Wish List for next upgrade

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No one is "meant" to rip DVDs to play on AppleTV. First of all, that breaks the DMCA in the U.S. so there's no way Apple would support that or even SUGGEST that their AppleTV is 'meant' to watch DVDs by ripping them with something like Handbrake.

Personally, I don't know what kind of times people get on newer Macs to rip a DVD at decent quality, but the numbers my Mac and PC are giving me when I tried testing it with some music video discs are terrible. Here, I thought ripping my CD collection was a pain in the butt, but it at least only took a few minutes per disc.

For that matter, is there supposed to be some way to preserve chapters, menus, etc.? Or do you guys just expect to only be able to play the main show (would work OK for movies, but sucks for music video and concert DVDs where they have indexes and chapters all over the place). It seems like way too much work to save me all the trouble of taking 10 seconds to walk over to my DVD racks and pick up a disc and another 10 seconds to walk back and stick it in the DVD player. Maybe if I didn't already have 300+ DVDs (talk about taking FOREVER), it would seem more appealing?

 

[Tilpots]

^ some people just don't get that Apple is always one step ahead of its time.

Seriously man, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. We're all Apple fans here but don't go all Jonestown on us.

The point is that TV is the first widespread implementation of "internet TV". You buy and download your media. No physical media in the loop.

You're really missing the bigger picture. TV shows as we know them are paid for by advertisements that run during Live broadcasts, not by individuals and their iTunes account. Single episodes of many TV shows run in the millions of dollars. The advertising dollars are what gets them to air and then eventually to the iTunes store. To the production companies making these shows, the iTunes money is icing on the cake, not the cake, and certainly not the meal. This internet TV you speak of doesn't happen unless it is first aired on national TV.

The shortcomings that come along with the TV not having at least a TV tuner, DVR, or DVD player are that it is not involved with the basics of peoples TV viewing habits. Without the basics, it's nothing more than a Apple computer with an HDMI port. I can hook my MBP up to my TV and soundsystem currently, so why bother.

I recall some years back many people crying out for an iPod that also played CDs. See how silly that sounds now?

The iPod is not a comparable here, that's a totally different ballgame. It covers all the music listening basics.

 

[ipedro]

Seriously man, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. We're all Apple fans here but don't go all Jonestown on us.

You're telling me that OS X, iPod and iPhone were/are not ahead of their time? TV is no different. It's a project in its infancy as iPod was when it was first released. With time it will reach the masses just like iPod and iPhone.

You're really missing the bigger picture. TV shows as we know them are paid for by advertisements that run during Live broadcasts, not by individuals and their iTunes account. Single episodes of many TV shows run in the millions of dollars. The advertising dollars are what gets them to air and then eventually to the iTunes store. To the production companies making these shows, the iTunes money is icing on the cake, not the cake, and certainly not the meal. This internet TV you speak of doesn't happen unless it is first aired on national TV.

Tell that to the many successful professionally produced podcasts from the likes of Revision3, Podshow and ON Networks.
They're producing content available exclusively on the internet. With the progressive adoption of the internet tv model, the more advertisers will take notice and hence the budget for these shows will also increase.

Targeted advertising is much more valuable than the mass advertising we see today. As Walt Mossberg said in the story on the front page, many people could care less about Viagara or tampons.

Advertising as we know it is going to get turned on its head (it's already happening). This coming from a professional in the field.

The shortcomings that come along with the TV not having at least a TV tuner, DVR, or DVD player are that it is not involved with the basics of peoples TV viewing habits. Without the basics, it's nothing more than a Apple computer with an HDMI port. I can hook my MBP up to my TV and soundsystem currently, so why bother.

That's you. Most people would rather have a push button, purpose built experience. They buy the box, plug it in to their TV, grab the remote and start using it the way it was meant to be used: with online media.

With regards to the current model, why would you buy a DVD player when you could just plug in your computer and play it from there? A DVD player is just a computer with an HDMI cable...

The iPod is not a comparable here, that's a totally different ballgame. It covers all the music listening basics.

That's not an argument. Care to elaborate?

Back when everybody bought their music on CDs, many people had large libraries and the same complaints you're posing.

A DVD in the TV is as silly as a CD player in the iPod.

 

[Cave Man]

^ some people just don't get that Apple is always one step ahead of its time. Physical media is going to end at BluRay if Blu Ray even seriously takes off.

The digital theater projectors are now at 4320p. I can only imagine that TVs and physical media for the home market will get there, too, one day. Not sure if it'll be meaningful, though. Bandwidth will always be an issue for downloads. We need some sort of technological breakthrough for this bandwidth problem really soon for Apple's model to take off. Most people would rather have 1080 than 720 (although the TVs are more expensive). Besides, you cannot buy 720 content from iTMS. Believe me, I'd do it if I could.

 

[ipedro]

^ that's true. Again, a model in its infancy.

Bandwidth in the States is really behind the rest of the world. It's too bad.

Here in Canada and even more in some Eastern nations, broadband is the norm.

My bandwidth pipe is just waiting to be filled.

 

[ipedro]

The digital theater projectors are now at 4320p. I can only imagine that TVs and physical media for the home market will get there, too, one day.

Can't say I agree with you there. Digital theater projectors are at 4320p because the screens that display that content are huge and meant for large audiences.

A 4320p 100" TV would look no different than a 1080p 100" TV in an average size living room.

Unless they start making 40 foot tv's, 1080p will be the standard for home televisions for quite some time I think.

 

[Cave Man]

Can't say I agree with you there. Digital theater projectors are at 4320p because the screens that display that content are huge and meant for large audiences.

That was the point of my "Not sure if it'll be meaningful, though" comment.

1080p will be the standard for home televisions for quite some time I think.

I suspect you're right. However, we still have the issue with Apple's 720 content that's only for rental on the ATV, and the bandwidth issues. There just isn't any way that a 4 gig 720 Dolby Digital file can compete with a 40 gig 1080 Dolby TrueHD file (Blu-Ray). We need download times substantially faster at a reasonable cost. Right now, I pay $25/month for 1.5 mbps dl. That makes my 720 rental from Apple a 6 to 8 hour download. And Apple is still keeping those files below 4 gigs, suggesting that something about the ATV is still 32-bit.

I'm sure it'll come - but it's not here yet.

 

[Tilpots]

Tell that to the many successful professionally produced podcasts from the likes of Revision3, Podshow and ON Networks.

Never heard of one of these. Probably cause they're not on TV. Think their pulling in the ad dollars like Lost, CSI or even 60 Minutes.

They're producing content available exclusively on the internet. With the progressive adoption of the internet tv model, the more advertisers will take notice and hence the budget for these shows will also increase.

Targeted advertising is much more valuable than the mass advertising we see today. As Walt Mossberg said in the story on the front page, many people could care less about Viagara or tampons.

Advertising as we know it is going to get turned on its head (it's already happening). This coming from a professional in the field.

I agree about target audiences, much, much more valuable. But if you are a professional in the ad field, what happens to the era of the Cola Wars? Viagra became a successful brand because you couldn't help but see ads for it.

Newspapers didn't fold on the advent of television. Television won't fold because of the internet.

Back to topic, the product is called TV not internetTV, not Netflix, not rippedTV. If it's going to be a TV device, it should have completeTV functionality. It does not and needs a major improvement.

 

[Cave Man]

Never heard of one of these. Probably cause they're not on TV. Think their pulling in the ad dollars like Lost, CSI or even 60 Minutes.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get Safari and USB remote on the ATV (or Safari integration with the Apple remote)? You could sync bookmarks to it, then you'd have access to the online shows from the networks. It'd be great if I could get "Lost", "Ugly Betty" and "Battlestar Galactica" on my ATV like I do on my Mini's home theater.

 

[Tilpots]

Wouldn't it be great if we could get Safari and USB remote on the ATV (or Safari integration with the Apple remote)? You could sync bookmarks to it, then you'd have access to the online shows from the networks. It'd be great if I could get "Lost", "Ugly Betty" and "Battlestar Galactica" on my ATV like I do on my Mini's home theater.

Just curious, do you like your TV or Mini set up better? I know it's a matter of preference and placement (living room or bedroom) but I haven't seen somebody that's had both so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Cave Man]

Just curious, do you like your TV or Mini set up better? I know it's a matter of preference and placement (living room or bedroom) but I haven't seen somebody that's had both so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

The ATV is my wife; the Mini is my mistress.

Seriously, though, the ATV has a better picture and is more convenient (connected to a Samsung 40" LCD 720 TV with DD), but there's something about watching a movie or HD TV show (EyeTV Hybrid) on a 10 foot screen. I pretty much have the HT to myself - unless we put "Cars" or "Monsters, Inc." on, then the kids are there with me.

Tomorrow night, I'll be using the Mini HT watching KU take it to the tigers (sorry if you're a UNC fan...).

 

[Tilpots]

The ATV is my wife; the Mini is my mistress.

Seriously, though, the ATV has a better picture and is more convenient (connected to a Samsung 40" LCD 720 TV with DD), but there's something about watching a movie or HD TV show (EyeTV Hybrid) on a 10 foot screen. I pretty much have the HT to myself - unless we put "Cars" or "Monsters, Inc." on, then the kids are there with me.

Tomorrow night, I'll be using the Mini HT watching KU take it to the tigers (sorry if you're a UNC fan...).

Great explanation. Not a UNC fan, Terp by birth. I just hope we finally get a game worth watching. Good luck to your squad.

 

[ipedro]

Never heard of one of these. Probably cause they're not on TV. Think their pulling in the ad dollars like Lost, CSI or even 60 Minutes.

Probably because you don't own an TV. My viewing habits have adapted and in many cases improved because I gave TV a chance.
Instead of watching whatever I could find on TV, I've come to find free professionally produced podcasts that now fill my TV viewing time with shows that I choose.

Of course they're not pulling ad dollars like Lost or CSI. Now you're completely being unreasonable. You're comparing an established model versus a new model. As I said, as adoption for this model grows (and it is growing... look at all the TV's being sold since 2.0, not to mention X Box and the PS3), you'll get larger audiences and larger budgets.

Back to topic, the product is called TV not internetTV, not Netflix, not rippedTV. If it's going to be a TV device, it should have completeTV functionality. It does not and needs a major improvement.

Again, you're narrowing your field of vision here. Did TV change its name when the way you watch TV changed? First from one channel to hundreds (cable) and then towards the DVR. It's always been called television.

To put it plain and simple, with all due respect Tilpots, Apple does not agree with you... hence TV does not have a disc player nor a tv tuner. You're thinking of incorporating old models into a new model. Apple is introducing something new with a new perspective on viewing your media. DVDs and broadcast tv don't fit in that model.

You don't have to buy an TV but I think that your argument would be that much stronger if you actually experienced living with one.

 

[ipedro]

And again, I reiterate what I said in a previous post:

More and more, people are watching TV using their DVR device, not possible with TV.

According to what you're saying, more and more people are watching shows recorded on their DVR's. So inversely, they're watching less and less live TV. That thinking is 100% pro-TV.

The difference is that instead of you scheduling and doing the recording, you buy the shows already recorded. Like a DVR, you record/buy only what you want to watch. Like a DVR, you watch it on your own time. Like a DVR, you can skip/avoid commercials. This is why the interruption of a show to be shown ads is a dying model (people skip the ads so they lose their value) and to be replaced with targeted advertising.

The TV enables that new targeted advertising model. Traditional broadcasts do not.

 

[ipedro]

I suspect you're right. However, we still have the issue with Apple's 720 content that's only for rental on the ATV, and the bandwidth issues. There just isn't any way that a 4 gig 720 Dolby Digital file can compete with a 40 gig 1080 Dolby TrueHD file (Blu-Ray). We need download times substantially faster at a reasonable cost. Right now, I pay $25/month for 1.5 mbps dl. That makes my 720 rental from Apple a 6 to 8 hour download. And Apple is still keeping those files below 4 gigs, suggesting that something about the ATV is still 32-bit.

I'm sure it'll come - but it's not here yet.

I think it's synonymous with CD quality versus mp3.

People are being sold on this idea of 1080p because HDTV manufacturers are seizing this huge opportunity to sell everybody who owns a tube tv a brand new one.

However, most people don't know or can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I certainly can, but that's because I'm looking for the difference. I can also tell the difference (using good headphones) between mp3 and a CD. Yet, I listen to all my music in mp3/aac format because it's more convenient.

The reality today is that broadband in the US can only (barely) support the transmission of 720p content. There's no reason for apple to sell 1080p content.

I'm sure that future versions of TV will progress towards that goal nonetheless.

 

[bigwig]

A) So you can tell the difference between 1000kb/s rip and a pure DVD? Okay....
B) Special features? What...do you watch a movie or just play around with the "extras" ? I watch movies. I don't care for extras.
C) More work? Put in a DVD, tell HandBrake to rip it, 40 minutes later it is in your iTunes ready to play.
D) Because they come from the factory...? What have you been sniffing..

Sometimes I can tell, especially if it's upscaled. Which is utterly irrelevant. I want to make an exact digital copy of my DVD, store it on the ATV itself or on a server (NFS/Samba/Appleshare), and play it on the ATV. I don't care so much that the ATV doesn't have a DVD drive, but not being able to show DVD-format media is inexcusable, especially since this capability doesn't add any hardware to the machine. DVD Player, anybody? Anything wanting my business as a digital entertainment hub should perform this simple task. Why do you think so many people are using Minis as HTPCs? The ATV is crippleware.

Apple has similar shortsightedness with iTunes. For example, it doesn't support FLAC nor does it or Core Audio have a plugin architecture so you can give it "native" FLAC support. Look at what's happening with the iPhone to see what can happen if you allow third-parties to write for your platform.

 

[dbwie]

remote desktop

Haven't read the other posts so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned... Since Leopard can allow screen sharing, I would like to have screen sharing functionality for the Apple TV. This would allow me to bring up my computer's screen while I'm sitting in the living room. Plug a bluetooth adaptor into the AppleTV USB port, and use a wireless keyboard and mouse to navigate.

 

[kolax]

A 4320p 100" TV would look no different than a 1080p 100" TV in an average size living room.

Unless they start making 40 foot tv's, 1080p will be the standard for home televisions for quite some time I think.

I beg to differ.

The DPI difference between the two is huge. For a 100" TV with 1080P, the DPI is around 210. 7680x4320 is a huge resolution, if that was on a 100" TV the DPI would be about 3300.

I would definitely be able to notice that difference.

 

[ipedro]

I beg to differ.

The DPI difference between the two is huge. For a 100" TV with 1080P, the DPI is around 210. 7680x4320 is a huge resolution, if that was on a 100" TV the DPI would be about 3300.

I would definitely be able to notice that difference.

Of course you would.. sitting 6 inches away from the tv

In terms of a realistic viewing experience, 720p is more than enough for say a tv under 40" no matter how you slice it. You'd need to be standing right near the tv to see the pixels.

Similarly ,1080p is more than enough for up to the largest size of tv being sold today. You're not going to have a 100" tv and sit 4 feet away from it... and even if you do, the difference would be negligible had you had a 4320p 100".

Anyway, this res issue has been beaten to death in other threads, I'll try to stick with the topic at hand here.

 

[Tilpots]

You don't have to buy an TV but I think that your argument would be that much stronger if you actually experienced living with one.

Why would I buy it? I obviously don't think it's currently worth it. You love it, I get that and it's great, but it's not the end all product you claim it to be. It may suit your needs, but not mine. Apple may not agree with me, but John Q Public does, and Apple won't get my money 'til they make a better product.

Take the hint:

 

[kappa76]

ATV Wishlist

Safari Integration
Genres For TV shows
Shuffle for TV Shows by Show or Genre
Playlists For TV Shows
Widgets - Google Maps, Weather...
Specify Streamed Content
NBC Content!!!

 

[mallbritton]

Most people use a TV to watch TV, live. Not possible over the TV. What about flipping channels to catch several shows at once? Not possible with the TV. More and more, people are watching TV using their DVR device, not possible with TV. I'm just saying that for most people's main use of their TV, the TV doesn't cut it.

The percentage of the viewing public who have a DVR of one sort or another is relatively low. But use of DVR's is growing. So the days of "channel flipping" is not over yet, so your point is valid, in my opinion. But I would ask, then, why does TV have to fit into this old model of TV viewing to be successful?

I know you have said that the device is not suitable for your viewing habits as it presently functions, and that's fine with me, but that does not necessarily mean it has to have a TV tuner and disk player to be successful. I agree with iPedro: Apple is attempting to create a new entertainment model with the TV and it does not involve broadcast TV or physical media such as DVD or blu-ray disks.

As you say, with effort, you can watch movies on your TV without the iTMS, but wouldn't you rather save all that hassle and stick the DVD in the device to play it?

For my viewing habits it is more convinent to be able to scan all the content on my TV than it is to find the particular disk I want and put it in the DVD player. For example, if there is a particular episode of Stargate SG-1 I want to watch it is easier to scroll through a list of ep titles than it is to find the ep on disk, since I might remember the season but not the disk. It would take me significantly longer to find the ep on the disk that it would to find it on my TV. So despite all the time and work that goes into ripping and encoding the video in the short run it all pays off, for me, in the long run.

And since I don't watch live TV anymore anyway since I got a DVR several years ago the TV fits right into my entertainment needs.

Regards,
Michael

 

[ipedro]

Sounds like you want something like Windows: bloated, does all and everything but none of them well.

Again, with all due respect: people in your state of mind -- firm that they want a future model to work with the new model -- are the kind who bought VHS + DVD devices and no longer use the VHS portion.

I think you're finally getting my point: TV is a different model incompatible with what you want. You won't buy it.

However, things have a way of coming around. You'll probably be a late adopter. Once pretty much any network program is available for purchase and download online people wary of leaving the comfort of the live broadcast will see that all their friends have an TV -- or similar offering from another brand -- and will finally get one.

 

[Tilpots]

Sounds like you want something like Windows: bloated, does all and everything but none of them well.

Again, with all due respect: people in your state of mind -- firm that they want a future model to work with the new model -- are the kind who bought VHS + DVD devices and no longer use the VHS portion.

I think you're finally getting my point: TV is a different model incompatible with what you want. You won't buy it.

However, things have a way of coming around. You'll probably be a late adopter. Once pretty much any network program is available for purchase and download online people wary of leaving the comfort of the live broadcast will see that all their friends have an TV -- or similar offering from another brand -- and will finally get one.

Really don't want to keep this debate up, it's tiring me out! Look, all I'm asking Apple for is convergence. Take the iPhone, it's an iPod, an internet viewer, and a cell phone in one nice, neat little package. If they can put all this technology in one device, why can't they do the same with TV technology for the apple:TV.

Let's just say Live TV goes buh-bye in a few years (which I certainly do not believe will happen) then all Apple need do is drop the TV tuner like the floppy drive, or support for OS 9's Classic. Additional Features, not peer pressure, will bring success to this device.

Why settle for a cell phone, when you can buy an iPhone? Why carry a toolbox when a Swiss Army knife will do? Why buy just a printer when you can get one that also scans and faxes?

Give me options, not limitations.

 

[GotPro]

Let's just say Live TV goes buh-bye in a few years (which I certainly do not believe will happen) then all Apple need do is drop the TV tuner like the floppy drive, or support for OS 9's Classic. Additional Features, not peer pressure, will bring success to this device.

Give me options, not limitations.

Exactly my point. So what if DVD is going to go the way of the dodo. Give me a device that does BOTH right now... Apple can ALWAYS remove the DVD player when it becomes obsolete.

Right now, it's NOT obsolete... or have you never heard of a little thing called Netflix?