PDA

View Full Version : Official: The New Apple TV




GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:02 PM
-Netflix, Youtube, Flickr, MobileMe support.
-No purchasing/syncing - rental model supported.
-$0.99 HD TV rentals.
-Movies priced the same as they have been.
-1/4 the size of current Apple TV, no power brick.
-Streaming supported from PC/Mac
-Cost is only $99


I am pleased by it. I never purchase/sync on my device anyways. I always stream from my computer or rent, so it covers what I need it to do.

Netflix on this is a HUGE plus, it means Netflix now works across my devices, and you have to imagine this will help Netflix out as well.

I'm sure that the lack of syncing will rub some people the wrong way. Thoughts?



almostinsane
Sep 1, 2010, 01:05 PM
New AppleTV - "Now with more meh!"

This one will be as big of a hit as the first one will.

roidy
Sep 1, 2010, 01:06 PM
I've just lost my live stream:mad: any mention of apps yet?

Gator24765
Sep 1, 2010, 01:07 PM
Can I stream what I am doing on my computer screen to Apple TV??

ascender
Sep 1, 2010, 01:08 PM
Can I stream what I am doing on my computer screen to Apple TV??

Doesn't look like it, its a feature of iOS devices only.

Gator24765
Sep 1, 2010, 01:09 PM
Doesn't look like it, its a feature of iOS devices only.

Aint that a bitch.. Would have loved to have that as a feature. Instead of plugging cords into my computer

drewc1138
Sep 1, 2010, 01:11 PM
So that means that we can't buy HD movies? Are you KIDDING me? This was going to be the Bluray killer. I love the fact that I have Star Trek, Iron Man and Up in HD that I can watch at any time. Now I have to rent that? What a load.

edk99
Sep 1, 2010, 01:14 PM
Am I missing something. How is the new Apple TV better then the old one? Other then being smaller and more energy efficient.

If the old one get a software update how can the new one be any better?

MCRunning
Sep 1, 2010, 01:14 PM
So can this thing stream 1080 or what?

Gator24765
Sep 1, 2010, 01:14 PM
It should have at least a usb input to hook up an external hard drive

robpow
Sep 1, 2010, 01:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

How many times do people on average watch their bought DVDs? Because for me the average is probably less than 3 meaning I'd be better off renting than buying.

ascender
Sep 1, 2010, 01:16 PM
The lack of synching is a pain for me. Not a big one, but its nice sometimes to be able to sync something to it and then turn the Mac off. We also have a dozen or so kids movies permanently synched to ours so that they can always be watched.

I also don't understand the logic of renting over buying. If I buy a movie I can put it on whatever device I like, so I can watch things when I'm away from home, traveling or working etc. I'll continue to buy physical product or download them from iTunes on my main computer I guess.

brianfast
Sep 1, 2010, 01:16 PM
I wonder what the processor in this guy is... Anyway the netflix addition makes this product a winner.

will0407
Sep 1, 2010, 01:16 PM
It should have at least a usb input to hook up an external hard drive

I thought I saw a USB port on the back of it when it was on the big screen during the 'product reveal'

Mintin8
Sep 1, 2010, 01:17 PM
^ agreeing here with robpow.

By the way guys, if you want, buy it on your ipod/ipad/mac etc and stream to your apple tv. Much easier IMO. I don't want to be buying stuff on my apple tv.

It looks great and i'm pre ordering ASAP.

shiftyroach
Sep 1, 2010, 01:17 PM
So my question is, where does this leave existing aTV users?

I don't mind sacrificing size right now if I can just update my firmware to be able to get the few new features.

Thoughts?

thenetstud
Sep 1, 2010, 01:17 PM
I thought I saw a USB port on the back of it when it was on the big screen during the 'product reveal'

Yup, it's right under the HDMI port.

Gator24765
Sep 1, 2010, 01:17 PM
I thought I saw a USB port on the back of it when it was on the big screen during the 'product reveal'


I only saw power, hdmi, digital audio and ethernet

northernbaldy
Sep 1, 2010, 01:18 PM
Wooo
They fixed the problem of syncing back from appletv to iTunes
By killing sync

Odd move

I suppose I can still purchase tv shows and movies to my mini and stream it
But that means getting off my arse and walking to another room

As stated earlier

Apple tv, with more meh

rickeym
Sep 1, 2010, 01:18 PM
You can stream those from your computer to the new AppleTV.

So that means that we can't buy HD movies? Are you KIDDING me? This was going to be the Bluray killer. I love the fact that I have Star Trek, Iron Man and Up in HD that I can watch at any time. Now I have to rent that? What a load.

kurzz
Sep 1, 2010, 01:19 PM
So my question is, where does this leave existing aTV users?

I don't mind sacrificing size right now if I can just update my firmware to be able to get the few new features.

Thoughts?

I was hoping he would mention something about current apple tv owners. I really hope there is a software update coming.

Gator24765
Sep 1, 2010, 01:19 PM
I only saw power, hdmi, digital audio and ethernet

Oh in that case, cool

simulacra
Sep 1, 2010, 01:20 PM
Still nothing about new markets for video rentals or otherwise, the new AppleTV will be as useless for us in scandinavia like the previous one. :/

Imsuperjp
Sep 1, 2010, 01:22 PM
I think the new apple tv fits my needs perfectly and will probably be buying one for each bedroom to stream from my HTPC. Does anyone know if it has to be a certain video format for apple tv?

NightStorm
Sep 1, 2010, 01:22 PM
Tech specs are up...

A4 processor, can playback up to 720p30, and still only has 10/100 ethernet.

fivepoint
Sep 1, 2010, 01:23 PM
+1 Ability to rent HD TV shows affordably.
+1 Ability to rent HD Movies affordably.
+1 AirPlay. Immediately watch photos/movies from iPhone camera on TV.
-1 No ability to buy HD Movies. (You've got to be kidding me)
-1 No ability to sync content to AppleTV. (FF and RW SUCK while streaming)
-1 No iMovie features to separate Hollywood content from home content
-1 ABC and FOX only. (You've got to be kidding me)

-2 No Apps
+2 $99 Price Point


I give the AppleTV a combined rating of +1.
"Pathetically interesting, but I'll buy."

mode101
Sep 1, 2010, 01:24 PM
What am I missing here? Everyone's complaining about not being able to buy movies on the ATV, but if you really want to buy it, just go to your computer and buy it and stream it to you ATV... :confused:

macadam212
Sep 1, 2010, 01:24 PM
Hey my TV has no HDMI port only Component Video and crappy scart. Can I use a HDMI to Component cable to connect an Apple TV to to my Sony TV?

Like this......

http://www.blueunplugged.com/dbimgs/WSS-HDMI-96A-1.5M-prod.gif

steve77uk
Sep 1, 2010, 01:24 PM
You're kidding Apple...

US = $99
UK = £99

Just swap the currency eh?

Not impressed, when I heard $99, I thought it would be around £80 give or take...

I wanted one, but now not impressed.

emotion
Sep 1, 2010, 01:25 PM
Stream from TimeCapsule?

UK prices?

Hardware specs?

I have many questions, but the make or break doesn't sit with Apple. It's how bought in the TV networks are...

fivepoint
Sep 1, 2010, 01:27 PM
For those complaining about no 1080p, that's fine... but lets be honest... only a very small segment of the population sits close enough, to a big enough TV, even tell the most remote difference between the two. (you have to sit 6' away from a 42" TV to see the difference) Educate yourselves... 1080p only matters to those that've essentially set up huge immersive theater type experiences in their homes.

http://satellitetvguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/resolution_chart2.jpg

It's a fair criticism, but be honest about who it affects. A tiny % of the population.

MCRunning
Sep 1, 2010, 01:27 PM
Specs are up here:

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

will0407
Sep 1, 2010, 01:28 PM
Stream from TimeCapsule?

UK prices?

Hardware specs?

I have many questions, but the make or break doesn't sit with Apple. It's how bought in the TV networks are...

Store is back up..£99 in UK!!! That's ridiculous! They sell the shuffle for $49, and £39, so why should something more expensive not be given any margin with the exchange rate?!

Also, the USB is a sservice and support

David R
Sep 1, 2010, 01:29 PM
I have a laptop, not a desktop. All my media is on an external HD hooked to the router.

I wonder if this thing can stream from that drive through the network or if it needs iTunes to stream the content. I don't want to have the laptop running to stream a movie to my TV, that's what I liked about the old AppleTV.

If it cannot stream from an external drive without another device in the middle, then this thing is, unfortunately, worthless to me.

Diveflo
Sep 1, 2010, 01:29 PM
For those complaining about no 1080p, that's fine... but lets be honest... only a very small segment of the population sits close enough, to a big enough TV, even tell the most remote difference between the two. Educate yourselves... 1080p only matters to those that've essentially set up huge immersive theater type experiences in their homes.

http://satellitetvguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/resolution_chart2.jpg

It's a fair criticism, but be honest about who it affects. A tiny % of the population.

That's right, but we still have content in 1080p that take's really really long to convert. With 1080p all you would have to do is plug your HD Cam in, change the container to m4v and you'd be done. Not go through a gazillion menues in Handbrake, wait like 10h and hope it doesn't have any errors...

almostinsane
Sep 1, 2010, 01:30 PM
Hey my TV has no HDMI port only Component Video and crappy scart. Can I use a HDMI to Component cable to connect an Apple TV to to my Sony TV?

Like this......

]

No you cannot. HDMI is digital, component is analog.

gkarris
Sep 1, 2010, 01:31 PM
No component - oh well...

(my home theater is wired for an older, component only projector, newer projector has a all the inputs, though)

Ordered one anyways...

Now to look for HDMI to Component adapters....

emotion
Sep 1, 2010, 01:32 PM
Store is back up..£99 in UK!!! That's ridiculous! They sell the shuffle for $49, and £39, so why should something more expensive not be given any margin with the exchange rate?!


On principle I will not be buying one. For that reason alone.

nutmac
Sep 1, 2010, 01:32 PM
For those complaining about no 1080p, that's fine... but lets be honest... only a very small segment of the population sits close enough, to a big enough TV, even tell the most remote difference between the two. (you have to sit 6' away from a 42" TV to see the difference) Educate yourselves... 1080p only matters to those that've essentially set up huge immersive theater type experiences in their homes.

http://satellitetvguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/resolution_chart2.jpg

It's a fair criticism, but be honest about who it affects. A tiny % of the population.
I am sick of this chart. I have 55" 1080p and I can see the difference.

anim8or
Sep 1, 2010, 01:32 PM
WTF $99 in the USA... £99 in the UK CMON APPLE GIVE US A BREAK!!!

Its disgusting!

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 01:32 PM
Tech Specs are up: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

It appears unlikely that it can do 1080p per these specs. I'm guessing an A4 will make the interface work a lot more efficiently, but I'm massively disappointed that we have to wait another year+ (probably) for a version update that might use 1080p playback chips common in even cheaper devices.

Even the USB port might still be locked down as "service" only.

And you can't pop your jiffy pop on it anymore- "cooler" and smaller.

It's great that it has new brains- hopefully faster, more responsive ones. But I sure wish the graphics would have got that bump. Replacing the old one now looks like it's about Netflix and a maybe a more responsive UI.

Congratulations "720p is good enough", "I can't see the difference", "bandwidth pipes have to expand", "not until there's 1080p content in the iTunes store", "chart" people. Enjoy your 720p or less for another year or two.

Diveflo
Sep 1, 2010, 01:33 PM
No component - oh well...

(my home theater is wired for an older, component only projector, newer projector has a all the inputs, though)

Ordered one anyways...

Now to look for HDMI to Component adapters....

Probably not gonna work...bought/rented stuff is copyright protected, that only wants digital connections :/

diminiko
Sep 1, 2010, 01:34 PM
Store is back up..£99 in UK!!! That's ridiculous! They sell the shuffle for $49, and £39, so why should something more expensive not be given any margin with the exchange rate?!

Also, the USB is a sservice and support

I think the US price is ex tax whilst UK incl VAT- but still should be cheaper than 99 squid!

paddyhazard
Sep 1, 2010, 01:34 PM
I have a laptop, not a desktop. All my media is on an external HD hooked to the router.

I wonder if this thing can stream from that drive through the network or if it needs iTunes to stream the content. I don't want to have the laptop running to stream a movie to my TV, that's what I liked about the old AppleTV.

If it cannot stream from an external drive without another device in the middle, then this thing is, unfortunately, worthless to me.
+1 It's so much hassle plugging my laptop into the tv, seperate speakers as minidisplay port doesn't do audio and power cable but if i have to keep my laptop on in another room it's a lot of hassle. I wonder if it will be hacked to run plex as that would be amazing.

jajohns8
Sep 1, 2010, 01:36 PM
Tech specs are up...

A4 processor, can playback up to 720p30, and still only has 10/100 ethernet.

With the existing AtV, I find I need to sync some of my own HD content so that it will not stutter.

I am wondering if this device will handle my HD content better via stream than the original.

(Are these specs better than the original?)

Also wondering if the Netflix implementation will work with existing Atvs.....

Christian247
Sep 1, 2010, 01:36 PM
I like where this is going; The only thing I would love to see is a spot for Hulu, so I can totally drop my u-Verse; can't give up my Dexter & Californication!

fivepoint
Sep 1, 2010, 01:36 PM
That's right, but we still have content in 1080p that take's really really long to convert. With 1080p all you would have to do is plug your HD Cam in, change the container to m4v and you'd be done. Not go through a gazillion menues in Handbrake, wait like 10h and hope it doesn't have any errors...

No, it will still play 1080p content. It will just display it as 720p.

Platform
Sep 1, 2010, 01:36 PM
Seriously Apple

-No 1080p support
-No mkv, avi support
-No gigabit ethernet
-The USB is for service & support only

:mad:


If the above were fixed I would have bought one....but in this day and age its just sad that the points above aren't supported :(

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:38 PM
For those complaining about no 1080p, that's fine... but lets be honest... only a very small segment of the population sits close enough, to a big enough TV, even tell the most remote difference between the two. (you have to sit 6' away from a 42" TV to see the difference) Educate yourselves... 1080p only matters to those that've essentially set up huge immersive theater type experiences in their homes.

It's a fair criticism, but be honest about who it affects. A tiny % of the population.

I couldn't agree more. I don't notice the difference between my 720p set I bought years ago and the fancy 1080p sets in the stores unless I'm right in front of the set. At any distance, the difference, if its even discernable, is negligible.

HOwever, I am glad the new ATV will do 30fps. That has been the only downfall I've encountered because almost all concert films or TV captures are at 30fps. Now I will be able to convert them via handbrake with the "same as source" framerate option and they will play.

I reckon most people unhappy with the new ATV probably own the current model and can keep it. I'm ditching it though. I just don't sync because its slow and it costs no time to keep iTunes on my PC open and to stream. There are some minor issues with items taking a long time to start up, but we'll see if that's been resolved.

tbayrgs
Sep 1, 2010, 01:38 PM
Count me among the disappointed. Granted, I'm an existing :apple:TV user so I was hoping for significant improvements to justify replacing my existing units and I just don't see it. No syncing is a problem for me--my kids unit is all the way across the house from my Time Capsule and wifi signal isn't great so while I can take more time to sync the kids movies for later watching, streaming just doesn't work so well. Also, no more traveling with the :apple:TV fully synced with movies for vacation. Looks like I'll be picking up another first gen :apple:TV as a backup for when the current one fails.

AirPlay just seems like a nice gimmick to me. Why would I be watching a movie on my iPad in my house in the first place when I have access to a television? And if the content is on my iPad, chances are it's also on my mac so I'd just stream to the :apple:TV in the first place.

Nice product for first time general consumers--$99 should attract a few more new customers--but just isn't worth it to replace the existing units.

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:39 PM
Seriously Apple

-No 1080p support
-No mkv, avi support
-No gigabit ethernet
-The USB is for service & support only

:mad:


If the above were fixed I would have bought one....but in this day and age its just sad that the points above aren't supported :(

Why would you expect mkv or avi support? Or a USB port for casual use? Apple has never supported that many video codecs/containers, and they probably never will, because they've been killing with h.264 support. They sell tons of content, and there's a healthy market for iTunes-compatible converters.

mtbdudex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:39 PM
I am sick of this chart. I have 55" 1080p and I can see the difference.

Yea, I see where you are coming from also.

For me, my basement home theatre has 130" screen, so I really-really need 1080p.
I have "old" AppleTV already in 1st floor living room, 720p there is fine because it's a 2005 42" HDTV 720p.
However on my dad's 55" 1080p I was telling him wait for this rev of AppleTV, hoping 1080p, now....

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 01:40 PM
No, it will still play 1080p content. It will just display it as 720p.

I don't think so. I doubt it has the horsepower to down convert 1080p files to 720p files. If it does have that much horsepower, it would just play 1080p files.

Don't be fooled by getting to choose 1080p in the setup menu. They could let you choose 4096p in a menu, but that wouldn't mean it is able to downconvert 4096p video either.

jbyun04
Sep 1, 2010, 01:41 PM
Count me among the disappointed. Granted, I'm an existing :apple:TV user so I was hoping for significant improvements to justify replacing my existing units and I just don't see it. No syncing it a problem for me--my kids unit is all the way across the house from my Time Capsule and wifi signal isn't great so while I can take more time to sync the kids movies for later watching, streaming just doesn't work so well. Also, no more traveling with the :apple:TV fully synced with movies for vacation. Looks like I'll be picking up another first gen :apple:TV as a backup for when the current one fails.

AirPlay just seems like a nice gimmick to me. Why would I be watching a movie on my iPad in my house in the first place when I have access to a television? And if the content is on my iPad, chances are it's also on my mac so I'd just stream to the :apple:TV in the first place.

Nice product for first time general consumers--$99 should attract a few more new customers--but just isn't worth it to replace the existing units.

Which is fine.. I think..can't please everyone and I do agree with you, it will attract newer first time customers and if the goal is to move units off the shelves, that's a "mission complete" for Apple.

emegmac
Sep 1, 2010, 01:42 PM
Fail!!!!!
4 years without an update then this. Apple does not want to be in the home theater buisness. All you people buying this are ultimate fanboys.
There are tons of devices that does everything this does that have been out for years. It will only play .m4v, .mp4, and .mov formats. Are you kidding me. Everything I have is .mkv. Stop being so controlling apple. No 1080P. This was bad in 2006, now its almost criminal to charge for a 720p device. You can no longer buy movies. who would ever want to rent a movie for 4.99? Redbox rents blurays for 1.50. They are 1080P with HD sound.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 01:42 PM
Why would you expect mkv or avi support? Or a USB port for casual use? Apple has never supported that many video codecs/containers, and they probably never will, because they've been killing with h.264 support. They sell tons of content, and there's a healthy market for iTunes-compatible converters.

A "normal" USB port would allow those that like local storage the option to add it to the box, rather than being forced to stream (only). There are hacks for sale with the old :apple:TV to normalize the USB port so that you can add big storage to the box. Attach whatever size hard drive you desire, sync all your movies & shows to that box, then turn off your computer and still have access to all your media.

I can't hardly believe that Apple may- that's MAY- have chosen to lock that out again. I guess it keeps the hackers employed.

Streaming is fine & all, but for all the excuses about bandwidth limitations against the "clog" if they went 1080p downloads, home bandwidth is also finite. When someone is streaming a show, someone else has less bandwidth for other stuff. It will be even a bigger deal for wireless streaming for some people.

On the other hand, sync to a USB attached drive, and you have just about 100% of your home network bandwidth available to others.

Platform
Sep 1, 2010, 01:44 PM
Why would you expect mkv or avi support? Or a USB port for casual use? Apple has never supported that many video codecs/containers, and they probably never will, because they've been killing with h.264 support. They sell tons of content, and there's a healthy market for iTunes-compatible converters.

Because this is 2010 and mkv is one of the leading 'container' formats for HD content (for people who store their movies on a central storage unit)

And USB, well simply because when my friends come over they should be able to plug in their USB HDD/ USB mem stick and show me their latest photos/videos. Or simply a lot of people have their content on their external disk and wanna plug it in to view their content !

dmm219
Sep 1, 2010, 01:45 PM
hmm...just about the only thing useful here is netflix...which I can get on about 20 other machines.

Sorry folks...streaming technology continues to suck...and you will get VERY annoying with the streaming only.

No app store? fail.

Not sure I mind the not being able to buy movies thing...you still can on itunes and just stream. Impulse buys are usually rentals, not purchases.

This will get a big yawn from most current ATV owners. No updating for me...not until there is a compelling reason.

(this is standard apple, i expected it...new products are ALWAYS lacking in major ways...they only become compelling later in life).

Case in point...the ipod touch is now FINALLY becoming compelling...The IPad won't be compelling until rev 2 or 3.

As always...most people will undoubltly be unimpressed by this ATV.

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:45 PM
A "normal" USB port would allow those that like local storage the option to add it to the box, rather than being forced to steam. There are hacks for sale with the old :apple:TV to normalize the USB port so that you can add big storage to the box. Attach whatever size hard drive you desire, sync all your movies & shows to that box, then turn off your computer and still have access to all your media.

I can't hardly believe that Apple may- that's MAY- have chosen to lock that out again. I guess it keeps the hackers employed.

I know what it can be used for... but Apple has never supported those uses so I'm not sure why people were expecting a more "open" Apple TV. That's like me saying "What, no wma/wmv support?" It just ain't gonna happen.

Doc750
Sep 1, 2010, 01:46 PM
I just placed my order for one ... I am reallly excited to see how it works out. I've been wanting to get a device like this for some time, and now with a $99 price tag, it seems like the time do it. Well see how it works out soon.

newConvert
Sep 1, 2010, 01:48 PM
if this gets hacked to do the following I'm in

1. MKV playback
2. 1080p playback (if enough horsepower)
3. USB port for external storage.

Then, i'm game! Otherwise, my ps3 can do just as good....well, better.

Edit: If they can unlock the usb port and connect and blu-ray player, now that would be sweet.

freitas
Sep 1, 2010, 01:48 PM
Will we be able to watch HD Netflix streams?

suss2it
Sep 1, 2010, 01:49 PM
Seriously Apple

-No 1080p support
-No mkv, avi support
-No gigabit ethernet
-The USB is for service & support only

:mad:


If the above were fixed I would have bought one....but in this day and age its just sad that the points above aren't supported :(
People still use .avi? I agree with the rest of what you said though.

All my movies that are HD are 720p and HD TV is 46 inches so I think I'm gonna buy this. Hopefully it'll be able to stream my stuff efficiently.

If someone has on average 16 mbps down and 6 mbps up do you think that's good for HD streaming?

exchguy
Sep 1, 2010, 01:49 PM
No NAS support, no Pandora - no sale.

Seems like this still requires an Itunes connected Mac/PC to stream. I keep all my media on Iomega StorCenter NAS and don't want to turn on my computer to stream.

No apps, so you are just limited to Itunes, Netflix, YouTube for content providers. The only thing new here is Netflix. Plenty of other options out there such as WDTV, Roku, Popcorn hour that support many more formats (i.e. MKV, VOB etc that AppleTV wont') and have had Pandora, Live365, and Netflix for awhile.

I think this is an ok product for someone that wants basic streaming of music, photos, and purchases a lot from Itunes but those that want other content providers (Pandora, Live365, etc) and wide range of formats are out of luck with this. I'll be sticking with WDTV Live.

northernbaldy
Sep 1, 2010, 01:49 PM
I'll stick with my current tav then
No point upgrading (or is it downgrading?)

below sea level
Sep 1, 2010, 01:50 PM
I'm underwhelmed. I'll stick with my current one.

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:51 PM
The new Apple TV is PERFECT for my needs.

I have a 4TB NAS hooked up to my Mini, so I never cared about about syncing to ATV local hard disk. Diskless ATV will be silent and run cool.

NetFlix streaming was the biggest missing piece for me in the current ATV, and they have addressed that.

$99 price point is perfect. I am ordering 3 of them, for each of my rooms.

petvas
Sep 1, 2010, 01:53 PM
No 1080p is a dealbreaker for me...

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 01:53 PM
I know what it can be used for... but Apple has never supported those uses so I'm not sure why people were expecting a more "open" Apple TV. That's like me saying "What, no wma/wmv support?" It just ain't gonna happen.

True. But Apple's never had a phone to support 4G, so why should we expect a 4G iPhone in the future? Apples never had anything support USB3 or lightpeak, so why should we expect that in the future? Apple's never had sandy bridge in anything, so why should we expect that in the future? Etc.

Past complaints about the old :apple:TV are generally these:

too little storage
no 1080i/p playback
missing third party apps/options like netflix, hulu, etc
too sluggish
no DVR functionality
no BD player


Of course there's others. With this update- about 4 years after the first, and after Apple has had tons of time to hear what owners want most in the next-gen, it appears that we got netflix, and I'm guessing the UI won't be as sluggish.

A normal USB port would open the door for companies like Elgato to add DVR/BD options for those that want them, without others having to pay for features they don't want.

A normal USB port would easily cover the local storage desire by customers- just plug in as much storage as you want, without making others happy with purely streaming have to pay for some arbitrary amount of on-board storage they don't want.

And only Apple could have addressed the 1080i/p playback, which- to me- is the most disappointing part of the announcement. I hope we don't have to wait another 4 years for :apple:TV nano/micro: "even smaller & thinner, and now with 1080p".

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 01:55 PM
True. But Apple's never had a phone to support 4G, so why should we expect a 4G iPhone in the future? Apples never had anything support USB3 or lightpeak, so why should we expect that in the future? Apple's never had sandy bridge in anything, so why should we expect that in the future? Etc.

Past complaints about the old :apple:TV are generally these:

too little storage
no 1080i/p playback
missing third party apps/options like netflix, hulu, etc
too sluggish
no DVR functionality
no BD player


Of course there's others. With this update- about 4 years after the first, and after Apple has had tons of time to hear what owners want most in the next-gen, it appears that we got netflix, and I'm guessing the UI won't be as sluggish.

A normal USB port would open the door for companies like Elgato to add DVR/BD options for those that want them, without others having to pay for features they don't want.

A normal USB port would easily cover the local storage desire by customers- just plug in as much storage as you want, without making others happy with purely streaming from having to pay for storage they don't want.

And only Apple could have addressed the 1080i/p playback, which- to me- is the most disappointing part of the announcement. I hope we don't have to wait another 4 years for :apple:TV nano/micro "even smaller and now with 1080p".

Apples and oranges. The Apple TV is bought to be used with Apple products, USB support isn't advertised or needed to people who buy it to sync/stream from iTunes. USB 3 and 4G are updated standards that will be implemented.

MattMK45
Sep 1, 2010, 01:56 PM
I have never really seen the point of the apple tv because I don't watch much tv or films anyway so I never gave it much attention. I watched the conference today and was suprised as to how small it was but can't help thinking that it will be overlooked sitting next to a bluray player in a home media setup. Another disappointing thing was that you cannot buy movies and content to keep.

I was however later encouraged that you could stream with an iPad or iPhone directly to the hub. What I also found neat was the low cost of hd content and ability to use netflix.

The price was pretty good as well which was one of the main reasons the apple tv was overlooked as a product in the first place.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 01:57 PM
Apples and oranges. The Apple TV is bought to be used with Apple products, USB support isn't advertised or needed to people who buy it to sync/stream from iTunes. USB 3 and 4G are updated standards that will be implemented.

normal USB functionality and 1080p are not updated standards?

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:00 PM
normal USB functionality and 1080p are not updated standards?

You're twisting things, but I'll cop to the 1080p. The USB port has never been supported by Apple for end-user use, and probably never will. It's just not what it's there for.

IgnatiusTheKing
Sep 1, 2010, 02:02 PM
If the old one get a software update how can the new one be any better?

Do we know if the old ones will get a software update? I hope so...

WTF $99 in the USA... £99 in the UK CMON APPLE GIVE US A BREAK!!!

Its disgusting!

Apple has never priced their products according to exchange rates, have they? If it's so disgusting, why don't you spend your money with a UK company?

bilbo--baggins
Sep 1, 2010, 02:04 PM
Massively underwhelmed by the new apple tv. So many possibilities, could be a fantastic product.

Still, it's cheap. Might buy one just to see if they've fixed all the bugs that plagued the old apple tv.

Paulyboy
Sep 1, 2010, 02:05 PM
I'm a little surprised so many people are disappointed by the new Apple TV. Apple likes to cater to the Average Joe's out there and I think they've achieved that here with something that costs only $99 and is so easy to set up and operate that my Grandma could do it. This is typically their philosophy so I'm really not all that surprised by this. For enthusiasts there's the Mac Mini, a cheap PC, or something you already have (my iMac with Plex is used for this purpose).

I liken the new Apple TV to the new Kindle (does only a few specific things but does them well and is finally at a price point that makes sense). If either are too limited for you then you step up to the Mac Mini and iPad respectively.

The only criticism I have is the lack of the rumored App Store. I think Apple had a real opportunity here to create yet another iTunes store revenue stream and make this device potentially much more versatile, while still maintaining its simplicity. Maybe this will come in the future.

-PN

jjhny
Sep 1, 2010, 02:06 PM
Again it is an endless 'pocket-picking' rental cycle.

The damn thing should be called "iRental."

Many people have all sorts of archived clips they want to watch on TV. And they would like one central box to do it with, even if it accesses your other computers - obviously expandable storage would be good too for a library of clips, etc..

But again they really are missing the mark with this.

iPod, iTunes was a hit because you could rip your library and access it. The iTunes store was NOT the reason Apple had success with people adopting the iPod - it just wasn't. Rental is a convenience, not the sole driver.

Apple is screwing up by thinking we are just cash cows for their various revenue stream schemes, (i.e. iAD).

In this arena, Apple just does not get it. They will lose the media center war if they keep thinking like this.

Gringcorp
Sep 1, 2010, 02:07 PM
I'm still working through this theory in my head (posted a variant somewhere else), but the smaller, memory-less AppleTV seems to be saying, for once and for all, that anyone who wants other codecs, larger storage and more processing can go and buy an HDMI-equipped Mini. Every time there's an iPod refresh, there's a hope that Apple will introduce a larger capacity model, and it never happens. If you don't want to stream your content from the networks/netflix/iTunes, there's a much more expensive niche to live in. Of course, Apple's ability to demarcate niches, or to put it another way, create mass markets, is not infallible, but its attempts to are consistent.

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:08 PM
Many people have all sorts of archived clips they want to watch on TV. And they would like one central box to do it with, even if it accesses your other computers - obviously expandable storage would be good too for a library of clips, etc..


I could be wrong, but I think being tied to one PC is over.. it looks like you can access one or multiple PC's/Macs via a dropdown box from the ATV menu. So if you have an office PC, a living room PC, a Macbook and an iMac, you can choose between them instead of being tied to one computer.

Again, I could be wrong, but the demo heavily insinuated this is the case.

IgnatiusTheKing
Sep 1, 2010, 02:08 PM
iPod, iTunes was a hit because you could rip your library and access it.

You still can. Rip your DVDs to your computer, stream them to your tv. What's the problem?

iTiki
Sep 1, 2010, 02:10 PM
I did not see any info on the audio. Does it pass 5.1 DD? :confused:

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:12 PM
I did not see any info on the audio. Does it pass 5.1 DD? :confused:

The current one does, and Steve mentioned HDMI takes your video and surround to the TV, so I don't see why not.

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:12 PM
Many people have all sorts of archived clips they want to watch on TV. And they would like one central box to do it with, even if it accesses your other computers - obviously expandable storage would be good too for a library of clips, etc..

Do you even know what you're complaining about? Your "archived clips" are still watch-able on ATV from a central iTunes server.

"One central box to do it" is exactly the point of the new disk-less ATV. You have your Mac media server as a central point of storage for all your local media. You stream it to multiple cheap ATV's throughout the house. It all works.

mchenrytl
Sep 1, 2010, 02:13 PM
I wonder if they will offer a software upgrade for those of us with an existing AppleTV so we can at least get the NetFlix ability.

For those of you complaining about the UK price, just buy one from the states and get it shipped to you if the price difference is that great.

-Troy

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 02:16 PM
You're twisting things, but I'll cop to the 1080p. The USB port has never been supported by Apple for end-user use, and probably never will. It's just not what it's there for.

I understand that. But 4G, USB3, Lightpeak, etc has never been supported by Apple either, but it will show up sooner or later.

It's not like they couldn't do it. The hackers showed us they certainly could. They just chose- apparently- NOT to do it. So once again, those interested in local storage of size (not hogging a bunch of the home bandwidth) have to hope the hackers bring a feature that it could have had right out of the box.

Do you think that Apple is NOT aware that lots of existing :apple:TV owners wanted flexible- and larger- storage... rather than having to leave a computer on all the time?

iTiki
Sep 1, 2010, 02:17 PM
The current one does, and Steve mentioned HDMI takes your video and surround to the TV, so I don't see why not.

Thanks. Not sure if I can live with 720P. 720P is fine for smaller TVs, but not for 60+. If I'm paying $4.99 for a movie rental, I want BluRay quality. At .99, 720P is okay....

colinmack
Sep 1, 2010, 02:19 PM
...and there's a healthy market for iTunes-compatible converters.

Sure - except that all those compatible converted movies and TV shows are now relegated to having to drill 5 menu levels down into the Computers option.

I don't care whether I've bought it, rented it, shot it with a camcorder, or archived my DVD collection - if I want to watch a movie, I should be able to find it in the Movies section - anything else is poor functional/UI design. They've completely ripped out all the integration of user content, shoved it off to the side, and crippled the device as solely an iTunes rental box.

Apple didn't dominate the music player market by making iPods clumsy for everything but iTunes-purchased music - they made it a good music player with an intuitive UI first, and a doorway to an online store second.

Screw up the intuitive integration, and many less people will buy the device - then all of those people will now use someone else's online store (or just download it).

mchalebk
Sep 1, 2010, 02:21 PM
As many have noted, the lack of local storage is an issue. I really do not want to leave my MacPro with dual monitors awake all the time. I use my AppleTV as my main music server. I do not want to have to have my computer awake to listen to music.

In my case, there is one other deletion that is a showstopper. Anyone else out there run a 2 (or more) zone audio system? I have speakers on my patio, powered by Zone 2 on my receiver. There are very few receivers out there that will output audio from a digital source (HDMI, optical, coax) to zone 2. With my present AppleTV, I simply hook up the analog audio outputs to an additional input on my receiver and I'm good to go.

I might have been able to use one of these to replace my Roku NetFlix player. However, I also use that for Pandora, so once again the lack of analog audio outputs make this a no go.

They should have done one of two things:

1. Offer a $199 version that is basically an update of the existing device. Keep all the connectivity and local storage and syncing capability, or...
2. Kept the old design around as the AppleTV Classic.

I'd give serious consideration to moving to some other (non-Apple) device, but I've got a lot of old DRM music from the iTunes store that won't play on anything else. Maybe it's time to do something about that...

ckurt25
Sep 1, 2010, 02:22 PM
I am sick of this chart. I have 55" 1080p and I can see the difference.

You'd need a 55" 720p tv sitting right next to your 55" 1080p, and preferably the same specs (except the 720 vs 1080) from the same video source to really be able to "see" the difference. If you're talking about "my friends 720p 50" tv doesn't look as good as my 1080p" you aren't doing a real test. Cnet did - http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080p-hdtv/

jjhny
Sep 1, 2010, 02:36 PM
Do you even know what you're complaining about? Your "archived clips" are still watch-able on ATV from a central iTunes server.

"One central box to do it" is exactly the point of the new disk-less ATV. You have your Mac media server as a central point of storage for all your local media. You stream it to multiple cheap ATV's throughout the house. It all works.

I think I spoke too soon, but having read the line below (on the Apple site) I was thinking, oh no, not again, AppleTV capabilities crippled for another "payperview" business model:

"HD movie and TV show rentals play over the Internet to your widescreen TV, while music and photos stream from your computer."

I think my kneejerk reaction is that Apple's new overall approach is to see us all as cash cows ready to be harvested.

AppleTV seems more to be a sort of a media "satellite" in the same sense of the iPod, not really a "media center" exactly.

I was looking for the media center, hence my cranky reaction.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 02:40 PM
In my case, there is one other deletion that is a showstopper. Anyone else out there run a 2 (or more) zone audio system? I have speakers on my patio, powered by Zone 2 on my receiver. There are very few receivers out there that will output audio from a digital source (HDMI, optical, coax) to zone 2. With my present AppleTV, I simply hook up the analog audio outputs to an additional input on my receiver and I'm good to go.

Yes, that's me too on the zone 2 (need a pair of analog out jacks). I'm guessing the desire for "smaller" and the price target of "$99" had a lot to do with killing analog stereo and component. Maybe the 99 cent rentals had to be piped via HDMI so that the control built into HDMI against copying could also be offered to the Studios?

In any event, I'm with you. A few more jacks- stereo audio & component- would have been great. Maybe the hackers can hack the USB port toward normality, and then we can wire our zone 2 via USB? (I got to tell you, it's a shame this thing was announced just a few hours ago and I'm already hoping the hackers add very basic functionality that could have been there courtesy of Apple).

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:55 PM
AppleTV seems more to be a sort of a media "satellite" in the same sense of the iPod, not really a "media center" exactly.

I was looking for the media center, hence my cranky reaction.

If you are looking for the media center - the new HDMI-equipped Mac Mini is the perfect device.

Neither the new nor the old AppleTV is designed a media center, no surprise there. And frankly, I wouldn't want it to be. I already have my Mini.

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 02:57 PM
I wonder if they will offer a software upgrade for those of us with an existing AppleTV so we can at least get the NetFlix ability.


I don't think so. Netflix streaming requires hardware acceleration, which isn't possible with the ancient hardware of old Apple TV. The hacking community has been trying to add NetFlix support in the old Apple TV for ages - it's not there because the hardware can't do it.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 03:04 PM
If you are looking for the media center - the new HDMI-equipped Mac Mini is the perfect device.

Neither the new nor the old AppleTV is designed a media center, no surprise there. And frankly, I wouldn't want it to be. I already have my Mini.

So now we have to hope that the best thing about the :apple:TV- old or new- becomes the new front row. I'd really like to get the nice, simple UI on better hardware- mac mini, or something else. I'm not overly concerned with "smaller" for a box that is put on a shelf, not carried around with me, etc. I would have happily paid $399 for an updated one with 1080p out, the old jacks, a normal USB, flexible local storage (either through that USB or on the network). Apps would have been delicious icing, so that it could do more than Apple chooses to allow it to do.

And before the "720p'ers" chime in, I desire 1080p because I've got 4 years of better-than-720p shot home movies via relatively cheap consumer camcorders, rendered in Apple iMovie, playable in Apple Quicktime & iTunes, storable in iTunes, and an HDTV that can play back 1080HD. I just can't pump it from iTunes to that TV via the old- and now the new- :apple:TV. I don't care about 1080p content not being in the iTunes store, or bandwidth between Apple servers and my home, etc. I'd just like an iTunes-friendly way to watch precious home movies in their fullest glory. Don't give me that "you can't see the difference crap" either; comparing a home movie rendered down to 720p for :apple:TV vs. hooking the camcorder directly to the TV and watching the same video is night & day. Seeing "the chart" doesn't change the fact that everyone at my house can easily see the difference... to the point that we sometimes hook up the camcorder direct to watch the "good video".

Mac Mini looks like it wins my money if the :apple:TV interface becomes the new front row.

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 03:08 PM
Sure - except that all those compatible converted movies and TV shows are now relegated to having to drill 5 menu levels down into the Computers option.

I don't care whether I've bought it, rented it, shot it with a camcorder, or archived my DVD collection - if I want to watch a movie, I should be able to find it in the Movies section - anything else is poor functional/UI design. They've completely ripped out all the integration of user content, shoved it off to the side, and crippled the device as solely an iTunes rental box.

Apple didn't dominate the music player market by making iPods clumsy for everything but iTunes-purchased music - they made it a good music player with an intuitive UI first, and a doorway to an online store second.

Screw up the intuitive integration, and many less people will buy the device - then all of those people will now use someone else's online store (or just download it).

If you bought it on iTunes, you can still watch it. If you converted from DVD, you can still watch it. If you shot it with a camcorder or iPhone or whatever, you can watch it. In fact, you can probably stream from your iPhone right to your Apple TV.

Your iTunes library is still accessible from your Apple TV. You just can't store it on the Apple TV any longer.

Yes, it has to be in a certain format, but remind you, ripping hollywood DVD's is illegal, I think. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has certain rules in place for its own devices to satisfy studios. I doubt if Apple support for VIDEO_TS folders to Apple TV they'd be getting any sort of $0.99 rentals.

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 03:18 PM
Mac Mini looks like it wins my money if the :apple:TV interface becomes the new front row.

Doubt it - Apple hasn't cared about Frontrow for years, and I don't think they're about to start now. Luckily, the new Plex 9 is looking pretty nice..

ninjaslim
Sep 1, 2010, 03:21 PM
Is the Apple TV able to provide news from various channels, or no?

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 03:23 PM
Is the Apple TV able to provide news from various channels, or no?

Podcasts are there - there is a lot of free news content in podcasts section.

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 03:25 PM
I am sick of this chart. I have 55" 1080p and I can see the difference.+1. The world moved to 1080P four years ago it's about time Apple did too.

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 03:27 PM
Probably not gonna work...bought/rented stuff is copyright protected, that only wants digital connections :/It's called HDCP and all Apple's content has it. It wants a digital only connection all the way through.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 03:29 PM
Doubt it - Apple hasn't cared about Frontrow for years, and I don't think they're about to start now. Luckily, the new Plex 9 is looking pretty nice..

I know. So if you like the :apple:TV UI, you have to live with the hardware compromises Apple chooses for you...

And if you get hardware fully capable vs.- say- a $100 BD player or WD box- you have to live with the software compromise Apple chooses for you.

Or, turn to something else and loose the nice benefits of iTunes managing everything.

Plex does look good- especially the new version. I'll watch for the reviews to see if the non-techies find it reasonably intuitive. My household would need something fairly easy to use like the :apple:TV UI, but we would also like to have something to let the 1080HDTV fully stretch it's legs.

I had such high hopes that Apple would nail it this time. But what's 4 more years? The :apple:TV "micro" will be half this one's size, be missing a few more ports, and might finally launch with 1080p in 2014. I can hardly wait.

Rumor has it, it might have a normal USB port too.

Deepek
Sep 1, 2010, 03:31 PM
Wow Mixed Reviews.

Not sure if I should buy or not. Hey it's only $99

hitekalex
Sep 1, 2010, 03:40 PM
I know. So if you like the :apple:TV UI, you have to live with the hardware compromises Apple chooses for you...

And if you get hardware fully capable vs.- say- a $100 BD player or WD box- you have to live with the software compromise Apple chooses for you.

I don't really feel that I am compromising anything with Apple TV, hardware or software wise.

It's simple in my house.. I have a BluRay player in my main movie room for "full experience" movie watching - 1080p, uncompressed 7.1 audio, the works. For everything else - there's Apple TV. 720p/30fps is plenty good for my local content and Internet streaming.

mrrippey
Sep 1, 2010, 03:53 PM
Figure can connect to a NAS via Ethernet, attached HD via microUSB (under the HDMI), run Boxee, Stream from Airport plus NetFlix and the other goodies, I'll order mine now and give my original aTV to the kids.

Rippey

Holty123
Sep 1, 2010, 03:54 PM
I have ATV with a 2TB external hard drive with over 500 films on it! my family love it no more swapping dvd's instant access to all my movie collection and music etc it's the perfect media device.........

the new ATV is not a move forward come on Apple which consumers did you listen to that said they didn't want a hard drive???????? just hope the ATV flash guys hack the thing so you can use the micro usb port

i am a Apple fanboy and i will not be buying the new ATV!!!!!!!

Aldaris
Sep 1, 2010, 03:57 PM
I could see buying one to toss in my bag to take on the go. Most of my iMedia is spanning across 4 hard drives in an old G4, but when I'm off to a buddy's place who doesn't have an AppleTV. For those of use who like whatever shiny new thing Steve brings us we'll find a use for it. But I think they implemented the new AppleTV in such a way that they missed the mark.

Maybe when we get AppleTV 3.0 we'll get the best of both worlds!

i.e.

A4 Processor,
Optional External Storage (or 'partition/folder on Time Capsule or AirPort Extreme external storage)
Netflix
Buy or Rent (If you buy, on demand/streamed copy ready to go, and automatically added to your queue.)
AirPlay on all devices (I think that is an A4 req. that leaves the early adopters out).

Holty123
Sep 1, 2010, 03:58 PM
You still can. Rip your DVDs to your computer, stream them to your tv. What's the problem?

Why would you? why have two devices up and running to watch it on your TV? my advice for anyone who doesn't have ATV buy one now before the new one hits the stores my guess current ATV's will be like rocking horse s*@t

gkarris
Sep 1, 2010, 04:06 PM
It's called HDCP and all Apple's content has it. It wants a digital only connection all the way through.

Actually - you're right.

Looking at the converter boxes, they are non-HDCP HDMI to Component. Purchased iTunes shows will not work... :(

BoulderBum
Sep 1, 2010, 04:06 PM
I liked the addition of Netflix and .99c TV show rentals, but otherwise I think Apple may have taken a few steps back with the device.

My primary use for my current Apple TV is streaming movies from my computer and it looks like I'll have to navigate down an extra menu to do that now.

The second biggest use was streaming Video Podcasts from my "favorites", and it looks like that capability is gone altogether!

I don't mind the lack of offline storage, but I appreciated the option to buy bargain-bin movies and I wouldn't know what they were, save for the Apple TV interface!

Hopefully Apple releases a software update for existing owners that includes Netflix, but leaves the other stuff alone.

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that the new Apple TV didn't pick up App Store support. That would have unlocked SO MUCH capability!

mrrippey
Sep 1, 2010, 04:10 PM
Also, I'm a bit disappointed that the new Apple TV didn't pick up App Store support. That would have unlocked SO MUCH capability!

I am thinking either because is is running a modified version of OSX like the current aTV or they have not figured out how to make the applications interact-able (is that a word?) with the remote / iOS devices.

Rippey

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 04:13 PM
I don't really feel that I am compromising anything with Apple TV, hardware or software wise.

It's simple in my house.. I have a BluRay player in my main movie room for "full experience" movie watching - 1080p, uncompressed 7.1 audio, the works. For everything else - there's Apple TV. 720p/30fps is plenty good for my local content and Internet streaming.

To each his own. I own :apple:TVs but I definitely feel it's a tough compromise of either great UI on 720p max or a lessor UI on 1080p hardware (such as the mini). 720p is not terrible ("plenty good" can fit), but it's a shame that this new version couldn't just take the extra step to directly compete with the 2 key benefits of BD head-to-head.

Lots of people are buying 1080-capable HDTVs. In that they learn- true or not (can see it or not) that 1080p is "true HD". It's not a hard little number to remember- even for the average Joe. If Joe wants to max out his HDTV, his choices continue to NOT include :apple:TV. In 2010. Wow.

Once you get past that, the compromise becomes how to try to make the generally good arrangement of iTunes managing all your digital media work with something else so that you can do what the new :apple:TV can't. And if you want the simple, "grandma friendly" UI, you pretty much must compromise. Still. In 2010.

1080p probably wouldn't have added a cent to the cost of the box, nor adversely impacted Apple's margin on each unit sold. They might have been able to get the 1080p part cheaper than 720p parts because of economies of scale (who's putting 720p max parts in set-top boxes besides Apple?). Those happy with 720p, or worried about bandwidth constraints or storage issues, or can only imagine content above 720p coming from the iTunes store and nowhere else... would still get every bit of their 720p experience completely maxed out on hardware capable of playing back 1080p.

But it doesn't work the other way. Still. In 2010.:(

colinmack
Sep 1, 2010, 04:30 PM
If you bought it on iTunes, you can still watch it. If you converted from DVD, you can still watch it. If you shot it with a camcorder or iPhone or whatever, you can watch it. In fact, you can probably stream from your iPhone right to your Apple TV.

Your iTunes library is still accessible from your Apple TV. You just can't store it on the Apple TV any longer.

Yes, it has to be in a certain format, but remind you, ripping hollywood DVD's is illegal, I think. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has certain rules in place for its own devices to satisfy studios. I doubt if Apple support for VIDEO_TS folders to Apple TV they'd be getting any sort of $0.99 rentals.

I think you misunderstood my point - I don't care about local storage on the device, I stream everything from my computer today. What I said was: "except that all those compatible converted movies and TV shows are now relegated to having to drill 5 menu levels down into the Computers option."

My annoyance is that my current Apple TV will allow me to access all movies in one place, regardless of whether they're online/rented or local. With the new interface, they made a conscious choice to make it harder to access non-rental content - if I want to access a local movie, I have to leave the Movies section (which is obviously not very intuitive), back out a few menu options, move over to Computers, drill a bunch of menu options down...it's basically been relegated to sleeping in the barn.

Yes, I can still access it, but it's now a major pain. It would have cost them nothing to leave it alone and allow the device to serve both purposes seamlessly.

nutmac
Sep 1, 2010, 04:36 PM
Lack of support for external hard disk is a huge downer. Not everyone wants to leave their Mac or PC on all the time. At the very least, make it support hard disks attached to AEBS or Time Capsule. I suspect another AEBS version with AirPlay support is forthcoming.

TheCheapGeek
Sep 1, 2010, 04:41 PM
I agree, the shifted all the focus to the rentals. Thats great if thats how you want to watch tv but not me. So now I have to dig into multiple sub menus to watch most of my content.

I think you misunderstood my point - I don't care about local storage on the device, I stream everything from my computer today. What I said was: "except that all those compatible converted movies and TV shows are now relegated to having to drill 5 menu levels down into the Computers option."

My annoyance is that my current Apple TV will allow me to access all movies in one place, regardless of whether they're online/rented or local. With the new interface, they made a conscious choice to make it harder to access non-rental content - if I want to access a local movie, I have to leave the Movies section (which is obviously not very intuitive), back out a few menu options, move over to Computers, drill a bunch of menu options down...it's basically been relegated to sleeping in the barn.

Yes, I can still access it, but it's now a major pain. It would have cost them nothing to leave it alone and allow the device to serve both purposes seamlessly.

Chwisch87
Sep 1, 2010, 04:44 PM
At only 99 dollars ... its probably on my Buy list. As a way to stream my itunes to my home audio is probably worth it alone..

IDK ... count me surprised they didn't include pandora. If its running iOS there is probably room in there for future updates. Netflix was pretty much a given. What about Viacom and other content providers?? HBO, Showtime??? I mean it its just FOX and ABC that is a little underwhelming.

I mean if you really want to strike at the heart of Cable, you need things like HBO and ESPN.

Microsoft is trying this by including ESPN ... 3500 live events in HD.. there is no reason why Apple TV couldn't have this either.

Who knows though. I would have really liked to see an all you can eat subscription. So far no reason for me to get rid of cable..

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 05:52 PM
Bottom line, the $99 price point and ease of use will probably get a lot more people in the door. Netflix and iTunes library streaming will help keep the people who already own one onboard. For people desperate for 1080p or other missing features, the Apple TV was likely never geared towards those people and it may never be. I really don't know anyone who streams 1080p to their TV, but I know plenty of people who rent and buy iTunes movies/tv shows. That probably explains why, even though aTV sales are not where Apple would like, it still is the number one box of its type.

jaw04005
Sep 1, 2010, 06:16 PM
If I'm paying $4.99 for a movie rental, I want BluRay quality. At .99, 720P is okay....

You’ll be waiting for years then. No streaming service comes close to Blu-ray quality (25 Mbps+ bit rate) even at 1080p. Why do you think Blu-ray’s hold 25-50GB of video?

:rolleyes:

I think Apple should offer a 1080p rental at a 1 Mbps bit rate just to shut you 1080p snobs up. :D

IgnatiusTheKing
Sep 1, 2010, 06:26 PM
Why would you? why have two devices up and running to watch it on your TV? my advice for anyone who doesn't have ATV buy one now before the new one hits the stores my guess current ATV's will be like rocking horse s*@t

If you read the context of the post, you would know that the person I was replying to was lamenting that you could no longer do that. I already have a 40GB tv that I only use to rent movies on. I will not be "upgrading" unless someone wants to buy this one from me for more than $99.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 06:26 PM
I really don't know anyone who streams 1080p to their TV, but I know plenty of people who rent and buy iTunes movies/tv shows.

Do you work for Apple? Maybe you don't know anyone who streams 1080p to their TV because they don't have the hardware to do so? It sounds like you know a number of iTunes/Apple-centric people. Even if you knew ALL of them, it's still not a big group compared to all people in the world. And even the bulk of them (the iDevice owners) couldn't stream 1080p from what they own if they wanted to do so.

I'd be streaming 1080p home movies rendered by iMovie, playable in Quicktime, storable in iTunes and beautiful on my HDTV the first DAY that the new :apple:TV came out... IF it could make the connection between iTunes and the HDTV.

Secondly, how many of those people you know can rent & buy iTunes 1080p content? None, because there isn't any such content available in iTunes for them to rent or buy. If they had the choice of 1080p vs. 720p for- say- the same price, which would they choose? If they had the choice of 1080p vs. 720p for a bit higher price, which would they choose? But they have no choice, so what's it matter?

Apple is fighting a battle for a place in the home video hardware shelf. They fight against BD which has a big claim of 1080p "true HD" and much better sound formats. They fight against little boxes with a BD player in them like WD, priced about the same, but with 1080p playback. Etc.

This new one could have crushed this nagging shortcoming at absolutely no expense to ANYONE. Those happy with 720p would still be able to watch 720p at it's fullest. Those "1080p or bust" people would also have something to buy immediately. Those with or without the bandwidth for 1080p files could choose other quality levels to download to fit their own situations. Those with or without the storage for a 1080p collection, could still enjoy their DVD collections, or 720p collections, etc.

And Apple would win by selling a more of this product to both camps, rather than delivering the same MAX capacity as a box built in 2006.

Then here you are- over and over- trying to justify why 720p makes sense. If it makes sense for you and your friends, great! Had this come out with 1080p, you and yours could have still enjoyed your 720p to the MAX. But those of us that would have liked 1080p hardware to link with our 1080HDTVs could have also got what we wanted. It wouldn't have cost you anymore for us to get what we wanted too. It wouldn't have robbed you of your "720p is good enough" scenario. It wouldn't have affected you in the least.

But it doesn't work the other way. And that's too bad. I love my circa 2006 :apple:TVs. It's great that the new ones brings a better brain and netflix, but it sure would have been nice to get a very natural bump in graphics hardware to go with that A4. My money was ready. Now it stays in my pocket.

But hey- in four more years, maybe Apple will finally roll out 1080p :apple:TVs... in a case about half the size of this one:rolleyes:

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 06:46 PM
It doesn't make sense for Apple to sell a 1080p device when they don't sell/rent any 1080p content and items like iPhone don't record 1080p content.

I'm not saying 1080p is useless or that nobody wants it... far from it. I said I can understand that point a long time ago. But you're right I AM justifying 720p (which is not the same as discrediting 1080p) because I think that it's good enough for most people, and Apple is clearly trying to make this thing as cheap as possible and push it into homes. Yes, it is an "iTunes rental box", even though I think its more than that... the goal is clearly to sell iTunes content, and they will sell plenty of it.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 07:11 PM
It doesn't make sense for Apple to sell a 1080p device when they don't sell/rent any 1080p content and items like iPhone don't record 1080p content.

Exactly backwards. It makes 100% sense for Apple to roll out better hardware and then have the "software" follow it. If all the Studios put ALL of their content in the iTunes store today in 1080p quality for :apple:TV, how much of that would sell? None, because there's not :apple:TV in place that can play it.

If a Studio wants to test the profitability of adding 1080p content for :apple:TV by putting a movie or show in there today, how will that test fare? It will flop, because there's no :apple:TV hardware in place to play it.

The hardware must LEAD. Entrench the hardware and with each unit sold, some Studio gets increasingly tempted to see if they can make more money by selling/renting a movie via iTunes vs. putting it on a disk and giving Walmart, Best Buy, etc a cut. If they find it profitable, they'll put more 1080i/p content in the iTunes store.

However, BEFORE there's any :apple:TV units in homes that can play 1080i/p content, it IMPOSSIBLE for the Studios to sell 1080i/p content for :apple:TV.

Look at all of Apple's other stuff. I just bought the latest & greatest iMac i7 Quad. I haven't yet found a way to max it out. I would guess that most people don't max their's out either. So should Apple stop advancing Macs until the software is in place to max them out? Should Apple stop advancing iPhones until the software is in place to max them out? Why is this ONE thing from Apple seen so differently?

Build 1080p in, and it serves every interested customer whatever they want- the best 720p playback or 1080p playback. More people will buy because they get what they want. More units installed becomes temptation for those with 1080p content to rent or sell to us. It's only a matter of time until they pitch testing 1080p content in the iTunes store to Apple. As is though, even if they want to sell us 1080p :apple:TV content, they can't, because it can't be played even if they put it in the store tonight.

diamond3
Sep 1, 2010, 07:26 PM
Am I the only one that thinks that a 30-pin dock connector to HDMI would have been 1000x more useful? You would think that with the iPod Touch and iPhone having support for 720p that they could have created a dock with HDMI instead of the VGA adapter that would have done the same thing and more. Netflix, pandora, and any other app that supports video out. This is what I was hoping for but left disappointed since i'm not in the market for an iPod. The only thing I can think of is surround sound. But I think it would be a killer product in addition to the :apple:tv

GermanSuplex
Sep 1, 2010, 07:56 PM
Exactly backwards. It makes 100% sense for Apple to roll out better hardware and then have the "software" follow it. If all the Studios put ALL of their content in the iTunes store today in 1080p quality for :apple:TV, how much of that would sell? None, because there's not :apple:TV in place that can play it.

If a Studio wants to test the profitability of adding 1080p content for :apple:TV by putting a movie or show in there today, how will that test fare? It will flop, because there's no :apple:TV hardware in place to play it.

The hardware must LEAD. Entrench the hardware and with each unit sold, some Studio gets increasingly tempted to see if they can make more money by selling/renting a movie via iTunes vs. putting it on a disk and giving Walmart, Best Buy, etc a cut. If they find it profitable, they'll put more 1080i/p content in the iTunes store.

However, BEFORE there's any :apple:TV units in homes that can play 1080i/p content, it IMPOSSIBLE for the Studios to sell 1080i/p content for :apple:TV.

Look at all of Apple's other stuff. I just bought the latest & greatest iMac i7 Quad. I haven't yet found a way to max it out. I would guess that most people don't max their's out either. So should Apple stop advancing Macs until the software is in place to max them out? Should Apple stop advancing iPhones until the software is in place to max them out? Why is this ONE thing from Apple seen so differently?

Build 1080p in, and it serves every interested customer whatever they want- the best 720p playback or 1080p playback. More people will buy because they get what they want. More units installed becomes temptation for those with 1080p content to rent or sell to us. It's only a matter of time until they pitch testing 1080p content in the iTunes store to Apple. As is though, even if they want to sell us 1080p :apple:TV content, they can't, because it can't be played even if they put it in the store tonight.

If they put in 1080p capabilities without 1080p content on the store, then you'd have constant complaints about there being no 1080p content. And if they did have 1080p content, you'd have issues since all the movies are over 4GB and you'd have issues with people using Fat32 formatted drives, problems much bigger than people simply wanting 1080p content.

Personal opinion - there is a sector of the market for 1080p downloaded content, but I don't think it's big enough for the mass market that Apple is doing so well in right now.

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 08:02 PM
Personal opinion - there is a sector of the market for 1080p downloaded content, but I don't think it's big enough for the mass market that Apple is doing so well in right now.Tell that to all the Apple customers that own or are going to buy a new 1080P TV. ;)

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 08:35 PM
If they put in 1080p capabilities without 1080p content on the store, then you'd have constant complaints about there being no 1080p content.

My iMac has 4 cores. I'm not constantly complaining about nothing being available that seems to max them out.

From the beginning the current :apple:TV had 720p hardware, but there wasn't constant complaints about no 720p content in the iTunes store.

iPods have had the ability to play lossless audio for many years. Is there constant complaints about not having lossless audio in the iTunes store.

Today, Jobs rolled out 99 cent programs, packaging it as some sources that are playing ball and others who are not. He could just as easily rolled out 1080p hardware and mentioned 1080 camcorder home movies look great, several podcast videos are available in 1080p, youtube 1080p is available etc. "We are ready to offer 1080i/p content as soon as any studio wants to add it to the iTunes store. In the meantime, all of our movies and TV shows are now 720p..."

That would have shifted the complaints to the Studios, because Apple would have covered the part they have control over.

And my money would already be spent. And I'd be gushing positives about "finally...", etc.

And if they did have 1080p content, you'd have issues since all the movies are over 4GB and you'd have issues with people using Fat32 formatted drives, problems much bigger than people simply wanting 1080p content.

You seem to perceive that a hardware announcement today would have forced everyone to start dealing with the "problems" associated with 1080p file sizes. Those with limited storage could download 720p or smaller files. Those with limited bandwidth could download 720p or smaller files. Etc.

A simple message on screen could educate the buyer/renter that the 1080p version are very large files and will take a long time to download on slower broadband connections. Those that want to anyway could still get what they want. That would be much preferable to Apple deciding for us.

A 1080p chip set wouldn't have to affect anyone who doesn't want to deal with the negatives of file sizes, download speed, thinner broadband pipes, etc. The whole iTunes world could keep choosing 720p or SD video... and it would play to the max on hardware capable of better than those standards.

But it doesn't work the other way.

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 08:49 PM
My iMac has 4 cores. I'm not constantly complaining about nothing being available that seems to max them out.

From the beginning the current :apple:TV had 720p hardware, but there wasn't constant complaints about no 720p content in the iTunes store.

Today, Jobs rolled out 99 cent programs, packaging it as some sources that are playing ball and others who are not. He could just as easily rolled out 1080p hardware and mentioned 1080 camcorder home movies look great, several podcast videos are available in 1080p, youtube 1080p is available etc. "We are ready to offer 1080i/p content as soon as any studio wants to add it to the iTunes store. In the meantime, all of our movies and TV shows are now 720p..."

That would have shifted the complaints to the Studios, because Apple would have covered the part they have control over.

And my money would already be spent. And I'd be gushing positives about "finally...", etc.



You seem to perceive that a hardware announcement today would have forced everyone to start dealing with the "problems" associated with 1080p file sizes. Those with limited storage could download 720p or smaller files. Those with limited bandwidth could download 720p or smaller files. Etc.

A simple message on screen could educate the buyer/renter that the 1080p version are very large files and will take a long time to download on slower broadband connections. Those that want to anyway could still get what they want. That would be much preferable to Apple deciding for us.

A 1080p chip set wouldn't have to affect anyone who doesn't want to deal with the negatives of file sizes, download speed, thinner broadband pipes, etc. The whole iTunes world could keep choosing 720p or SD video... and it would play to the max on hardware capable of better than those standards.

But it doesn't work the other way.You've got it right. The world has moved forward from 720P and so should Apple. There's no point in debating 720P merits as it's no longer the standard.

n2arkitektur
Sep 1, 2010, 09:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

How many times do people on average watch their bought DVDs? Because for me the average is probably less than 3 meaning I'd be better off renting than buying.

+1

The only drawback I see with the new Apple TV is no iOS, so no apps. That would have been a game-changer. I have to agree with some who are asking why this is better.

My only question is will there be an app to control the new Apple TV with my iPod Touch? I get there's this Airplay thing, but what if I want to dump the supplied remote and use my iPod Touch for control?

paduck
Sep 1, 2010, 09:22 PM
+1

The only drawback I see with the new Apple TV is no iOS, so no apps. That would have been a game-changer. I have to agree with some who are asking why this is better.

My only question is will there be an app to control the new Apple TV with my iPod Touch? I get there's this Airplay thing, but what if I want to dump the supplied remote and use my iPod Touch for control?

There's already a remote for your iPod Touch from Apple. It's called Remote. It's been around for awhile. Let's you control iTunes or your AppleTV via wifi. It's also on the description page of the new AppleTV.

brianfast
Sep 1, 2010, 10:07 PM
The A4 chip probably cannot do 1080p.

Mach1.8
Sep 1, 2010, 10:13 PM
You've got it right. The world has moved forward from 720P and so should Apple. There's no point in debating 720P merits as it's no longer the standard.

Umm...every TV show you watch is either 720p or 1080i. You could make the argument that the movie standard is 1080p thanks to BR, but unless you watch way more movies than TV, 720p is still a viable resolution. I agree, since they started slapping 1080p stickers on TVs (in order to sell more of them, I'm sure) it has become the de facto standard in consumer electronics and I would like to have seen it in the new ATV. However, let's not confuse resolution with picture quality. A well mastered, high bitrate, 720p movie will look stunning on a 1080p TV.

ctakim
Sep 1, 2010, 10:29 PM
My guess is that we will see more streaming apps added over time, like Hulu, Pandora and the like. But I don't understand those who expected the full iOS on a TV screen?? How would you manage a touchscreen interface with a little Apple remote?? And don't suggest an iPhone or iPod touch because then you have to buy multiple devices. Remember Apples new non techie consumer philosophy! My grandmother has to be able to pull this out of the box and start using it.

alvse
Sep 1, 2010, 10:31 PM
+1

The only drawback I see with the new Apple TV is no iOS, so no apps. That would have been a game-changer. I have to agree with some who are asking why this is better.

My only question is will there be an app to control the new Apple TV with my iPod Touch? I get there's this Airplay thing, but what if I want to dump the supplied remote and use my iPod Touch for control?



Some people may be disappointed that the new Apple TV doesn't seem to be iOS based. But I was thinking of it like this.....

What if! Instead of having your app store and all you apps stored on the apple TV (which you can't anyways, cause it has no storage) you "stream" your apps to the Apple TV. Just like in the demo for "Up", when the iPad streamed the video and audio to the Apple TV, the iPad became the remote, the possibilities for this in games would be amazing. Your iOS device would become the remote/gamepad/keyboard, while you watch and listen to the action from the TV via the Apple TV and AirPlay! Tied in with game centre, you could even go multiplayer.

Maybe we will never see this, but I think it would be a very sweet feature. There are millions of iOS devices out there now right? Could this be a not yet revealed feature of iOS 4.2? Oh how I hope so.

Just my 2 cents.

n2arkitektur
Sep 1, 2010, 10:38 PM
There's already a remote for your iPod Touch from Apple. It's called Remote. It's been around for awhile. Let's you control iTunes or your AppleTV via wifi. It's also on the description page of the new AppleTV.

It's a done deal, then.

The $99 price tag is a game-changer. I didn't mean to neglect that point, either.

8CoreWhore
Sep 1, 2010, 10:42 PM
WTF $99 in the USA... £99 in the UK CMON APPLE GIVE US A BREAK!!!

Its disgusting!

Chill out - you guys have free healthcare. :o

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 10:43 PM
I agree, since they started slapping 1080p stickers on TVs (in order to sell more of them, I'm sure) it has become the de facto standard in consumer electronics and I would like to have seen it in the new ATV. However, let's not confuse resolution with picture quality. A well mastered, high bitrate, 720p movie will look stunning on a 1080p TV.I'm talking about hardware, never said anything about picture quality, and the world has moved to 1080P. All you have to do is go to any store selling electronics and look at what's available and my point will be proven. Regardless I'm keeping my two ATV's and won't be downgrading to the new ATV. Netflix is a yawner, I already have two devices capable of streaming Netflix and I don't need a third. ;)

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 10:45 PM
The $99 price tag is a game-changer. I didn't mean to neglect that point, either.Really? iOS would have been a game changer but not this price point. I like the price point but a game changer??? Shoot you can buy a current model ATV with a 160 gb hdd for $149 on the Apple Store.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 10:48 PM
The A4 chip probably cannot do 1080p.

How about a coprocessor then? Something dedicated to the task. Lots of other little boxes sold for under $100 have 1080p chipsets. I know Apple can buy those same chips if they want to do so.

n2arkitektur
Sep 1, 2010, 10:50 PM
Some people may be disappointed that the new Apple TV doesn't seem to be iOS based. But I was thinking of it like this.....

What if! Instead of having your app store and all you apps stored on the apple TV (which you can't anyways, cause it has no storage) you "stream" your apps to the Apple TV. Just like in the demo for "Up", when the iPad streamed the video and audio to the Apple TV, the iPad became the remote, the possibilities for this in games would be amazing. Your iOS device would become the remote/gamepad/keyboard, while you watch and listen to the action from the TV via the Apple TV and AirPlay! Tied in with game centre, you could even go multiplayer.

Maybe we will never see this, but I think it would be a very sweet feature. There are millions of iOS devices out there now right? Could this be a not yet revealed feature of iOS 4.2? Oh how I hope so.

Just my 2 cents.

Um, yeah. I'm not sure what the technical implications and limitations on what your suggesting, but that would likely serve the same purpose. And, of course, once the iTunes Cloud comes online, they could do an update to this new Apple TV and roll out apps at a later date. I have little doubt that's why they didn't announce apps on the new Apple TV; they weren't ready to announce the Cloud.

8CoreWhore
Sep 1, 2010, 10:56 PM
Fail!!!!!
4 years without an update then this. Apple does not want to be in the home theater buisness. All you people buying this are ultimate fanboys.
There are tons of devices that does everything this does that have been out for years. It will only play .m4v, .mp4, and .mov formats. Are you kidding me. Everything I have is .mkv. Stop being so controlling apple. No 1080P. This was bad in 2006, now its almost criminal to charge for a 720p device. You can no longer buy movies. who would ever want to rent a movie for 4.99? Redbox rents blurays for 1.50. They are 1080P with HD sound.

hahahahahahaha:D:D:D:D

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 1, 2010, 10:56 PM
A well mastered, high bitrate, 720p movie will look stunning on a 1080p TV.

No doubt at all. But that same 720p movie would look just as good pumped through a 1080p chip. Better hardware can max out lighter software. It just doesn't work the other way.

Cover the base on the hardware and all pro 720p arguments about quality are both right and fully implemented by 1080p hardware. But that hardware would also futureproof the device, let those of us that render stuff like 1080i/p movies use our master copy rather than the lighter 720p or 960x540 version, and, best of all, it would shut us all up about this.

1080p is the max consumer standard for a long time to come. It's here now and been here for a few years now. It will be THE max consumer standard for many years ahead. It's accessible, cheap (hardware wise), and can fully delight every "720p is good enough" believer by playing your 720p content to it's fullest potential. It won't make the :apple:TV cost more. You won't be forced to download only 1080p content. You don't have to clog your broadband pipes with 1080p files. You don't have to buy a server farm to store a lot of 1080p content. Everything you believe about 720p would still be fully realized on better hardware too.

However, those of us that want a little more would get what we want as well. Trying to make us like something less than what we want is fruitless. Even if Apple says "720p is good enough".

n2arkitektur
Sep 1, 2010, 11:01 PM
Really? iOS would have been a game changer but not this price point. I like the price point but a game changer??? Shoot you can buy a current model ATV with a 160 gb hdd for $149 on the Apple Store.

They dropped the price on the now old model Apple TV to $149 in order to blow out their stock. As of yesterday, it was still at full retail at $229. They have cut the retail price on the new model Apple TV by 57% from the now old model. You don't think cutting the price by more than half is a game-changer? That puts something that was out of the reach of many consumers well within the reach of those consumers. People who previously couldn't justify the price, now, can. Game-changer.

They may yet bring apps to the new Apple TV via the iTunes Cloud, so the new Apple TV may be a real contender in the marketplace rather than a hobby.

Of course, the real game-changer, the paradigm shift, will come when Apple release a TV, a 40" LED LCD HD CinemaDisplay with integrated Apple TV, slot-load Blu-Ray player, Cable Card slot, and iOS gui. They're still at least a year away from that.

Duffinator
Sep 1, 2010, 11:12 PM
You don't think cutting the price by more than half is a game-changer? No. Some new tech added to it like Apps yes, dropping the price is not a game changer. There are several other devices that do basically the same thing as the new ATV at a similar price point so how is that changing the game??? Just because Apple did it? No.

gkarris
Sep 1, 2010, 11:31 PM
They may yet bring apps to the new Apple TV via the iTunes Cloud, so the new Apple TV may be a real contender in the marketplace rather than a hobby.


I bought the AppleTV a couple of months after it first came out and all you can do was play music, video, and photos and YouTube.

After a major firmware update, you had the iTunes store - a game changer for me as it was awesome to make purchases from the couch.

With the new one, Apple just released it as-is for the holiday season.

Since it's now iOS/A4 based, they can add the App store when more time permits - probably next year after it has an established base.

jaw04005
Sep 1, 2010, 11:38 PM
Exactly backwards. It makes 100% sense for Apple to roll out better hardware and then have the "software" follow it.

Who’s to say the new Apple TV can’t support 1080p? No one thought the current Apple TV would be able to handle 720p video sufficiently enough for Apple to release HD content, but an update was released and it has so for years.

AVonGauss
Sep 1, 2010, 11:38 PM
Why do many keep assuming that the unit is not running iOS? Think about, they switched to the A4 chip - which one is easier, port OS X to Arm or write a front-end application (a la Front Row) to implement (mimic) the Apple TV interface?

shanmugam
Sep 1, 2010, 11:54 PM
is the old model Apple TV at $149 better than $99 current one? (as of today)? :confused:

eventually went ahead and ordered one, hoping it is useful for $99.

jaw04005
Sep 2, 2010, 12:56 AM
Why do many keep assuming that the unit is not running iOS? Think about, they switched to the A4 chip - which one is easier, port OS X to Arm or write a front-end application (a la Front Row) to implement (mimic) the Apple TV interface?

It’s running iOS, at least according to Gruber. We’ll know for sure when it ships.

maestrokev
Sep 2, 2010, 03:32 AM
Umm...every TV show you watch is either 720p or 1080i. You could make the argument that the movie standard is 1080p thanks to BR, but unless you watch way more movies than TV, 720p is still a viable resolution. I agree, since they started slapping 1080p stickers on TVs (in order to sell more of them, I'm sure) it has become the de facto standard in consumer electronics and I would like to have seen it in the new ATV. However, let's not confuse resolution with picture quality. A well mastered, high bitrate, 720p movie will look stunning on a 1080p TV.

Every mid-level consumer camcorder supports 1080p now. People are generating their own 1080p content.

I support giving customers the 1080p option, push the envelope for those who have faster internet connections.

It's like the MacRumors group, these are not the "average" Apple consumer, these are people who want cutting edge, and I think there's enough people like that who would pay a bit more for a better product. For now, I'll have to keep my WDTV Live when I would have been happy to pay that extra cost to Apple for a more superior product.

8CoreWhore
Sep 2, 2010, 03:52 AM
Tell that to all the Apple customers that own or are going to buy a new 1080P TV. ;)

Those people are only getting 1080P from bluray discs... no where else. The data is too fat to broadcast or stream... HUGE. The costs outway the benefits.

No streaming or TV is above 720P (1080i... is 540 lines at a time..).

zedsdead
Sep 2, 2010, 05:52 AM
The A4 chip probably cannot do 1080p.

It can. The iPhone 3gs was tested with 1080p playback, and it was fine. The A4 is faster than what was used in the 3gs. This is Apple crippling the device for no reason. I am happy with 720p for the most part, but there is no reason Apple couldn't unlock this. When the 1st Apple TV shipped, Apple had nothing really in HD but some trailers. It took a year for iTunes to catch up with it, so doing that again wouldn't be a stretch for Apple. At least it goes up to 30fps, the 720/24fps MAX on the last model was annoying.

I have been a huge Apple TV fan, and while I welcome the update, it is disappointing. The lack of a purchasing OPTION is stupid (done because adding enough memory to the device would push the price over $99).

I am not sure if I will like the 1.0 style streaming where you have to go into a separate menu for that. I use the Apple TV with a several TB Drobo, and hopefully the streaming (especially HD) is greatly improved.

The menus should be much quicker, which was my biggest complaint. I want no lag.

How is the screen saver going to work? I like how it uses my photos. If iTunes isn't open, that won't happen I guess. This is another issue, although not major.

Netflix is a nice addition, where's pandora?

Apps would have been better with USB support. EyeTV would be able to do something really nice with that. Then again, just an EyeTV app that can connect to my iMac would be good.

The best news is that Apple is at least giving some attention to the Apple TV. It is actually a main item on their homepage. It is in rotation for the big top spot with the other iPods. It's back in the iTunes Store right at the top. Apple is at least paying attention to the device, and if it sells better than before (which is should given the new price point), they will only make it better.

In a year or two, iOS will be fully on it (it will be interesting to see if the software is based on iOS or Frontrow).

Ritsuka
Sep 2, 2010, 06:00 AM
I guess we'll have just to wait and see if iTunes will have artificial limitation on 1080p streaming or no.

87vert
Sep 2, 2010, 06:11 AM
Those people are only getting 1080P from bluray discs... no where else. The data is too fat to broadcast or stream... HUGE. The costs outway the benefits.

No streaming or TV is above 720P (1080i... is 540 lines at a time..).

DirecTV allows for 1080p content "on demand" and in some broadcasts.

ceefax
Sep 2, 2010, 06:26 AM
The best thing about this is the new remote,

i wouldnt mind getting one of them and use it with the old atv

maflynn
Sep 2, 2010, 06:39 AM
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.

UnseenLlama
Sep 2, 2010, 06:44 AM
The best thing about this is the new remote,

i wouldnt mind getting one of them and use it with the old atv

The remote is not new. Been around for a while now.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC377LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 07:30 AM
Who’s to say the new Apple TV can’t support 1080p? No one thought the current Apple TV would be able to handle 720p video sufficiently enough for Apple to release HD content, but an update was released and it has so for years.

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 :apple:TVs now. I need something with the rest of the HD formats.

Scarpad
Sep 2, 2010, 07:58 AM
The best thing about this is the new remote,

i wouldnt mind getting one of them and use it with the old atv

$19 at the apple store, been using one on my old ATV for awhile

GermanSuplex
Sep 2, 2010, 08:00 AM
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).

The iPhone 3G and 3GS were HD capable and the feature was never touted or activated (that I know of).

IgnatiusTheKing
Sep 2, 2010, 08:21 AM
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 (http://www.macworld.com/article/153847/2010/09/appletv_faq.html)...

Will existing Apple TVs support the new features via a software update?

Unfortunately, no.

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?

ckurt25
Sep 2, 2010, 08:22 AM
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 the :apple: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 :apple: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, :apple: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 :apple:tv and don't anticipate getting one of the new ones because it doesn't meet my needs.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 08:42 AM
The iPhone 3G and 3GS were HD capable and the feature was never touted or activated (that I know of).

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.

:apple: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.

shanmugam
Sep 2, 2010, 09:09 AM
can we go safari with apple tv since it is same iOS in iphone/ipod touch

fivepoint
Sep 2, 2010, 09:16 AM
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.

NEBaghead
Sep 2, 2010, 09:29 AM
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.

trip1ex
Sep 2, 2010, 09:33 AM
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 .......

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 09:46 AM
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.

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 :apple: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
Sep 2, 2010, 10:07 AM
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 .......

I got 4 years of 1080HD camcorder video... precious home movies that would be a total delight to enjoy on demand via :apple: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).

trip1ex
Sep 2, 2010, 10:34 AM
I got 4 years of 1080HD camcorder video... precious home movies that would be a total delight to enjoy on demand via :apple: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 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.

Mach1.8
Sep 2, 2010, 10:48 AM
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 don't think he was advocating for iTunes content to be 1080p, merely that the device be capable of doing it.

NewishMacGuy
Sep 2, 2010, 12:26 PM
You're kidding Apple...

US = $99
UK = £99

Just swap the currency eh?

Not impressed, when I heard $99, I thought it would be around £80 give or take...

I wanted one, but now not impressed.

I'd guess that most (if not all) of that difference is VAT. Blame your government not Apple!

NewishMacGuy
Sep 2, 2010, 01:26 PM
if this gets hacked to do the following I'm in

1. MKV playback
2. 1080p playback (if enough horsepower)
3. USB port for external storage.

Then, i'm game! Otherwise, my ps3 can do just as good....well, better.

Edit: If they can unlock the usb port and connect and blu-ray player, now that would be sweet.

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
Sep 2, 2010, 01:35 PM
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?

Are you kidding?
How about: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730245-REG/Western_Digital_WDBABY0000NBK_NESN_WD_TV_LIVE_HD.html or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136472&nm_mc=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r&cm_mmc=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r-_-Hard+Drives+-+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.

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.

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.

Where are the shows that are being streamed or broadcast via 1080p?

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.

And since when did Apple ever undercut anybody on price?
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.

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.

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/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6256878&SRCCODE=WEBOVESKU11&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE&OVCAMPGID=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.:rolleyes:

GermanSuplex
Sep 2, 2010, 01:36 PM
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
Sep 2, 2010, 01:38 PM
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.

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
Sep 2, 2010, 01:47 PM
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?

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 :apple: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?

zedsdead
Sep 2, 2010, 01:49 PM
Does anyone know how the screen saver is going to work now that photos cant sync to the device?

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 02:21 PM
Does anyone know how the screen saver is going to work now that photos cant sync to the device?

Watch the presentation. There's a little bit of photo functionality shown there. I'm guessing there is a buffer, but you have to have your Mac turned on. Turn off the Mac and either:

whatever fits in the buffer will be the basis for a photo slideshow, or
there is no photo slideshow until you turn your Mac back on, or
it streams photos over the Internet until you turn your Mac back on

stphnman20
Sep 2, 2010, 02:40 PM
I think the majority of you guys are missing the point when apple made the 2nd gen ATV. Jobs said that the ATV wasn't a big hit. So why should Apple put more technology in this? Even After they did the survey? Consumers wanted it to be more affordable. $99 bucks! That's $150 cheaper then the first one.

Bevz
Sep 2, 2010, 02:41 PM
Not a fan of the new Apple TV...

It's got an A4 chip in it so it MUST be iOS based, so they would have had to rebuild the software from scratch... And... In this day and age... after all they've done with iOS, they decide to write it so it looks EXACTLY the same as it did before! sorry but that's really lame... REALLY lame.... and i've not even mentioned the fact they haven't allowed apps on it!!! :( I'd have forgiven all this if they had put BBC iPlayer on it ;)

Also, No HD... Now, i'd be ok with that as long as you had the option to unchain the thing from iTunes... Nope, they didn't even bother doing that... So now, not only do you actually NEED a desktop machine with an AppleTV you also NEED it to be permanently on and acting as your server! The big joke here is that steve seemed to claim they wanted this to be accessible to non-techies... yeah, stripping out ALL internal storage and only allowing you to use it if you also own a desktop machine permanently running iTunes is really the way to go... :rolleyes: Surely, giving it a 1TB drive and/or the option of plugging in externals would make it piss-simple to use and you could buy one even if you didn't own a computer!! All they've given non-techies is a rather expensive box to rent content, which most of the time you can buy the original cheaper on DVD.
Even if they didn't want to put a HD in, they could have at least allowed me to stream directly from a network drive so i can by-pass my desktop machine! :(

Looks like i'll be sticking with my patchstick'd v1 Apple TV with 1TB external drive for a while longer.... Great bit of kit... Always on, all content synced so no streaming/itunes issues (yes, i do have an AEBS and i STILL get issues) and i don't have to have my bloody desktop machine on all the same acting as a server....

Trouble is, one day my ATV will go bang (it's quite old already) and i'll have to buy one of the new ones to replace it... I just hope there are some decent hacks out for it by then... It's such a shame Apple don't see as much potential to this machine as it's users do... :(

Bevz
Sep 2, 2010, 02:46 PM
I think the majority of you guys are missing the point when apple made the 2nd gen ATV. Jobs said that the ATV wasn't a big hit. So why should Apple put more technology in this? Even After they did the survey? Consumers wanted it to be more affordable. $99 bucks! That's $150 cheaper then the first one.

True, but he also said that all the people that did buy it, absolutely loved it and used it a lot... So why piss them off by limiting the device even more than it was already?

I admit, the price is nice, but they've not actually evolved the device at all.... They still don't know what they have or what to do with it... IMHO :(

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 02:50 PM
I think the majority of you guys are missing the point when apple made the 2nd gen ATV. Jobs said that the ATV wasn't a big hit. So why should Apple put more technology in this? Even After they did the survey? Consumers wanted it to be more affordable. $99 bucks! That's $150 cheaper then the first one.

Why do you believe that using 1080p chip instead of a 720p MAX chip would have made it cost a lot more than $99? Look around: there's lots of little set top boxes with 1080p chips in them that cost <$99. I'm confident that Apple can buy 1080p chips from the same sources that all those other guys buy from. And I'm confident they can get just as good a price on them.

And it wouldn't be putting more technology in the box. It would be choosing one chip instead of another. I'd bet given the popularity of 1080p over 720p (as demonstrated in so many other boxes where it is the chosen option), that economies of scale would have probably saved Apple a few dollars on cost... had they used 1080p instead of 720p. Who else is using 720p MAX graphics in their set-top boxes?

Yes, it's great that they hit $99. But they could have probably hit $99 with 1080p too. Don't fool yourself.

trip1ex
Sep 2, 2010, 05:12 PM
Are you kidding?
How about: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730245-REG/Western_Digital_WDBABY0000NBK_NESN_WD_TV_LIVE_HD.html or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136472&nm_mc=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r&cm_mmc=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r-_-Hard+Drives+-+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.



refurbs? YOur first list contains a refurb. There is no box under $99 that does 1080p and has an optical drive. Hence you're full of sht. Not because you want what you want. But because you exaggerate to pretend what you want is so damn ready for primetime.

That BD player, also has no wireless unless you buy an adapter, doesn't stream from computer and is certainly going to have a shtty slow interface as most br players do.

Ridiculous.

The Roku does 1080p???? BS. MOre crap you've shoveled up for MR readers. It doesn't do 1080p. Not today. Another fantasy. Yes it SAYS it will support 1080p playback via a software update later this year. We'll see how well that works when it actually does show up.

The rest of your arguments are equally full of sht. You are the one that mentioned price initially by touting all these other great 1080p boxes for $99.

I'm just pointing out that Apple never has competed on price at the low-end. So you're never going to get a dirt cheap box that barely does what it says it does. So the Apple box may be 10 or 20% more.


And if these other devices are so great why haven't you bought 2 of 'em?

1080p will come when its ready for primetime. I don't expect it too soon. Multple 1080p streams aren't going to do well over wi-fi in most homes. Most folks don't have hdtvs bigger than 50" so 1080 is lost on most from normal viewing distances. 1080p takes up much more streaming internet bandwidth too. And it requires another pricepoint most likely. Also nobody else streams 1080p nor broadcasts it. Yes It's so ready for primetime but no cable company or satellite company broadcasts in 1080p.

To me it seems you're arguing why vanilla ain't chocolate. This is Apple. They aren't the all you can eat spec/feature/codec company. Never have been. Not sure why you spend time rapping about why a leopard ain't a turtle.

kiranmk2
Sep 2, 2010, 05:23 PM
So that rumour about Apple hiring a new design team to work on the new AppleTV UI didn't really pan out...

I'm sure this will turn into something cool (probably via hacks at first) - there's no way the hardware is limited to 720p. It's 2010, not 2005! Even the iPhone 3GS could handle 1080p when the artificial iTunes limits were bypassed, so it's foolish to think the A4 can't push 1080p. I'm guessing, as soon as it's hacked we'll see new patches to enable the default UI to playback 1080p files (m4v and mkv) from network shares just like ATVfiles. And that's when I shall dive in...

zedsdead
Sep 2, 2010, 05:38 PM
Watch the presentation. There's a little bit of photo functionality shown there. I'm guessing there is a buffer, but you have to have your Mac turned on. Turn off the Mac and either:

whatever fits in the buffer will be the basis for a photo slideshow, or
there is no photo slideshow until you turn your Mac back on, or
it streams photos over the Internet until you turn your Mac back on


I did watch it. Jobs had it in a screen saver mode, but it was with the Apple photos. He never mentioned anything about how the screen saver mode would work, only how photo slideshows would.

My family loves how the photos just float across the tv when the device is not busy, and if the current Apple TV cannot do this on the fly over syncing, I am going to be very upset.

GermanSuplex
Sep 2, 2010, 06:42 PM
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 :apple: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?

You seem to be confusing my understanding why Apple left 1080p with saying that people shouldn't need or want 1080p. That's not what I'm saying at all... I fully get that you want 1080p and that some people have a need for it. That is not my argument.

My argument is that it doesn't make sense for Apple to include 1080p playback when they have no 1080p content and the box is designed to stream iTunes-bought content to the television. Yes, it streams mp3's and one or two other formats that were standard before iTunes even came out, but for the most part, the box is designed as an iTunes-store media centric device first and foremost. There are other solutions to your needs if 1080p is a make or break deal.

Apple has always not done some things that apparently seem to shortchange the device at first glance, but make more sense when you think about it. This is how I see it.

Aries326
Sep 2, 2010, 07:11 PM
AppleTV is a big fail for me. It won't even stream any mkv or AVI files. Granted, not everyone is going to need that function, but for me it was the deal breaker. I'm going to go buy one of those Western Digital TV Live Plus HD Media Players which can basically do everything the AppleTV can and then some. I was holding out on buying one until I saw the official AppleTV announcement to confirm what it could do or can't do.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 2, 2010, 08:44 PM
trip1ex, you sling what you want sling. If anyone is full of sht, I think it's pretty easy to tell who.

You ask for examples and I found them for you. There's plenty more where that came from, and I only included a refurb example just to show how low 1080p chipsets can go.

You reply by adding more variables, like where's the wifi? Why don't you just demand that it has an Apple logo on top?

I haven't bought the other boxes because I'd much rather buy it from Apple. My media is stored in iTunes and I have bought a few things from iTunes that are DRM'd (so they can only get to my 1080HDTV if I pump them through something from Apple).

I can say plenty of positives about Apple, but I don't worship them, nor attack people who find fault with something they've done. You take it like I'm calling your kid ugly or something.

I would much rather buy this box... but it came up short on a key feature important to me. People like you seem so stuck on Apple that anyone who points out shortcomings- or PERSONAL wants- as I have done, clearly has to be wrong and "full of sht".

Congratulations. Enjoy it as you like it. Ignore that it could have been a bit more and drawn in a bigger number of buyers, which would have helped Apple motivate more Studios to play ball with Apple.

Sling the names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been more. Apple chose for it to not be more. And cheerleaders like you keep working hard to tell people like me why we're wrong for wishing it could have better met our needs.

LittleEskimo
Sep 2, 2010, 09:51 PM
Anyone who can't notice the difference between 720p and 1080 is either: using magnifying glasses for lenses in their spectacles, or is using a tube television. Try comparing avatar for instance on blu ray and regular dvd.

I also don't understand why they even bothered to put a usb port for the service on this thing. With being able to stream, why not just update wirelessly? Or is this for apple employees to use if they need to run some diagnostics? I would think they would just pop it open some how to do maintenance.

I can't believe how tiny they made this thing though. Looks very nice.

suss2it
Sep 2, 2010, 10:19 PM
Anyone who can't notice the difference between 720p and 1080 is either: using magnifying glasses for lenses in their spectacles, or is using a tube television. Try comparing avatar for instance on blu ray and regular dvd.Regular DVD isn't 720p.

trip1ex
Sep 2, 2010, 11:34 PM
trip1ex, you sling what you want sling. If anyone is full of sht, I think it's pretty easy to tell who.

You ask for examples and I found them for you. There's plenty more where that came from, and I only included a refurb example just to show how low 1080p chipsets can go.

You reply by adding more variables, like where's the wifi? Why don't you just demand that it has an Apple logo on top?

I haven't bought the other boxes because I'd much rather buy it from Apple. My media is stored in iTunes and I have bought a few things from iTunes that are DRM'd (so they can only get to my 1080HDTV if I pump them through something from Apple).

I can say plenty of positives about Apple, but I don't worship them, nor attack people who find fault with something they've done. You take it like I'm calling your kid ugly or something.

I would much rather buy this box... but it came up short on a key feature important to me. People like you seem so stuck on Apple that anyone who points out shortcomings- or PERSONAL wants- as I have done, clearly has to be wrong and "full of sht".

Congratulations. Enjoy it as you like it. Ignore that it could have been a bit more and drawn in a bigger number of buyers, which would have helped Apple motivate more Studios to play ball with Apple.

Sling the names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been more. Apple chose for it to not be more. And cheerleaders like you keep working hard to tell people like me why we're wrong for wishing it could have better met our needs.


Just because you want 1080p doesn't make you full of crap.

You're full of sht because you are outright lying in some cases. Stretching the truth in others.

And because you make so many vague gobbleygook arguments it just adds up to a bunch of crap.

Go read the links you posted. It's obvious you quickly googled to get those and didn't even read them yourself. IF you did you wouldn't have posted 'em.

The biggest sign you're full of sht is you aren't in a rush to buy all these great ATV competitors you tout.

because if you weren't full of it then you would own one of those fine products. gotta put your money where your mouth is.

bruinsrme
Sep 2, 2010, 11:42 PM
True, but he also said that all the people that did buy it, absolutely loved it and used it a lot... So why piss them off by limiting the device even more than it was already?

I admit, the price is nice, but they've not actually evolved the device at all.... They still don't know what they have or what to do with it... IMHO :(

I think the price is nice because the new apple tv is the printer, and someone is banking on selling a lot of ink.

LittleEskimo
Sep 3, 2010, 01:10 AM
Regular DVD isn't 720p.

Thanks, my mistake. :)

Mach1.8
Sep 3, 2010, 01:14 AM
Anyone who can't notice the difference between 720p and 1080 is either: using magnifying glasses for lenses in their spectacles, or is using a tube television. Try comparing avatar for instance on blu ray and regular dvd.

I also don't understand why they even bothered to put a usb port for the service on this thing. With being able to stream, why not just update wirelessly? Or is this for apple employees to use if they need to run some diagnostics? I would think they would just pop it open some how to do maintenance.

I can't believe how tiny they made this thing though. Looks very nice.

The difference between those 2 sources is largely due to the crazy high bit rate on the BR as compared to DVD. Plus, you're comparing a 480p to a 1080p. Almost anyone would see the difference there.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 3, 2010, 07:33 AM
Just because you want 1080p doesn't make you full of crap. You're full of sht because you are outright lying in some cases. Stretching the truth in others.

Please identify a single lie that I told. One.

Go read the links you posted. It's obvious you quickly googled to get those and didn't even read them yourself. IF you did you wouldn't have posted 'em.
I assume this refers to finding specific examples of 1080p hardware in set-top boxes that cost $99 or less. You said it couldn't be done. I found a bunch of them in seconds. There's many more where that came from. You can easily find 1080p hardware in settop boxes for $99 or less- and a lot less if someone is open to refurbished- all it takes is a search. Your "stretching the truth" implies that only Apple could do it, or that it was only possible with 720p MAX, etc.

Posting these particular responses doesn't change anything. Anyone can see which one of us is right by doing the simplest of searches.

The biggest sign you're full of sht is you aren't in a rush to buy all these great ATV competitors you tout. because if you weren't full of it then you would own one of those fine products. gotta put your money where your mouth is.

Or, as I explained, we're an Apple household. We've got all our media in iTunes. We need an iTunes way to accomplish what we want to accomplish. Our 1080p home movies rendered with Apple software (some as old as the 2006 edition of iMovie) are stored in iTunes. They play there just fine- just like 720p or SD video. They just can't move from iTunes to our 1080HDTV (8+ years old by the way). The 2006 version of :apple:TV didn't have enough horsepower to push any video above a minimal incarnation of 720p from iTunes to an HDTV. Now, unfortunately, the 2010 version of :apple:TV appears to also have been capped at 720p.

I can easily buy a Blu Ray box, or a WD box, or a Roku, or Boxee, etc for <$99, $99, or a lot more than $99. But all of those can't work with iTunes DRM content and all of those are somewhat locked out of the niceties of some iTunes benefits. Nobody's UI competes with Apple's in terms of ease of use and family friendly.

So, the solution that would work best almost has to be an Apple solution. And Apple let me down by releasing this "update" without much update in it's graphics horsepower. I'm obviously not alone in this disappointment.

Now, I hope that the UI is released as a new "Front Row" and I'll probably do what others in this situation have done: buy the overkill of a Mac Mini and then dedicate a whole computer to the one little function of being a 1080p-capable :apple:TV.

That would cost way more than a WD box, a premium BD box, Roku, Boxee, PS3, X-box, etc solution, but that is the ONE way to meet my wants for HD playback beyond the most minimal incarnation, within something that can fully utilize the iTunes configuration.

Most simply, the :apple:TV appears to bring forward the terrific UI from the :apple:TVs we already own, running on a better processor (which is great vs. the sometimes sluggish one in the 2006 version), as well as Netflix and a few other (IMO) lesser features. It is fully iTunes-friendly, so it can capitalize on our investments in iTunes, such as getting our libraries organized as we want them, and manage DRMd content we've bought from Apple. Unfortunately, it is still gimped with 720p max video playback which is too bad for those of us that hoped that the rest of the HD standards would finally be incorporated.

The Mac Mini solution would give us hardware overkill for this purpose, as we would get something easily capable of 1080p but also all the other stuff that makes it a whole computer, that would largely go unused as a dedicated :apple:TV-like device. As such, it will also cost a lot more than $99 (or the $229 I paid for the old version of :apple:TV). Unfortunately, the :apple:TV interface is not a stand alone offering from Apple, and the "front row" software is the :apple:TV interface from about 4 versions ago- far inferior to the one associated with the new- or old- :apple:TV. Yes, there are options like Plex and XBMC, but Apple does the UI's best when "family friendly" factors come into play, and we still desire full iTunes compatibility with whatever solution is chosen.

Bottom line: if all our media is in iTunes and we like it like that... and especially if we buy any DRMd media from iTunes... we have to have an Apple-created solution for the link to the HDTV. Unfortunately, this new :apple:TV- while no doubt better in some ways the the 2006 version, still appears to fall short in this one important (to some prospective buyers) way... for no apparent reason other than a choice to limit it to the lowest HD standard.

Other companies prove without a doubt that 1080p hardware could have been in this box for around this price. For me, I'd be happy if they released a pro version for several times the $99 price even if the one difference was 1080p. I'm not overly hung up on the price or "smaller" (case), but it should have covered all of the HD standards as a 2010 new release.

You've done the name calling as if to pretend that anyone still reading this thread will believe the stuff I've written is false- that (apparently) one can't find 1080p playback hardware for $99 or less (they most certainly can). If you're posts convince anyone to believe you by not believing me, that's fine. However, it's certainly easy for anyone to do a quick search to verify for themselves. Such a search should prove that Apple could have easily put 1080p playback hardware in this thing- probably for the same retail price.

But they apparently did not do that, leaving those for which that particular feature was the ONE thing we really wanted to see in a new version looking for an alternative option. In my case, I hope for any one of 5 possible scenarios:

testing on the new :apple:TV reveals that it can play 1080p video and Apple just chose not to announce it (yet)
the :apple:TV UI is released as a stand alone update to Front Row so that the Mac Mini can be a "pro" version
A pro (1080p) version is announced soon
somebody else (google?) releases 1080p-capable hardware in an :apple:TV-like settop box that throughly reads the iTunes XML file to maximize the iTunes benefits (our playlists, etc) within an :apple:TV-like interface
Someone else codes a stand-alone UI- an alternative to Front Row- by basically striving to clone the many nice "family friendly" features within the :apple:TV UI, and releases that as software for the Mac Mini or other 1080p hardware.


Obviously, the latter 2 cannot possibly address iTunes DRMd content, so I hope for any of the first 3. My gut guess is that the Mac Mini path looks like the best shot of all in this list.

HHarm
Sep 3, 2010, 03:50 PM
Could I use ATV to stream an iTunes library from a NAS - but control it from an iPad without turning on my TV?

colinmack
Sep 3, 2010, 05:27 PM
Now, I hope that the UI is released as a new "Front Row" and I'll probably do what others in this situation have done: buy the overkill of a Mac Mini and then dedicate a whole computer to the one little function of being a 1080p-capable :apple:TV.

Trust me - download the new Plex 9 and give it a test drive on your Mac. It's free, takes minutes to download and install, you have nothing to lose. Of course, it will take longer if you decide to set it up properly and have it index/catalog/metatag your library for you - but it does it automatically, so just leave it alone for a while and come back when it's finished.

I was disappointed with the new Apple TV - which is fine as a rental-only box, but Apple seems to have consciously decided to marginalize the user base that relies on local media content (a strange decision, as supporting both seamlessly would have been a no-brainer, even without syncing or local device storage)...that caused me to look closer at Plex, and after a few days I'm blown away.

Plex is really the media center Apple should have made.

In a perfect world, someone will sort out quickly how to hack the new Apple TV to run Plex, in which case I'll buy the hardware and happily upgrade the user experience ;)

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 3, 2010, 06:07 PM
Trust me - download the new Plex 9 and give it a test drive on your Mac.

Colinmack, thanks for the feedback. I've generally heard "not user friendly" and that's important in my household. But I know they just released a new version, so I appreciate the endorsement of it. I'll check it out.

Maybe that on a Mac Mini becomes THE answer I was seeking with this new :apple:TV.

KDR
Sep 3, 2010, 06:14 PM
Colinmack, thanks for the feedback. I've generally heard "not user friendly" and that's important in my household. But I know they just released a new version, so I appreciate the endorsement of it. I'll check it out.

Maybe that on a Mac Mini becomes THE answer I was seeking with this new :apple:TV.

Dude, one word: patience. Stop wasting your money and give this battle between Apple, the Studios and the Cable companies a year or two. If you want user friendly, spend the $99 on Apple TV and live with limitations until the dust settles.

I quickly ready through your posts about your home movies, which is why I have a bunch of Mini DV tapes sitting in a box waiting for the format war to end.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 3, 2010, 06:23 PM
Dude, one word: patience. Stop wasting your money and give this battle between Apple, the Studios and the Cable companies a year or two. If you want user friendly, spend the $99 on Apple TV and live with limitations until the dust settles.

I quickly ready through your posts about your home movies, which is why I have a bunch of Mini DV tapes sitting in a box waiting for the format war to end.

Appreciate that. For me the HD recorded on MINI DV tape dates back at least 4 years ago, when I bought the first :apple:TV. I've been waiting through those 4 years for it to sort out. It's just as easy to imagine 4 more years as it is to imagine just another year or two.

Is your feedback along the lines that (the brand new) Plex + Mac Mini is NOT the way to go? If so, why? (knowing that I've got :apple:TVs right now that can play 720p).

KDR
Sep 3, 2010, 06:31 PM
Appreciate that. For me the HD recorded on MINI DV tape dates back at least 4 years ago, when I bought the first :apple:TV. I've been waiting through those 4 years for it to sort out. It's just as easy to imagine 4 more years as it is to imagine just another year or two.

Is your feedback along the lines that (the brand new) Plex + Mac Mini is NOT the way to go? If so, why? (knowing that I've got :apple:TVs right now that can play 720p).

I'm sure Plex is great and the Mac Mini is cool, but I promise you the technology is going to move past that like it's standing still once Hollywood sorts this out. This is all about controlling the revenue stream and protecting the intellectual property rights. As I've said elsewhere, Hollywood doesn't want Apple to do to TV and movies what it did to music. I think Apple is pricing Apple TV very close to cost to get as many users as it can so it can bring in the rest of the content providers. It can't win this battle any other way. It may lose, but if it doesn't I promise you that there will be an Apple TV unit in the next couple of years that will satisfy you.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 3, 2010, 06:56 PM
OK I appreciate that feedback. But since I've been waiting for 4, maybe I'll get Plex plus Mac Mini now- and enjoy the next few years- and then come back to :apple:TV Version 3 when they finally deliver a 1080p box. That way, I can enjoy the now and the future, instead of waiting on the future.

That's one of the problems with these "720p is good enough" arguments against all alternatives. We've had 1080HDTVs for years (I've got one that is 8 years old). BD is doing well and it can max out our HDTVs last year. Other companies that aren't even classically in this space have also rolled out 1080p-capable boxes. Apple even gives us all the rest of the tools (iMovie can edit & render 1080p, iTunes can store and play it well).

This is so Apple's to take. It's so much within reach. But deciding 720p is good enough for its customers is the wrong way to go. The better option would be to put 1080p capabilities inside and sell this little box to everyone, even though it might be a few more years until some 1080i/p content arrives in the iTunes store. Getting the box entrenched will motivate some (greedy) Studio to test 1080i/p content via iTunes, rather than giving Walmart and Best Buy a slice and having to package physical media, distribute it, etc.

Don't get those 1080p boxes in place, and Studios can't even test 1080i/p content for :apple:TV even if they wanted to do so tonight. Apple could couch it as doing their part- "we built the hardware and a lower cost way for companies to deliver their content rather than selling it on "bag of hurt" discs through retail stores. They can even sell their entire back catalog without having to beg for retail space because it can all be virtually displayed in iTunes..." Etc.

I do agree with your belief that the video Studios are terrified of ending up under Apple's other thumb, like their buddies in the music business. But Apple could make them come to Apple if Apple would get enough little 1080p-:apple:TV boxes flying into homes faster than BD boxes. Eventually the Studio's greed will make someone ask to put that content in the store. However, not getting 1080p hardware into homes creates ZERO incentive for any Studio to come calling wanting to sell 1080p content via :apple:TV.

bigpatky
Sep 3, 2010, 07:05 PM
next year we'll see apple tv 3 with downloadable apps (hulu+, mlb.tv, abc.com, etc) and 1080p support (streaming through amazon?). the current (apple tv 2) ones will get app support but not 1080p support.

bank on it.

;)

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 3, 2010, 09:58 PM
next year we'll see apple tv 3 with downloadable apps (hulu+, mlb.tv, abc.com, etc) and 1080p support (streaming through amazon?). the current (apple tv 2) ones will get app support but not 1080p support.

bank on it.

;)

I would hope so. As an owner of the 2006 version though, we had that kind of hope year after year between 2006 and 2010. Thus, I wonder if Apple hobbies can now get on an annual refresh schedule.

I certainly can imagine software updates- such as apps- as we saw software updates with the old :apple:TV (it seems like) at least once a year. But hardware updates (other than a different capacity hard drive) were completely absent (from Apple) between 2006 and 2010. If one can estimate a pattern from that (we can't), it would imply the next hardware update is aimed at 2014. But let's hope someone pushes the gas pedal a little harder for this version.

rnauman821
Sep 7, 2010, 10:12 AM
Honestly, the kicker to me is that they wont play .MKV, .xvid, .avi, or any number of other formats I have my media in.

I want:

A unit with HDMI
A unit that can stream and process 1080p via streaming from my network
A unit that will play almost any format I throw at it
A unit that has a user friendly UI with decent organization
Something that integrates with my universal remotes.

I would be willing to pay $250 for this. I wouldn't pay $99 for the Apple TV

bigpatky
Sep 8, 2010, 07:27 PM
Honestly, the kicker to me is that they wont play .MKV, .xvid, .avi, or any number of other formats I have my media in.

I want:

A unit with HDMI
A unit that can stream and process 1080p via streaming from my network
A unit that will play almost any format I throw at it
A unit that has a user friendly UI with decent organization
Something that integrates with my universal remotes.

I would be willing to pay $250 for this. I wouldn't pay $99 for the Apple TV

it doesn't exist. all of the boxes i've used that do everything (play everything) have horrible interfaces. apple tv has a great interface but no 1080p/non-itunes format support. there's always building your own htpc (mac mini, nettop, etc.) but those will run more than $250 or won't be powerful enough for 1080p.

bottom line....no matter what you get, you're compromising. whether it's price, codec support, maintenance and upkeep, user interface, whatever.

i noticed the apple store has apple tv shipping in 3-4 weeks instead of "september" now.

jakerules133
Sep 8, 2010, 11:14 PM
I just don't see any good reason to get an apple tv considering the capabilities of plex, especially with the way they are advancing. Teaming up with LG, releasing consistent updates, and awesome forum/community support. It took apple 4 years to update it and still didn't add 1080p. Most people that are interested in this as a hobby are usually pretty well off anyways, so why not get a mac mini and just use it as a plex box? I will never be getting an apple tv unless it has 1080p and allows me to watch whatever file i have on my hard drive.

jol45
Sep 9, 2010, 12:39 AM
Thinking of purchasing an Apple TV.

-Want something that has Netflix capabilities to a 720P HDTV
-Have numerous TV seasons purchased from the itunes store (I am wondering if I'll be able to play these on my TV with the Apple TV). How does that work?

I'm wondering if I'm better off just spending the $49.99 on an XBox Live membership for the Netflix capability as opposed to the $99 for ATV.

The wireless aspect of ATV is definitely an appealing trait over the ethernet tethered xbox live.

Appreciate any feedback.

GermanSuplex
Sep 9, 2010, 03:48 AM
Thinking of purchasing an Apple TV.

-Want something that has Netflix capabilities to a 720P HDTV
-Have numerous TV seasons purchased from the itunes store (I am wondering if I'll be able to play these on my TV with the Apple TV). How does that work?

I'm wondering if I'm better off just spending the $49.99 on an XBox Live membership for the Netflix capability as opposed to the $99 for ATV.

The wireless aspect of ATV is definitely an appealing trait over the ethernet tethered xbox live.

Appreciate any feedback.

The new ATV (as well as the current) can stream your HD or SD TV shows, music videos, movies, music or podcasts from your computer to your TV. It's simple to setup and use. I've watched probably hundreds of videos (mostly TV shows) I've bought from iTunes on my Apple TV. SInce it's an Apple product, it authorizes your device to play protected content.

Netflix is not on the current Apple TV, but will be on the new Apple TV.

The XBox Gold membership will eventually need to be renewed, whereas the Apple TV is a one-time purchase and will stream your content from iTunes seamlessly, whereas your Xbox will have to have to have the DRM removed in order to stream, and even then the interface probably won't be as nice. You get nice artwork and metadata on the Apple TV (like episode name, info, director, year, etc).

Seydlitz
Sep 9, 2010, 05:14 AM
it doesn't exist. all of the boxes i've used that do everything (play everything) have horrible interfaces. apple tv has a great interface but no 1080p/non-itunes format support. there's always building your own htpc (mac mini, nettop, etc.) but those will run more than $250 or won't be powerful enough for 1080p.


Nonsense, really nonsense. Asus 1012 Atom system(or another quiet Ion system) +XBMC Live. And you will be set back 250$, not much more.

1. The XBMC interface is top notch
2. Codec support as good as it gets
3. Netflix capabilities
4. 1080P through HW acceleration (Nvidia Ion)
5. Silent. Not every Ion is silent, but Acer and Asus have very quiet systems.
6. Ease of use. Download the XBMC Live cd ready for Atom and your good to go.
7. 1Gb network capability
8. Built in HDD
9. Memory and HDD upgradeable
10. Multiple USB ports

I prefer the Mac mini as the general usability (better processor and OS)is higher, but an Atom HTPC is quite amazing. The new Mac mini pricing make this gap (to?) big.

I'm not saying that this is what the ATV should be, as it would just hurt the sales of the mini, but claiming something like it doesn't exist is nonsense. It exists for quite awhile now.

Oh and can the UI-Interface argument please die? XBMC runs on almost everything and has an extremely nice interface (with scrapers and what not). If you use OSX you can also use sibling Plex. The argument that an XBOX has a horrible interface is put to shame by the cold hard fact that the best interface (XBMC) is indeed born on the XBOX.

A telltale sign: Almost any OSX HTPC, be it a mini or ATV is built around XBMC/Plex. Considering XBMC is platform independent this invalidates all the UI arguments.

mattwolfmatt
Sep 30, 2010, 11:57 AM
Is there ANY reason to move from a Mac Mini Media Center (with a 1TB external HD) to the Apple TV? I can't think of one. Anyone?

krizko
Sep 30, 2010, 12:00 PM
Honestly, the kicker to me is that they wont play .MKV, .xvid, .avi, or any number of other formats I have my media in.

I want:

A unit with HDMI
A unit that can stream and process 1080p via streaming from my network
A unit that will play almost any format I throw at it
A unit that has a user friendly UI with decent organization
Something that integrates with my universal remotes.

I would be willing to pay $250 for this. I wouldn't pay $99 for the Apple TV

PS3 with PS3 Media Server can do all of the above.

CrAkD
Sep 30, 2010, 12:05 PM
PS3 with PS3 Media Server can do all of the above.

yeah not well tho. fast forwarding some formats is atrocious on PSM and some wont play at all. Im betting apple tv will be able to play all of these formats with ease with the new Air Video app for ATV ;)

Imsuperjp
Sep 30, 2010, 09:13 PM
So far I am very happy with the new apple TVs. I even tried streaming the same movie from 3 different apple tvs at the same time and works flawlessly. Set up was easy.