PDA

View Full Version : Apple TV Delayed Until March




Pages : 1 [2]

Avatar74
Feb 28, 2007, 07:31 AM
Is that a scene from Back to the Future?

Yup. To the left is a signed print of the two final concept sketches of the time machine, drawn by Andrew Probert (http://www.probertdesigns.com).


Clever, isn't it? :rolleyes:



Evangelion
Feb 28, 2007, 07:49 AM
Perhaps, like me, he puts his backups on a RAID array, so that his backups won't be lost due to a single drive failure.

RAID is not backup, true. But, using RAID for your main drives does greatly reduce the risk of loss due to drive failure - which is certainly a major reason for backups. So, if you are only concerned about drive failures - RAID can be a reasonable replacement for backups.

If you're concerned about corruption, accidental (or purposeful) deletion, and some other issues - then you should have a backup strategy in addition to RAID.

Actually, according to a recent study, RAID does not increase reliability that much. Many people believe that if one drive fails, it's OK, since they still have the other drive with the data. But real-life sstudies show that while RAID does increase data-retention, tie increase is not as big as some people believe.

AidenShaw
Feb 28, 2007, 09:25 AM
Actually, according to a recent study, RAID does not increase reliability that much. Many people believe that if one drive fails, it's OK, since they still have the other drive with the data. But real-life sstudies show that while RAID does increase data-retention, tie increase is not as big as some people believe.

That's why I look for arrays that support RAID-6, preferably with hot spares ...

Scarpad
Feb 28, 2007, 10:54 AM
All this :apple: TV & iPhone rant...again.
I could really care less for it; I won't be buying one. Never cared. Same thing for the stupid iPhone. Am I the only person who's dropped the ball on these two products and doesn't see the hype behind them?
Flame awayyy...

I actually had one on Order till I stepped back and gave it some thought about it . Was it really giving me anything I already had not been doing with my Mac Mini. Right now it's on the Network connected to my 32"LCD and I pull down Vids and Play them locally with VLC, usually in Xvid Format, and they look Great. The Pretty Interface is not going to add any more real meat to what I'm doing and it's going to restrict me on Format. So I cancelled.

Padriac
Feb 28, 2007, 02:24 PM
1) DivX doesn't matter in the legal mass market. Not even a blip on the radar.
2) Obviously a full fledged computer (Mac Mini) is a superset of this product. It is also over twice as expensive. Set-top box is a different beast than a full fledged computer. If you have a mac mini hooked up to your TV then it's pointless to consider this product (unless you are looking to get rid of the mini).
3) This product (indirectly) makes the assumption that DVRs are obsolete technology. Recording live TV makes no sense when you are buying content on demand. Apple is skipping the DVR thing (they may be ahead of their time on this, but it's a chicken/egg thing so they had to do it). An Apple TV with a DVR is simply ludicrous when you take their philosophy into account. Yes, content is still not quite up to snuff in many ways, but it's a chicken/egg thing... something had to budge.
4) Xbox solution is still more expensive.
5) Most people just don't get this product (as in they literally don't understand what it does).
6) I think it's hilarious when people say "why would I get this product when I can just..." and then they list some way complicated process and niche codecs. This is the 1st mass market attempt at media streaming. This is the iPod of media streaming: not the first, not the best codec support, but the best ease of use, interface, and simplicity.
7) More/HD iTunes Video content:Apple TV::chicken:egg

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 28, 2007, 02:45 PM
But when the format changes, we actually get more than we did with the old format. What do we get with ITMS that we do not get with DVD's? I know what we get with DVD's though: Superior picture, superior audio, extras and subtitles.

Convenience. As of now this isn't that big a deal since as mentioned already the selection isn't all that great. But the major issue with iTunes movies is the speed limits of high speed connections. I have a pretty fast internet connection, and a movie that's 1.4 GB in size can take a little over an hour to download. In the time it would take to download an HD movie from iTS, I could drive miles away to find the same movie with time to spare. Because of that special features and other add-ons to hard copy material are no shows.

I believe that this idea will stick and become more extensive. As mentioned by another already, Apple already does offer HD content online, their QuickTime trailer site. They have 1080p videos available for viewing, which look amazing. If not for the serious hurdles of downloading content from the internet, I'll bet iTunes would've already offered HD movies from the moment their movie store was opened. Thankfully, the movies already available look great on my regular CRT set. Hopefully the conditions will improve so that feature length HD movies will be readily available online.

I have zero interest in recording off of television, even if it's cable television. Too often I've had signal hiccups where the picture suddenly got blurry or there were little grainy lines on the image. TV recording, to me, is unreliable and quite frankly not worth the trouble. For less I can simply use Acquisition and download the shows that don't require high quality images, such as the Adult Swim lineup, and for 2 bucks I can buy 24 episodes, which is really all I ever watch.

whatever
Feb 28, 2007, 03:58 PM
But when the format changes, we actually get more than we did with the old format. What do we get with ITMS that we do not get with DVD's? I know what we get with DVD's though: Superior picture, superior audio, extras and subtitles.
Well today videos on iTunes gives us convenience. If I miss an episode of 24, I can download it from iTunes and watch it. If there is something I don't TiVo or DVR or the stupid channel that I'm recording messes with the schedule and the show runs over the scheduled time (VH1 does this all of the time for their first run shows) I can catch the last five minutes on iTunes.

In the future iTunes will provide me superior quality than a DVD. And with a smaller investment ($299 for an TV). Also there is no reason why they can't offer all of DVD extras as well.

Sure we might lose Easter Eggs, but oh well.

whatever
Feb 28, 2007, 04:13 PM
Repeat after me: RAID is not backup. RAID is fault-tolerant storage but it's not backup.

Repeat after me: If a person has a RAID system in place and they use it to backup their system, then the RAID is being used a backup device.

If a person backups their data on a thumbdrive, the thumbnail is a backup device.

Backup in Wikipedia states:
"In information technology, backup refers to the copying of data so that these additional copies may be restored after a data loss event. Backups are useful primarily for two purposes: to restore a computer to an operational state following a disaster (called disaster recovery) and to restore small numbers of files after they have been accidentally deleted or corrupted. Backups differ from archives in the sense that archives are the primary copy of data and backups are a secondary copy of data. Backup systems differ from fault-tolerant systems in the sense that backup systems assume that a fault will cause a data loss event and fault-tolerant systems assume a fault will not. Backups are typically that last line of defense against data loss, and consequently the least granular and the least convenient to use."

Which does not support your comment. Because what I stated that I do is backup (a secondary copy of data) onto a fault-tolerant system.

Avatar74
Feb 28, 2007, 06:26 PM
The tacky white plastic power brick next to the center channel speaker?

No, that's the AirPort Express. I placed it there because:

a) I don't have a longer TOSLINK cable.

b) The wifi reception is better there... I have weird issues because the walls have steel framing. I'll make some modifications to the arrangement but it's not worth it until I get an AppleTV in place.

The third 80's reference is on the screen. It's a scene from "Back to the Future" as Maccus Aurelius guessed. The clock face from the town's clock tower (actually it's Courthouse Square on the Universal Backlot) in the scene where Marty makes his attempt at getting back to 1985. I figured it was kind of clever (in a dumb way :D) since the shot has no actors in it but it's directly related to the print on the left which is a signed print of the final design sketches of the time machine in that movie.

Avatar74
Feb 28, 2007, 07:26 PM
1) DivX doesn't matter in the legal mass market. Not even a blip on the radar.
2) Obviously a full fledged computer (Mac Mini) is a superset of this product. It is also over twice as expensive. Set-top box is a different beast than a full fledged computer. If you have a mac mini hooked up to your TV then it's pointless to consider this product (unless you are looking to get rid of the mini).
3) This product (indirectly) makes the assumption that DVRs are obsolete technology. Recording live TV makes no sense when you are buying content on demand. Apple is skipping the DVR thing (they may be ahead of their time on this, but it's a chicken/egg thing so they had to do it). An Apple TV with a DVR is simply ludicrous when you take their philosophy into account. Yes, content is still not quite up to snuff in many ways, but it's a chicken/egg thing... something had to budge.
4) Xbox solution is still more expensive.
5) Most people just don't get this product (as in they literally don't understand what it does).
6) I think it's hilarious when people say "why would I get this product when I can just..." and then they list some way complicated process and niche codecs. This is the 1st mass market attempt at media streaming. This is the iPod of media streaming: not the first, not the best codec support, but the best ease of use, interface, and simplicity.
7) More/HD iTunes Video content:Apple TV::chicken:egg

Excellent points, all... particularly 3, 6 and 7. DVR's in the conventional sense are unnecessary, but if one wants to implement one... the AppleTV is not the place to implement it. AppleTV is a media bridge. The DVR, if any, would be on the computer(s) holding the movie library.

Good industrial design requires that the execution of the task should be simpler than the result one is trying to achieve. If it's the other way around it's inefficient and useless to all except those who find delight in the process more so than the result. Such people exist (and in some cases I'm one of them... e.g. music recording) and there's nothing to disparage there... but even in the process there's a point at which tools become unnecessarily complicated to the point where they make the process itself too cumbersome to enjoy.

It has been the habit of Apple to support their innovations with content when the innovations hit the market, not long before and not long after. Keeping to narrow timing on this is critical to the success of the hardware they're trying to sell. Release HD content too early or too late, and the interest wanes and short term thinking people get impatient.

Even now people are complaining about what the iPhone doesn't have or what the AppleTV doesn't have... and yet most of what they complain about, most interestingly, can be resolved with software updates. Very few of the feature complaints are ones requiring hardware solutions to resolve... except perhaps a display-side camera for iPhone videoconferencing. But even that is being worked on and the solution being developed is far radical than the one that isn't there now:

Apple filed a patent for an Integrated Sensing Device whose surface, more or less, is both the display AND the video/picture capture device. They specified in the patent that future applications would include: standalone displays, mobile computing/communications devices, phones and medical devices (e.g. endoscope).

To be very blunt, a lot of the complainers simply do not possess an ability to think outside, if you'll pardon the managerial cliché, the proverbial box.

Pooldraft
Feb 28, 2007, 10:28 PM
This delay better lead(at release) to 1080p support it is a shame that they chose 720p (not so good)

Also I would like some gigabit ethernet connectivity(as I would in the new AIRPORT) sad that Apple is cutting down on this nice trait to cut cost and because "no one will use it" I WILL APPLE.

This seems to be the standard these days from apple cutting back on their cutting edge technology and going with stuff that can be used more mainstream. Profits are found in mass appeal/production.

It is a SHAME:( SHAME ON YOU:apple:

EricNau
Mar 1, 2007, 01:06 AM
This delay better lead(at release) to 1080p support it is a shame that they chose 720p (not so good)

Also I would like some gigabit ethernet connectivity(as I would in the new AIRPORT) sad that Apple is cutting down on this nice trait to cut cost and because "no one will use it" I WILL APPLE.

This seems to be the standard these days from apple cutting back on their cutting edge technology and going with stuff that can be used more mainstream. Profits are found in mass appeal/production.

It is a SHAME:( SHAME ON YOU:apple:
There won't be any hardware updates - there just isn't enough time.

Evangelion
Mar 1, 2007, 02:31 AM
Convenience.

Is it really that much more convenient? I don't find it that hard to take out a DVD and play it back on a DVD-player. And with AppleTV I need to have a computer up & running, so I could stream, or I need to send the content to the AppleTV. Either way, there is some hassle involved.

Pooldraft
Mar 1, 2007, 08:40 AM
There won't be any hardware updates - there just isn't enough time.

Why dream when you are always WRONG damn me.

Figures!

:D

Krevnik
Mar 1, 2007, 10:45 AM
Also I would like some gigabit ethernet connectivity(as I would in the new AIRPORT) sad that Apple is cutting down on this nice trait to cut cost and because "no one will use it" I WILL APPLE.

No, you won't... Blu-Ray streams /peak/ at 30-40Mbps on dual-layer discs where the movie itself is over 33GB in size.

100Mbps is enough for 1080p content in MPEG-2, let alone the fact that a decent AVC/H.264 or VC-1 encode can usually be done in about half the space. Gigabit ethernet is mostly good for syncing, and unfortunately, that will be slow, with or without Gigabit.

Repeat after me: If a person has a RAID system in place and they use it to backup their system, then the RAID is being used a backup device.

Yup, this is what I do as well. I have a RAID-5 NAS which houses my archives and backups. So while I do run the risk of losing some amount of content (the archival copies I have of projects I don't work on anymore), anything on my actual machines has at least two copies, with one copy on a RAID-5.

fastdrive
Mar 1, 2007, 11:56 AM
I currently use XP and Tversity software to real time transcode pretty much any format video to my 360 connected to my HDTV. Not only can I view video's, photo's and music stored locally but I can also stream audio and video streams from the net.

If only some intrepid developer can come up with similar software for the Mac then I might consider the :apple: tv and get rid of my XP computer.

fastdrive
Mar 1, 2007, 11:59 AM
No matter how much we like to admit it, DIVX does matter. There are a lot of people who pirate movies and right or wrong, even these people are looking for an easy way to watch all of those downloaded shows.

Peace
Mar 1, 2007, 12:19 PM
No matter how much we like to admit it, DIVX does matter. There are a lot of people who pirate movies and right or wrong, even these people are looking for an easy way to watch all of those downloaded shows.

Don't think Apple designs software/hardware to appease the movie pirates.

mattibek
Mar 1, 2007, 01:43 PM
I don't understand the :apple: tv. It doesn't seem usefull except for bragging rights. It lacks any real cross platform aps. I would like to see it be one of those devices that pushes your cable to your computer, infact if it had 400Gb, DVR, and stored my itunes collection so that I could access it remotely + plus pushed my cable to my computer then I'd be like wow where has this been all my life. Hell I'd pay $600 for all that. Even if it had one more of these features I'd like it more. Maybe I've got it's concept all wrong but it seems like a waste of money. Is there anything cool about this thing or is it just a stay at home ipod without a screen?

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 1, 2007, 04:22 PM
Is it really that much more convenient? I don't find it that hard to take out a DVD and play it back on a DVD-player. And with AppleTV I need to have a computer up & running, so I could stream, or I need to send the content to the AppleTV. Either way, there is some hassle involved.

This is assuming that I have the hard copy on hand. For most of my movies this is the case, but for many many other videos there are no DVD's to play them from.

By convenience I simply meant the actual access to media. When this concept matures people won't have to deal with sold out DVD's and such, since a movie file never runs out of stock and there's no lines to wait on. If you can't go out for some reason or if the weather doesn't permit you to drive to the video store you can download a movie. Albeit there are serious limitations now, but its advancement is probably not far off at all.

How is streaming from your computer a hassle? With the Airport, your iTunes library simply streams over to your ATV and you use the remote on the television, you never touch the computer.

Why would this thing need a larger HD? You don't actually have to stream everything over in order to browse through the library. It's simply fed data so that you can search through everything you have, and when you select a file to play it streams over. The on board HD is to have a buffer, not to be a full blown mass storage device. A bigger HD is a waste of space, since the files don't sync up and fill up the 40GB HD, in fact I'll bet that while you browse through your iTunes library on the ATV, the HD is completely empty. It doesn't fill up until you start playing something.

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 1, 2007, 04:25 PM
Don't think Apple designs software/hardware to appease the movie pirates.

You're right. Apple doesn't develop its software and hardware to appease pirates, however, third party developers do. MactheRipper, VisualHub, HandBrake and so forth are great ways to pay much less or nothing at all for content.

DMann
Mar 1, 2007, 09:18 PM
You're right. Apple doesn't develop its software and hardware to appease pirates, however, third party developers do. MactheRipper, VisualHub, HandBrake and so forth are great ways to pay much less or nothing at all for content.

True, Apple neither condemns nor condones the use of P2P, extraction tools, etc. Third party developers take it from there.

Krevnik
Mar 1, 2007, 11:51 PM
You're right. Apple doesn't develop its software and hardware to appease pirates, however, third party developers do. MactheRipper, VisualHub, HandBrake and so forth are great ways to pay much less or nothing at all for content.

That depends on the content. If you do run this software on your own DVDs, you still have to pay for those. Although for the most part, buying your own DVDs cost about the same, or a little higher than iTunes. Then again, for me, it is about having my content in one place, not about the cost (with the exception for TV shows, which is still almost comparable to the DVDs).

Lynxpro
Mar 2, 2007, 02:32 PM
Don't think Apple designs software/hardware to appease the movie pirates.


Why not? The iPod was certainly meant to accommodate the music pirates before (and after) the introduction of the iTunes Music Store...

Say with me now...

RIP. MIX. BURN.*


*well, technically, that was for when the iMac started sporting the CD-RW drives, but you get my point.

Krevnik
Mar 2, 2007, 05:43 PM
Why not? The iPod was certainly meant to accommodate the music pirates before (and after) the introduction of the iTunes Music Store...

Say with me now...

RIP. MIX. BURN.*


*well, technically, that was for when the iMac started sporting the CD-RW drives, but you get my point.

There is a fine line between piracy and fair use. I would argue that I have the right to make mix CDs of music I have purchased under fair use. Apple seems to agree, considering that part of the agreement with the RIAA is that users should be able to burn CDs of their purchased music from iTMS. Also remember that the wrapping on the iPods included "Don't Steal Music", even during the "RIP. MIX. BURN." campaign.

The big problem I have is that the 'popular' XviD/MP3 AVI file isn't really following any actual standard. There is no spec on how this file is supposed to behave, mostly because of the VBR MP3 component. It was literally something that someone made work, and a lot of the other open source guys worked it out as well. AppleTV does play back XviD and DivX just fine (unless you use the very advanced features of the codecs), because XviD and DivX are MPEG-4 compliant. I have MP4 files which were made from AVIs where I just copied the video, and re-encoded the audio to AAC. Worked pretty well as long as it wasn't heavy on the B-Frames (which you are going to see mostly from either the scene encodes, or fansub encodes, one which is known copyright infringement, and another which is a known grey area). In my case, almost all my content in iTunes for movies and TV shows are encoded using XviD or x264 for the video, and AAC for the audio... plays back on the iPod fine.

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 3, 2007, 08:40 PM
I think another large roadblock in higher quality movie content in iTunes is the iPod itself. HD movies will not play on an iPod, and so will sort of limit the content to at-home usage. In order for the movies to be at all worth buying, they have to be playable on the iPod as well. Video conversion software is no good as a work around since DRM prevents them from being altered in any way. If iTunes went HD, they pretty much abandon the iPod. It wouldn't seem very worth it to repurchase iPod compatible movies on top of the higher end stuff.

Pooldraft
Mar 4, 2007, 01:03 PM
no one cares who really wants a multimedia bridge. The FCC just opened up the cable box market that is where Apple should be directing their efforts DVRs and such not a simple wireless bridge, hell I would rather have it wired and support 1080p, what a piece of crap. :mad:

elppa
Mar 4, 2007, 03:22 PM
It amuses me Apple has a history of understanding their customers better than they understand themselves. :apple:TV I feel may be another example of that.