720p24fps. 4 years later, they give us one that can max out at 720p30fps in a world where 1080p is so common in so many competing products, other set-top boxes with 1080p can be found for substantially below $99.
Don't live in illusions where Apple is so small they can only do one thing at a time, or work with one hardware platform at a time, or build something as relatively simple as the new
Or choose to live there and eat up everything they serve as they serve it. I own a bunch of Apple stuff myself- including the 2006 version of (2)
4 years ago, they gave us an
