PDA

View Full Version : Apple TV Shipping Tuesday, March 20th?




MacRumors
Mar 18, 2007, 10:54 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Investor's Business Daily reports (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-15305161.htm) that the Apple TV will be shipping on Tuesday. This information is not particularly top-secret, as all early web-orders for the Apple TV reflect a March 20th ship date.

The Apple TV was originally set to be shipping in February, but was delayed until March.

Apple has already seeded users with software updates to support the upcoming product. iTunes 7.1 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/05/itunes-7-1-apple-tv-support-and-quicktime-7-1-5/) introduced a new "Apple TV" preference menu that shows all available Apple TV's.

Meanwhile, as reported by iLounge (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/quicktime-gains-720p-apple-tv-high-definition-export-mode/9658), the latest Quicktime update introduced a "Export to Apple TV" feature for Pro users.

Export to Apple TV creates not only full DVD-quality 720 by 404 videos, but also 1280 by 720 videos. These videos are viewable in iTunes, but cannot be transferred directly via iTunes to an fifth-generation iPod.

The 1280 by 720 pixel resolution, also known as 720P, is one of several high-definition video formats supported by current televisions.

Last week many customers reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/12/apple-tv-orders-being-charged/) pre-authorization charges for the Apple TV appearing on credit cards.



blueflame
Mar 18, 2007, 11:00 PM
To bad. i wish apple made one of these sans the hdd. I would love yo pay 179 for something like this. to be honest, I do not know why they just didnt make this into their airport extreeme router. I would snatch one up in a second.

Peace
Mar 18, 2007, 11:03 PM
To bad. i wish apple made one of these sans the hdd. I would love yo pay 179 for something like this. to be honest, I do not know why they just didnt make this into their airport extreeme router. I would snatch one up in a second.

To make it into the router one of two things would happen.

1. the router would be stuck next to the television for life.
2. Wide screen TV's would have to become wireless.

Naimfan
Mar 18, 2007, 11:04 PM
Sounds like good news to me.....and it seems to open up a whole new range of possibilities.......

Bob

Multimedia
Mar 18, 2007, 11:06 PM
First post Woo!!

AppleTv still is not going to work out the way Apple wants it too

I think it could if it were at least $199

I don't know how much of a mass market there is for a $299 device to stream video.It's redundant for me 'cause I am directly connected to a 40" Samsung LN-S4095 1920x1080 HDTV which affords me a superior set of services including video from two EyeTV HD tuners.

samh004
Mar 18, 2007, 11:12 PM
Bring on the modifications to expand the HDD, then I'll consider buying.

chris.niziolek
Mar 18, 2007, 11:16 PM
Bring on the modifications to expand the HDD, then I'll consider buying.
If the HD was bigger, then I would certainly buy one. Im waiting until the HD gets bigger, or the price goes down, or until I get a TV.

danielsan26
Mar 18, 2007, 11:25 PM
I remain skeptical, the FCC has yet to announce its approval.

Go here. (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/tcb/index.html)

Do a "generic search"

Grantee code "BCG"

Date Range: "01/01/2007" to tomorrow (or whenever)

The only device approved this year is the new Airport Extreme.

macboy62
Mar 18, 2007, 11:43 PM
Do you think they will be in the Apple Stores on that date?

We have a new Apple Store opening here in Tokyo on the 21st (20th USA). I would love to find one on display Wednesday morning.

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 12:33 AM
To make it into the router one of two things would happen.

1. the router would be stuck next to the television for life.
2. Wide screen TV's would have to become wireless.

Actually a combo router/aTV makes some sense. Since your TV is usually next to where your cable comes in the house, it's a logical place for your router (if you have cable internet). Add a few TV ports to the back of the router, a hard disk, a few more guts and voila! Then I'd also make it a PVR, if it was up to me. :)

Bobjob186
Mar 19, 2007, 12:46 AM
I bet the first day this thing comes out we'll get complete instructions on how to expand this baby to 250gb+ then I'll be going down to the apple store and picking it up. Think about it, download all the movies you want upstairs transfer over to the Apple TV and you have the most extensive video library ever at the press of a button. Question though, will it play avi straight out of the box???

theheadguy
Mar 19, 2007, 12:57 AM
I remain skeptical, the FCC has yet to announce its approval.
Go here. (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/tcb/index.html)
Do a "generic search"
Grantee code "BCG"
Date Range: "01/01/2007" to tomorrow (or whenever)
The only device approved this year is the new Airport Extreme.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but... why would they need to grant FCC Approval? It's using 802.11g and 802.11n which is used in many devices. Other than that, it has a little hard drive (like any current DVR) and an already used remote control. I guess I don't see what's so new about it aside from using iTunes as the source... ::shrug::

Multimedia
Mar 19, 2007, 12:57 AM
I remain skeptical, the FCC has yet to announce its approval. Go here. (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/tcb/index.html) Do a "generic search": Grantee code "BCG" Date Range: "01/01/2007" to tomorrow (or whenever)

The only device approved this year is the new Airport Extreme.I don't think the FCC has jurisdiction over Apple TV do they? If they do it could be like any other government beurocracy that doesn't keep their website current ever.

hatcher002
Mar 19, 2007, 01:12 AM
i have use these for about 2 weeks grate tool takes some time to convert but if you install it on multiple mac os journaled partitions and have multiple dvd drive you can do few at one time which speeds up the Process and i have not ran into an dvd that i could not ripped because of encryption
http://www.mp4converter.net/appletv-video-converter-mac.html

danielsan26
Mar 19, 2007, 01:22 AM
I don't think the FCC has jurisdiction over Apple TV do they? If they do it could be like any other government beurocracy that doesn't keep their website current ever.

Actually, all the airport extreme approvals were up the same day they were approved, the day after keynote if I remember correctly. Also, the FCC has to approve every consumer wireless device individually, whether using standardized frequencies or not.

macboy62
Mar 19, 2007, 01:28 AM
Actually, all the airport extreme approvals were up the same day they were approved, the day after keynote if I remember correctly. Also, the FCC has to approve every consumer wireless device individually, whether using standardized frequencies or not.

So, does that mean that the FCC approvals could be posted on the 20th or just a day/s before?

JackSYi
Mar 19, 2007, 01:48 AM
I believe Apple TV shipment is going to coincide with an announcement of the Leopard release date and the announcement of iLife 07 and iWork 07.

matticus008
Mar 19, 2007, 01:48 AM
To make it into the router one of two things would happen.

1. the router would be stuck next to the television for life.
2. Wide screen TV's would have to become wireless.
Or...
3. People could keep their existing router wherever they want it and get a bonus extender out of the :apple:TV.

As it stands, people have to have a separate router anyway, so if it were built into the Airport Extreme for a lower price, it would let some people do away with the extra device and for others it would simply make no difference that :apple:TV has wireless routing.

Of course, the original suggestion is not going to happen. One of these without a hard drive would be stupid (unless you enjoy buffering pauses), and taking the hard drive out has no substantial price impact (a 40GB hard drive is not more than $35 or so), and so the end result is that it would increase Airport base station price considerably and wouldn't work very well for video streaming.

danielsan26
Mar 19, 2007, 02:04 AM
So, does that mean that the FCC approvals could be posted on the 20th or just a day/s before?

I don't know, the FCC ID's have to be printed on the device, as they are on the bottom of my airport extreme, which got its approval a month and a half before it shipped.

macboy62
Mar 19, 2007, 02:09 AM
I don't know, the FCC ID's have to be printed on the device, as they are on the bottom of my airport extreme, which got its approval a month and a half before it shipped.

Ummm, doesn't look like I will be seeing an :apple: TV on Wednesday's :apple: Store opening then. Never mind a free T-shirt will still go down well.

MacinJosh
Mar 19, 2007, 02:21 AM
Export to Apple TV creates not only full DVD-quality 720 by 404 videos, but also 1280 by 720 videos. These videos are viewable in iTunes, but cannot be transferred directly via iTunes to an fifth-generation iPod.

The 1280 by 720 pixel resolution, also known as 720P, is one of several high-definition video formats supported by current televisions.

740x404 is NOT full DVD quality. 854x*** (NTSC) and 1024x*** (PAL) is the full DVD resolution. Why? Because anamorphic widescreen video is stretched to display it in the correct aspect ratio. Even though the native resolution is 720x480 (for NTSC), the resulting image would be 854x480 when properly stretched. No point arguing this fact as I can provide all the evidence there is. Go google it or Wikipedia it.

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 03:15 AM
In unrelated news it was also confirmed this morning that the Sun did indeed rise in the east and is rumoured to be on a trajectory to set somewhere in the west early this evening. It has also been confirmed that the Earth is indeed still rotating, despite concerns that rotation might be suspended due to delay in shipping the new Apple product: despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Come on, this is hardly news, let alone a rumour ;-)

Jim Campbell
Mar 19, 2007, 03:57 AM
I bet the first day this thing comes out we'll get complete instructions on how to expand this baby to 250gb+ then I'll be going down to the apple store and picking it up. Think about it, download all the movies you want upstairs transfer over to the Apple TV and you have the most extensive video library ever at the press of a button. Question though, will it play avi straight out of the box???

I don't get it. I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on about a bigger HDD in this thing. It's not supposed to house your video library - that's the point of it. You've already got a video library on your Mac or PC which - traditionally - is sitting in your spare bedroom (or somewhere other than your living room).

The point of AppleTV is to enable you to access that content via your HD TV without having to move it.

Why does everyone seem to find this so hard to grasp?

Cheers!

Jim

dante@sisna.com
Mar 19, 2007, 04:11 AM
I don't get it. I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on about a bigger HDD in this thing. It's not supposed to house your video library - that's the point of it. You've already got a video library on your Mac or PC which - traditionally - is sitting in your spare bedroom (or somewhere other than your living room).

The point of AppleTV is to enable you to access that content via your HD TV without having to move it.

Why does everyone seem to find this so hard to grasp?

Cheers!

Jim

At least some of us get this.

I agree -- the HDD is ONLY A BUFFER.

SPUY767
Mar 19, 2007, 04:49 AM
i have use these for about 2 weeks grate tool takes some time to convert but if you install it on multiple mac os journaled partitions and have multiple dvd drive you can do few at one time which speeds up the Process and i have not ran into an dvd that i could not ripped because of encryption
http://www.mp4converter.net/appletv-video-converter-mac.html

Poor english, shady links. . . Anyone know anything about this other than the fact that this site is selling something for 35$ that Handbrake does for free?

Rod Rod
Mar 19, 2007, 05:11 AM
740x404 is NOT full DVD quality. 854x*** (NTSC) and 1024x*** (PAL) is the full DVD resolution. Why? Because anamorphic widescreen video is stretched to display it in the correct aspect ratio. Even though the native resolution is 720x480 (for NTSC), the resulting image would be 854x480 when properly stretched. No point arguing this fact as I can provide all the evidence there is. Go google it or Wikipedia it.

The "resulting image" could be anything and that proves nothing. A regular widescreen DVD plays back at 2560x1440 on a 30" Apple LCD. That doesn't make "full DVD quality" any more than 720x404 or 720x480. Stretching out an image doesn't add to its quality. You're right that there's no point to your argument. You've provided plenty of evidence already. :)

spicyapple
Mar 19, 2007, 05:28 AM
Full screen DVDs scale to 640x480 on standard def TVs. In this case, the resolution is decreased! Oh, the humanity!

Mr Skills
Mar 19, 2007, 05:29 AM
Does the "export to Apple TV" option have any bearing on the ease of ripping DVDs to play on the Apple TV? It all seems a bit complicated to get this working at the moment.

Shagrat
Mar 19, 2007, 05:51 AM
740x404 is NOT full DVD quality. 854x*** (NTSC) and 1024x*** (PAL) is the full DVD resolution. Why? Because anamorphic widescreen video is stretched to display it in the correct aspect ratio. Even though the native resolution is 720x480 (for NTSC), the resulting image would be 854x480 when properly stretched. No point arguing this fact as I can provide all the evidence there is. Go google it or Wikipedia it.

From wikipedia...
The typical video resolution for an NTSC disc is 720 480, while a PAL disc is 720 576. The specifications for video files on a DVD can be any of the following:
Up to 9.8 Mbit/s (9800 kbit/s) MPEG-2 video
Up to 1.856 Mbit/s (1856 kbit/s) MPEG-1 video
PAL:
720 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1)
704 576 pixels MPEG-2
352 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard)
352 288 pixels MPEG-2
352 288 pixels MPEG-1 (Same as the VCD Standard)
NTSC:
720 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1)
704 480 pixels MPEG-2
352 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard)
352 240 pixels MPEG-2
352 240 pixels MPEG-1 (Same as the VCD Standard)

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 06:14 AM
Does the "export to Apple TV" option have any bearing on the ease of ripping DVDs to play on the Apple TV? It all seems a bit complicated to get this working at the moment.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. If Apple implemented a one-click solution to DVD ripping, the movie industry would be right on their back.

Mr Skills
Mar 19, 2007, 06:21 AM
I wouldn't get your hopes up. If Apple implemented a one-click solution to DVD ripping, the movie industry would be right on their back.

You're right :( but I was wondering if this might make the current work-arounds a little simpler, at least.

Surely sooner or later some program like Handbrake will have a one-click Dvd-to-AppleTV function...

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 06:34 AM
You're right :( but I was wondering if this might make the current work-arounds a little simpler, at least.

Surely sooner or later some program like Handbrake will have a one-click Dvd-to-AppleTV function...

That was my theory. The iPod took off because of the simplicity of one-click CD ripping, and I thought that the AppleTV would only take off with the simplicity of one click DVD ripping.

However, I think Apple might think the future of AppleTV is in downloaded movies rather than ripped ones as that gives them more control over content.

gmidgley
Mar 19, 2007, 06:41 AM
I just checked my store, and my delivery data has gone.....it was the 27th!

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=70453&stc=1&d=1174304378

steve_hill4
Mar 19, 2007, 07:19 AM
You're right :( but I was wondering if this might make the current work-arounds a little simpler, at least.

Surely sooner or later some program like Handbrake will have a one-click Dvd-to-AppleTV function...

I would say more likely a one-click "Export for :apple: tv" which would basically import it to the relevant folder and playlist for said device. I think I am currently running the latest Handbrake and haven't seen an "Export to iPod function yet".

I'll get a HDTV or two myself before buying an :apple: tv, but it is also much more tempting to buy a Mac Mini loaded up and run that as a media receiver. Bonjoured to other machines and with a TV tuner in it, it's a fantastic little PVR and DVD player.

Half Glass
Mar 19, 2007, 07:20 AM
I sent a 1280x720 H.264 mov that I recorded and encoded from Migila's TV Mini HD and chose the Export to :apple: TV function for giggles (and to see what res and data rate they used.

The output file was 960x540.


That is 1/2 1080i's resolution, not HD in anyone's book.

--HG

MeijApple
Mar 19, 2007, 07:20 AM
Hello,

Same here. I also can not cancel the order anymore !

ITS SHIPPING TIME !

CoreWeb
Mar 19, 2007, 07:26 AM
The movie industry would go nuts, perhaps, if Apple allowed ripping to .mp4. But what if they allowed the AppleTV or iTunes to play VIDEO_TS folders? I don't remember, but I think the contents of these folders are still encrypted, and if Apple allowed ripping in this manner, it would be like simply opening the DVD, selecting the VIDEO_TS folder, and copying it to your disc - only, Apple would do it automatically. I may be way off base, but I think it is quite possible, and there would be no reason for anyone to get angry.

I was also wondering about the possibility that iTunes would convert stuff on-the-fly for AppleTV. For instance, say the format of the video in iTunes is not supported by the AppleTV; what if iTunes played the video, and streamed a 720p version of it in whatever format to the AppleTV? Not sure it would work due to CPU restrictions, but it could... Could also open up possibilities for screen viewing...

Mr Skills
Mar 19, 2007, 07:33 AM
The movie industry would go nuts, perhaps, if Apple allowed ripping to .mp4.

That doesn't preclude some nice piece of shareware doing it, though :)



.

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 07:34 AM
740x404 is NOT full DVD quality. 854x*** (NTSC) and 1024x*** (PAL) is the full DVD resolution. Why? Because anamorphic widescreen video is stretched to display it in the correct aspect ratio. Even though the native resolution is 720x480 (for NTSC), the resulting image would be 854x480 when properly stretched. No point arguing this fact as I can provide all the evidence there is. Go google it or Wikipedia it.

Incorrect. NTSC DVD resolution is 720x480 with a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9. This is comparable to an image of 720x534 with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0.

Note that LCD projector resolution (some are indeed 854 x 480) has nothing to do with NTSC DVD resolution.

704 x 480 is the size-proportional equivalent of 16:9 DVD non-anamorphic playback with no extra pixels.

720p, however, can be natively represented because all computer displays and operating systems that drive them are progressive-scan by nature and because the H.264 Main Profile 3.1 is capable of natively supporting it.

In other words, 704x480 is typically the adjusted EDTV 480p widescreen resolution when a system is not capable of anamorphic adjustment or nonsquare pixels.

GregA
Mar 19, 2007, 07:49 AM
740x404 is NOT full DVD quality. 854x*** (NTSC) and 1024x*** (PAL) is the full DVD resolution. Why? Because anamorphic widescreen video is stretched to display it in the correct aspect ratio. Even though the native resolution is 720x480 (for NTSC), the resulting image would be 854x480 when properly stretched. No point arguing this fact as I can provide all the evidence there is. Go google it or Wikipedia it.

The interesting thing about playing back a DVD is that while the full 480 lines is on the DVD (or 576 for PAL), if you are showing it on a regular TV the player just removes every 4th line.

This is why (when buying a 4:3 TV) it was better to buy one with a widescreen option. You would then tell your DVD player it was connected to a widescreen (so it would send the full 480 lines), and then have your TV squash that image (so that it was in the correct proportion but still kept 480lines). The extra resolution was noticeable.

Of course, these days you just buy a widescreen TV or plasma or whatever.

NightStorm
Mar 19, 2007, 08:02 AM
Here's to hoping we all get shipping notices tomorrow... I'd really like to start ripping my DVD collection; hopefully Apple will surprise us with some way to preserve/playback 5.1 soundtracks, and a nice 720p resolution bump on the iTS. I'd REALLY like to buy Heroes, but want it in HD, and will wait for the rumored HD-DVD release if necessary.

MacinJosh
Mar 19, 2007, 08:34 AM
Incorrect. NTSC DVD resolution is 720x480 with a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9. This is comparable to an image of 720x534 with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0.

Note that LCD projector resolution (some are indeed 854 x 480) has nothing to do with NTSC DVD resolution.

704 x 480 is the size-proportional equivalent of the "live" area of a non-anamorphic hard-matted DVD when factoring in progressive deinterlacing. 720p is still 720p because all computer displays and operating systems that drive them are progressive-scan by nature.

This is to everyone alse I'm not quoting as well.

Let's talk NTSC for now.

DVD’s native resolution is 720×480. That’s a 4:3 aspect ratio but an anamorphic picture (squashed). When it’s displayed on a computer or widescreen TV, the picture is stretched to 16:9 and the resolution effectively becomes 854×480.

Read these links before you start arguing about things you don't understand:

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm
http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/dvd-format-video/3-5-What-s-widescreen-How-do-the-aspect-ratios-work.html

Quote from previous link: “Anamorphic video is
best displayed on widescreen equipment, which stretches the video back out
to its original width. Alternatively, many new European 4:3 TV’s can reduce
the vertical scan area to restore the proper aspect ratio without losing
resolution (an automatic trigger signal is sent on SCART pin 8). Even
though almost all computers have 4:3 monitors, they have higher resolution
than TVs so they can display the full widescreen picture in a window
(854x480 pixels or bigger for NTSC; 1024x576 or bigger for PAL).”

Joshua.

EDIT: 854x480 is a scaled resolution. 720 horizontal pixels have been stretched to "cover" an area of 854 pixels in order to maintain the correct aspect ratio. Yeah, you could convert to 720x400 which is also a scaled resolution as the 480 vertical pixels have been squashed to 400 to maintain the correct 16:9 aspect ratio. Anyone can see, however, that the most benefitial resolution to retain the most pixels from the DVD is 854x480 as it results in no lost original pixels.

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 08:36 AM
To bad. i wish apple made one of these sans the hdd. I would love yo pay 179 for something like this. to be honest, I do not know why they just didnt make this into their airport extreeme router. I would snatch one up in a second.

What makes you think that removing a $20 HDD would knock $120 off the price, for starters? I'm sure that in a year or two they will do a "lite version" of the Apple TV built into a router, probably only supporting SD/480p resolutions to keep a "market separation" between it and the "real thing".

Anyways, I'm not keen on the AppleTV, either. I'm curiously awaiting the new "low priced" HD TiVos we're supposed to see this year. I JUST bought a Series2DT after having a Series1 for 4 years or so, but I'd upgrade again at the end of my one year discount service plan (for buying a refurb unit) if the hardware was right... The Series2 TiVo, with just a little bit of work and patience, effectively does everything the AppleTV does, except HD files, plus it's a great DVR.

MacSamurai
Mar 19, 2007, 08:47 AM
New update 7.1.1 :)

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 08:53 AM
Hmm...arguments about the actual resolutions of DVDs and HD content...


...GEEK FIGHT!!!!!!!!
:D
:apple:

stealthman1
Mar 19, 2007, 08:54 AM
New update 7.1.1 :)

Has Quicktime always been able to play .VOB files? Sans audio of course?

outlyer
Mar 19, 2007, 08:57 AM
d data rate they used.
The output file was 960x540.
That is 1/2 1080i's resolution, not HD in anyone's book.

--HG

To be pedantic, that is half of 1080p, not 1080i. 1081i is 540 lines, just shown interleaved. That 'i' means that in any given refresh on the screen, 540 lines are being drawn, by interleaving them.

A 720p or 1080p television will deinterlace the signal to make it progressive, but the actual resolution of the source is 540 lines per field, just displayed over 1080 lines of vertical resolution.

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 09:08 AM
This is to everyone alse I'm not quoting as well.

Let's talk NTSC for now.

DVD’s native resolution is 720×480. That’s a 4:3 aspect ratio but an anamorphic picture (squashed). When it’s displayed on a computer or widescreen TV, the picture is stretched to 16:9 and the resolution effectively becomes 854×480.

Read these links before you start arguing about things you don't understand:

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm
http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/dvd-format-video/3-5-What-s-widescreen-How-do-the-aspect-ratios-work.html

Quote from previous link: “Anamorphic video is
best displayed on widescreen equipment, which stretches the video back out
to its original width. Alternatively, many new European 4:3 TV’s can reduce
the vertical scan area to restore the proper aspect ratio without losing
resolution (an automatic trigger signal is sent on SCART pin 8). Even
though almost all computers have 4:3 monitors, they have higher resolution
than TVs so they can display the full widescreen picture in a window
(854x480 pixels or bigger for NTSC; 1024x576 or bigger for PAL).”

Joshua.

EDIT: 854x480 is a scaled resolution. 720 horizontal pixels have been stretched to "cover" an area of 854 pixels in order to maintain the correct aspect ratio. Yeah, you could convert to 720x400 which is also a scaled resolution as the 480 vertical pixels have been squashed to 400 to maintain the correct 16:9 aspect ratio. Anyone can see, however, that the most benefitial resolution to retain the most pixels from the DVD is 854x480 as it results in no lost original pixels.

This is a bogus argument. You are essentially stating (in your "EDIT" comment) that 854x480 is an imaginary figure (an "area of 854 pixels"). The screen resolution of a display, and the resolution of the digital input signal are two different things. You have clearly confused the two, as I'll demonstrate below.

In an anamorphic DVD, the resolution of the input signal is always 720x480. Whether displayed on a 4:3 TV or displayed on a 16:9 TV, the input signal is STILL 720x480. When the pixel aspect ratio is modified to "squeeze" the image to 16:9 frame aspect, the pixel count does not change. What is displayed is, excluding upconverting playback systems (let's assume a Widescreen EDTV for the moment), 720x480.

The presence or absence of matte bars does not change the effective resolution of the input signal, mind you. The resolution NEVER becomes 854x480... what you're reading in the paragraph you quoted is the stated resolution of some computer monitors which is dependent on the output signal of the video card. But note they are careful to differentiate between the resolution of the monitor and the "window" within which 720x480 NTSC video can be displayed.

In the two links you provided, the first doesn't even mention 854x480 once. The second only mentions it in the aforementioned paragraph, here (emphasis mine):

Even
though almost all computers have 4:3 monitors, they have higher resolution
than TVs so they can display the full widescreen picture in a window
(854x480 pixels or bigger for NTSC; 1024x576 or bigger for PAL).



I'll repeat myself for clarity...

The pixel count does not change.

The pixel aspect ratio does.

Before you go trying to correct people who have professionally authored DVD's, who also hold membership in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, I suggest you do some further reading that isn't limited to misinterpreting googled information scrabbled together by laypeople on the internet.

a456
Mar 19, 2007, 09:11 AM
I believe Apple TV shipment is going to coincide with an announcement of the Leopard release date and the announcement of iLife 07 and iWork 07.

The Apple store gives mid-March as the shipping date, and if it is a Tuesday that means it has to be tomorrow. March 27, is not mid-March - even Steve Jobs would struggle to convince us of that.

Not sure that Leopard, iLife and all the rest will come out tomorrow. It might steal the thunder of :apple:TV. Then again such a release might successfully overshadow the delay of getting this product to ship.

My prediction for those looking for a mega version of the :apple:TV is that there will be an :apple:TV Pro - a refashioned Mac Mini that does everything the :apple:TV does and much more and with much more expandability through the already established style of stacking similar looking units above or below it. This will make the :apple:TV the nano of the living room and the :apple:TV Pro the choice of the hardcore gadget fan.

davidwes
Mar 19, 2007, 09:20 AM
I am sorry but I don't understand the quicktime export to apple tv. What is the source data? Can I put in a dvd and export to Apple tv? Otherwise, if its already a digital file, shouldn't itunes be able to read it and therefore it would play on the apple tv?

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 09:25 AM
I am sorry but I don't understand the quicktime export to apple tv. What is the source data? Can I put in a dvd and export to Apple tv? Otherwise, if its already a digital file, shouldn't itunes be able to read it and therefore it would play on the apple tv?

Can be various things: Content you've created using iMovie, Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro and now want to convert for playback to AppleTV. Also can mean content that's been ripped from a DVD into another format... of course Apple can't state this in the specs, but that is exactly what it can do.

Don't ask me how I know. :D

BLACK MAC
Mar 19, 2007, 09:26 AM
I am sorry but I don't understand the quicktime export to apple tv. What is the source data? Can I put in a dvd and export to Apple tv? Otherwise, if its already a digital file, shouldn't itunes be able to read it and therefore it would play on the apple tv?

You need to rip the dvd with something like Mac the Ripper. You can't put a DVD and have quicktime convert it to appletv. But you need quicktime pro in order to export it out to appletv.

davidwes
Mar 19, 2007, 09:28 AM
Also can mean content that's been ripped from a DVD into another format... of course Apple can't state this in the specs, but that is exactly what it can do.


If its already ripped shouldn't iTunes be able to play it and therefore AppleTV would be?

spicyapple
Mar 19, 2007, 09:32 AM
MacinJosh and Avatar74,

for all intensive purposes, you both are right... just arguing the same side of the coin so to speak. I see you both are very passionate about the subject of dvd resolution, but in the interest of our general readers, would it be possible to move this geek debate into a new thread?

thanks, spicy :)

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 09:33 AM
If its already ripped shouldn't iTunes be able to play it and therefore AppleTV would be?

Not necessarily... plus there might be optimization factors that will encourage one to transcode... e.g. ripping it in a format less efficient than H.264.

But again, I think the bigger purpose is for content that has been created using
Apple Pro applications... as they're pretty much the target market for Quicktime Pro.

Kid Red
Mar 19, 2007, 09:34 AM
If the HD was bigger, then I would certainly buy one. Im waiting until the HD gets bigger, or the price goes down, or until I get a TV.

You stream to this from you computer, why does it need a bigger HD? Your computer is or has the HD already?? That's what I plan on doing, getting a 500gb external HD and storing that in my office rather then in the HT room.

MacinJosh
Mar 19, 2007, 09:36 AM
This is a bogus argument. You are essentially stating (in your "EDIT" comment) that 854x480 is an imaginary figure (an "area of 854 pixels"). The screen resolution of a display, and the resolution of the digital input signal are two different things. You have clearly confused the two, as I'll demonstrate below.

In an anamorphic DVD, the resolution of the input signal is always 720x480. Whether displayed on a 4:3 TV or displayed on a 16:9 TV, the input signal is STILL 720x480. When the pixel ratio is modified, the pixel count does not change. What is displayed is, excluding upconverting playback systems (let's assume a Widescreen EDTV for the moment), 720x480.

I agree so far. The signal doesn't change and stays at 720x480, yes.

The presence or absence of matte bars do not change the effective resolution of the input signal, mind you. The resolution NEVER becomes 854x480... what you're reading in the paragraph you quoted is the stated resolution of some computer monitors which is dependent on the output signal of the video card. But note they are careful to differentiate between the resolution of the monitor and the "window" within which 720x480 NTSC video can be displayed.

In the two links you provided, the first doesn't even mention 854x480 once. The second only mentions it in the aforementioned paragraph, here (emphasis mine):





I'll repeat myself for clarity...

The pixel count does not change.

The pixel aspect ratio does.

Before you go trying to correct people who have professionally authored DVD's, who also hold membership in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, I suggest you do some further reading that isn't limited to misinterpreting googled information scrabbled together by laypeople on the internet.

I don't think you actually understand what I'm trying to say. Say you have a widescreen plasma TV that has a native resolution of 854x480. You have a DVD player hooked up by HDMI for example. The DVD feeds an anamorphic signal of 720x480 to the TV. How will the TV display it? If it displays it pixel for pixel, what is the result? 720x480 on the TV. How will that look? You will have black bars on either side and the picture appears to be squished. How would the TV have to display it to have the proper aspect ratio? 854x480.

I hear you on the pixel aspect ratio. The pixel aspect ratio on the anamorphic DVD and TV are different. Thats why you stretch the image on the TV to 854 to get the correct aspect ratio. If the widescreen TV had the same 720x480 resolution with the same pixel aspect ratio as the DVD, then there would be no need for stretching as the image is of the correct aspect ratio.

If you bothered to do a bit more research on the point that I'm making, you'll notice that the paragraph I quoted is not the only place on the internet that is talking about 854x480.

If you still disagree with what I'm saying, I can't just take your word for it. Give me some concrete evidence to prove what I'm saying is wrong.

Joshua.

Kid Red
Mar 19, 2007, 09:37 AM
You need to rip the dvd with something like Mac the Ripper. You can't put a DVD and have quicktime convert it to appletv. But you need quicktime pro in order to export it out to appletv.



All that's doing is making the avi or mov into an mpg so that iTunes can play it. Has nothing to do with iTV, it's iTunes that can't play anything but mpg. Get DIvx Doctor for free to do same.

spicyapple
Mar 19, 2007, 09:38 AM
I agree -- the HDD is ONLY A BUFFER.
I liken the AppleTV to that of an iPod.

Everybody wants a bigger HD in their iPod so they can hold more stuff, why would that trouble you? And what do you mean as a buffer? If I turn off my computer, will AppleTV still be able to work? I hope so!

MacinJosh
Mar 19, 2007, 09:39 AM
MacinJosh and Avatar74,

for all intensive purposes, you both are right... just arguing the same side of the coin so to speak. I see you both are very passionate about the subject of dvd resolution, but in the interest of our general readers, would it be possible to move this geek debate into a new thread?

thanks, spicy :)

You are also right.

Joshua.

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 09:53 AM
.

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 09:58 AM
I liken the AppleTV to that of an iPod.

Everybody wants a bigger HD in their iPod so they can hold more stuff, why would that trouble you? And what do you mean as a buffer? If I turn off my computer, will AppleTV still be able to work? I hope so!

Unfortunately, in this age of energy conservation, I think AppleTV works on the assumption that you always have your main computer on. I doubt your expected to plan in advance what you want to watch when your main computer is on, transfer it to the hard drive, and then watch it when the main computer is switched off.

I agree with the bemused reaction to people wanting/demanding more HD space. As far as I can tell, its only meant to be a safety net for if the signal drops momentarily for some reason.

Anyway, I'm getting bored waiting for new Apple stuff. Given that I'm excited about a product which I have no need for and thus will never buy is pretty indicative of the desperately dry state of Apple releases at the moment.

Does anyone know when the last Mac-related release was?!

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 19, 2007, 10:11 AM
I believe the last update was the enhancement of the Macbook line. Other than that there were no changes to anything else. Whatever, I still enjoy my rev A macbook.

All of the bellyaching about larger HD space on the ATV is tiresome. Movies ripped in HandBrake or downloaded from iTunes all occupy under 2GB of space, hardly the whopping video file to consume all of your precious 40GB buffer drive.

The actual capacity is limited by how much space you can hook up to your computer. If one had a PC with several terabytes on tap, well then your ATV has all the capacity it needs.

Yvan256
Mar 19, 2007, 10:21 AM
I sent a 1280x720 H.264 mov that I recorded and encoded from Migila's TV Mini HD and chose the Export to :apple: TV function for giggles (and to see what res and data rate they used).

The output file was 960x540. That is 1/2 1080i's resolution, not HD in anyone's book.

That's probably because your file was higher than 24FPS. Also, HD in everyone's book includes 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 720i and 480p. That's the supported resolutions. Your file is above the lowest HD spec.

Rocketman
Mar 19, 2007, 10:28 AM
Actually a combo router/aTV makes some sense. Since your TV is usually next to where your cable comes in the house, it's a logical place for your router (if you have cable internet). Add a few TV ports to the back of the router, a hard disk, a few more guts and voila! Then I'd also make it a PVR, if it was up to me. :)

:apple: TV has a USB plug so an external HD or array is practical. It has 802.11 presumably a/b/g/n so only software would be needed to do PVR. But Apple is positioning iTunes as a PVR alternative. The playlist format and the 10 most recent unviewed videos format are examples.

The main repository of your content is intended to be your primary computer. Your internet connection goes to that and/or a wireless roiuter. Your TV content via cable or satellite goes through that box and to the TV. Does :apple: TV even deal with that incoming content at all or do you need EyeTV for that?

Rocketman

skinnylegs
Mar 19, 2007, 10:41 AM
It's redundant for me 'cause I am directly connected to a 40" Samsung LN-S4095 1920x1080 HDTV which affords me a superior set of services including video from two EyeTV HD tuners.I have the exact same HDTV connected to Cox Cable (here in San Diego) with a digital/HD DVR.

Where does "redundancy" fit into the equation? My iMac houses my music, photos and quite a few movies and TV shows I've dl'd via iTunes. :apple: TV seems to be a perfect way to get all of this stuff from the iMac to the Samsung. Here is an example. We had some friends over this weekend for a barbecue and, more specifically, to show off my new grandson. :D We had a collection of labor, delivery and new baby pictures which everyone wanted to see. So.....we all huddled around my iMac. How nice would it have been to have watched it on the Samsung in the living room! It also would have been nice to be able to play my music on the Bose sound systems attached to the Samsung when everybody was hanging out.

Am I missing something here?

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 10:43 AM
Just out of interest, if iTunes were to start selling HD (720p) movies in H.264, what would the average size of the file be?

I know no one knows for sure, but I'd like to here some (reasoned) guestimations. :)

Is it gonna be the case that only people with a Mac Pro will be able to have a significant digital move library? Or will the advent of the 1TB hard drive (which I think might make an appearance in the next iMac...is it out yet?) mean we can all join in?

spicyapple
Mar 19, 2007, 10:48 AM
Just out of interest, if iTunes were to start selling HD (720p) movies in H.264, what would the average size of the file be? I know no one knows for sure, but I'd like to here some (reasoned) guestimations. :)

70464

A typical 1hour 40 minute movie should be about 3.5GB.

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 10:55 AM
Just out of interest, if iTunes were to start selling HD (720p) movies in H.264, what would the average size of the file be?

I know no one knows for sure, but I'd like to here some (reasoned) guestimations. :)

Is it gonna be the case that only people with a Mac Pro will be able to have a significant digital move library? Or will the advent of the 1TB hard drive (which I think might make an appearance in the next iMac...is it out yet?) mean we can all join in?

It all depends at which bit-rate they decide to encode so it is hard to provide anything but a very wide ballpark at the moment. As a guideline DVD rip of a 90 min movie converted to H.264 @ 2000 Kbs takes up approx. 1.5GB. Given that a standard DVD is approx. 300,000 (720*404) pixels and the 720p "HD" movies would occupy 3 times that many pixels for 1280*720 Then for the same bit-rate I would expect files of around 5 GB. Since the current movies are not for sale in the UK I can't tell what bit-rate Apple currently use, but I suspect it is considerably lower than 2000, so the files might well by smaller than indicated by my napkin calculations.

spicyapple
Mar 19, 2007, 11:00 AM
I can't tell what bit-rate Apple currently use, but I suspect it is considerably lower than 2000, so the files might well by smaller than indicated by my napkin calculations.
Apple 720P movies (Export to AppleTV) will have a bitrate of approximately 5000 kbps. (small k, to denote kilobits)

puckhead193
Mar 19, 2007, 11:13 AM
how long till its available in stores?

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 11:13 AM
70464

A typical 1hour 40 minute movie should be about 3.5GB.

I've done a couple Blu-Ray rips, and I find that you are about right. I have to dip the bitrate considerably on longer movies though, because of issues with the 4GB boundary within Quicktime and iTunes. Right now, QT will not create a streamable movie larger than 4GB, and iTunes doesn't stream any movie larger than 4GB...

Yvan256
Mar 19, 2007, 11:17 AM
I just checked my store, and my delivery data has gone.....it was the 27th!

Mine still says "Delivers by: Mar 27". I'm in Canada, ordered the Apple TV online right after it was announced.

Jim Campbell
Mar 19, 2007, 11:23 AM
:apple: TV seems to be a perfect way to get all of this stuff from the iMac to the Samsung. ( ...) Am I missing something here?

Bingo! That's exactly what the :apple:TV is supposed to do. It's not supposed to replace your media centre, it's supposed to extend it by making the content accessible from the living room.

If, like me, you don't have a pre-existing media library, then you're probably better off doing what I did: buy a Mac Mini and plug it directly into your HDTV which (as noted upthread) adds PVR functionality if you have a TV tuner. The custom build option for a 120GB HDD is more than enough to get you started, and Iomega and LaCie offer external drives which stack with same styling as the Mini if you want to expand.

Cheers!

Jim

sfwalter
Mar 19, 2007, 11:26 AM
I also ordered my right after the keynote and it shows a delivery date of Mar 23.

skinnylegs
Mar 19, 2007, 11:30 AM
f, like me, you don't have a pre-existing media library, then you're probably better off doing what I did: buy a Mac Mini and plug it directly into your HDTV which (as noted upthread) adds PVR functionality if you have a TV tuner. The custom build option for a 120GB HDD is more than enough to get you started, and Iomega and LaCie offer external drives which stack with same styling as the Mini if you want to expand.Yeah.....I see where you're going. My only problem with the Mac Mini PVR route is the inability to record HD content via Cox Cable. That's why I chose Cox Cable's DVR. I also have an Eye TV Hybrid which I really enjoy. However, I've yet to be able to get any HD content (OTA) 'cause I've been too darn busy to go to Radio Shack and get an HD antenna.:mad:

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 11:33 AM
I've done a couple Blu-Ray rips, and I find that you are about right. I have to dip the bitrate considerably on longer movies though, because of issues with the 4GB boundary within Quicktime and iTunes. Right now, QT will not create a streamable movie larger than 4GB, and iTunes doesn't stream any movie larger than 4GB...

I think whichever way you look at it the files are going to be large and take a considerable time to download for all but those with extra wide broadband connections. Assuming of course that HD movies are going to be a reality from Apple. Vapourware in the UK since we don't even have the low-def movies yet. :-(

Dagless
Mar 19, 2007, 11:43 AM
I'd love an AppleTV but Apple let me down by not including a SCART output. I have a 576i widescreen TV. That's another 200 Apple won't be getting.

neoelectronaut
Mar 19, 2007, 11:53 AM
Anyone have a recommendation for settings within handbrake with which to rip my DVDs for the Apple TV?

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 11:53 AM
I think whichever way you look at it the files are going to be large and take a considerable time to download for all but those with extra wide broadband connections. Assuming of course that HD movies are going to be a reality from Apple. Vapourware in the UK since we don't even have the low-def movies yet. :-(

I think that early on, at least, "Managed Copy" is the route for HD w/iTunes. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both support a feature that allows a DRM'd (bleh) copy of the HD disc to be made by getting a license for it from a studio-owned server. iTunes could (in theory) hook into this to make 720p rips from HD discs in the future that will work with Apple TV.

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 11:54 AM
I'd love an AppleTV but Apple let me down by not including a SCART output. I have a 576i widescreen TV. That's another 200 Apple won't be getting.

it supports component out, so pick up a component to scart converter for <$10 and just use that to hook it up. That's how I used to hook up my Mac Mini and it worked fine.

Rocketman
Mar 19, 2007, 11:55 AM
When you go to a store and see the same content on a variety of displays, the aspect ratios of the actual content (a person's face) is widely variable.

All I want, independent of all this format chat, is for the aspect ratio to remain true.

If that means displaying the image in letterbox format, edges clipped format, or perhaps even proper format to the screen, pick one. DO NOT modify the ASPECT RATIO to fit one of two erroneous specifications of the display device.

Rocketman

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 11:56 AM
I've done a couple Blu-Ray rips, and I find that you are about right. I have to dip the bitrate considerably on longer movies though, because of issues with the 4GB boundary within Quicktime and iTunes. Right now, QT will not create a streamable movie larger than 4GB, and iTunes doesn't stream any movie larger than 4GB...

Out of interest, how long are those BRD > H.264 conversions taking and on what spec Mac?

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 12:01 PM
That's probably because your file was higher than 24FPS. Also, HD in everyone's book includes 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 720i and 480p. That's the supported resolutions. Your file is above the lowest HD spec.

HD has NEVER included 480p. NEVER. It's never even been called that by deceptive marketing types. They call 480p (which is DVD resolution) EDTV, for Enhanced Resolution TV. I've never seen anything ever done in 720i, either... in fact, here's what wikipedia has to say on that "format", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720i.

It all depends at which bit-rate they decide to encode so it is hard to provide anything but a very wide ballpark at the moment. As a guideline DVD rip of a 90 min movie converted to H.264 @ 2000 Kbs takes up approx. 1.5GB. Given that a standard DVD is approx. 300,000 (720*404) pixels and the 720p "HD" movies would occupy 3 times that many pixels for 1280*720 Then for the same bit-rate I would expect files of around 5 GB. Since the current movies are not for sale in the UK I can't tell what bit-rate Apple currently use, but I suspect it is considerably lower than 2000, so the files might well by smaller than indicated by my napkin calculations.
I think you meant for the same quality-level, not for the same bit-rate. If you encode a 320x240 file at 1000kbps and a 1280x720 file at 1000kbps they will be the exact same size. The former will look very good, for it's size, while the latter will look very crappy.

skinnylegs
Mar 19, 2007, 12:02 PM
Anyone have a recommendation for settings within handbrake with which to rip my DVDs for the Apple TV?I used Drive-In ( http://lifehacker.com/software/dvds/download-of-the-day-drivein-mac-218607.php ) on the default settings and it turned out PD good.

EagerDragon
Mar 19, 2007, 12:18 PM
Ok .... Who is going to be the first one to review the product?

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 12:23 PM
I think you meant for the same quality-level, not for the same bit-rate. If you encode a 320x240 file at 1000kbps and a 1280x720 file at 1000kbps they will be the exact same size. The former will look very good, for it's size, while the latter will look very crappy.

you are indeed correct. :-)

Kid Red
Mar 19, 2007, 01:25 PM
I've done a couple Blu-Ray rips, and I find that you are about right. I have to dip the bitrate considerably on longer movies though, because of issues with the 4GB boundary within Quicktime and iTunes. Right now, QT will not create a streamable movie larger than 4GB, and iTunes doesn't stream any movie larger than 4GB...

I was unaware of that limit. Would a macmini allow for playing these as opposed to streaming them? Of course, I'd have to get these from my mac into the livingroom where I'd put the macmini. I just want the highest quality and I wonder that the 4gb limit will make rips too compressed and compromise PQ?

bretm
Mar 19, 2007, 02:19 PM
i have use these for about 2 weeks grate tool takes some time to convert but if you install it on multiple mac os journaled partitions and have multiple dvd drive you can do few at one time which speeds up the Process and i have not ran into an dvd that i could not ripped because of encryption
http://www.mp4converter.net/appletv-video-converter-mac.html

Please check out the shift key and the punctuation keys on your keyboard.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 02:38 PM
Don't know how I feel about the iTV (refuse to call it :apple:TV - sooo cheesy a monicker). As the movie content on iTunes isn't exactly DVD quality, I don't intend on buying and watching any iTunes movies. The stats indicate that the iTV won't be able to wirelessly stream DVD's or record television programs as a DVR, so if the only purpose is to stream movies purchased from iTunes then I'm checking off this overpriced $300 Airport Express. Sorry Apple, you need to add a few more options before convincing this long-time Apple consumer that this new product warrants a position under my flat screen system. :(

CoreWeb
Mar 19, 2007, 02:52 PM
Don't know how I feel about the iTV (refuse to call it :apple:TV - sooo cheesy a monicker). As the movie content on iTunes isn't exactly DVD quality, I don't intend on buying and watching any iTunes movies.

Can you not rip them using HandBrake? I've done that for iPod (and to be able to simply watch movies in iTunes). Very good quality. Though I do believe that Apple should (not necessarily will) add capability to rip DVDs in one fashion or another - even if it is simply allowing iTunes to copy the VIDEO_TS folder and allowing iTunes to play DVDs from there.

The stats indicate that the iTV won't be able to wirelessly stream DVD's or record television programs as a DVR, so if the only purpose is to stream movies purchased from iTunes then I'm checking off this overpriced $300 Airport Express.

There are other purposes: photos and music, for example. And if you rip your movies into iTunes anyway, then the :apple:TV could be quite useful. All your movies on your computer...

And Apple will likely up the quality of movies on the movie store to 720p, which is better than DVD quality... if they don't raise prices, or only raise them slightly for the high-def version, it would be a cheaper alternative to Bluray and HD-DVD.

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 19, 2007, 02:54 PM
Just out of interest, if iTunes were to start selling HD (720p) movies in H.264, what would the average size of the file be?

I know no one knows for sure, but I'd like to here some (reasoned) guestimations. :)

Is it gonna be the case that only people with a Mac Pro will be able to have a significant digital move library? Or will the advent of the 1TB hard drive (which I think might make an appearance in the next iMac...is it out yet?) mean we can all join in?

That's not true. Any good PC with a substantial amount of storage space will do.

But this issue of storage may be a good reason for iTunes to have a subscription or rental service for movies. I'd gladly pay a few bucks to see the movie a limited amount of times with an ATV and have the media expire and delete. This would make a lot more sense than having a purchase only model, and would lower the necessity for really high storage since all rentals would be temporary.

As for Apple actually providing a DVD decryption program, it ain't gonna happen. That's all the movie studios need to see. That would suddenly make non-DRM media that can be copied over and over again, that is of course if it doesn't apply it's own DRM encoding to the file, which would also draw complaints. As of now, third party software provides a cheap and easy way to do this.

WilliamLondon
Mar 19, 2007, 03:03 PM
Or will the advent of the 1TB hard drive (which I think might make an appearance in the next iMac...is it out yet?) mean we can all join in?

I just installed a 2TB external on my iMac for a very reasonable price, about 4 times the price I paid for a 250GB drive a few months earlier - wow!

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 03:06 PM
Can you not rip them using HandBrake? I've done that for iPod (and to be able to simply watch movies in iTunes). Very good quality. Though I do believe that Apple should (not necessarily will) add capability to rip DVDs in one fashion or another - even if it is simply allowing iTunes to copy the VIDEO_TS folder and allowing iTunes to play DVDs from there.
Problem is, all of this is illegal. Without substantial changes to the DMCA, Apple will never support anything that encourages ripping DVDs. Besides being illegal, which discourages many people, ripping DVDs is a cumbersome process which discourages others from doing it. Until Apple (or other download services) offers aTV compatible HD content online, there's nothing too special about video on the aTV (IMO).

FleurDuMal
Mar 19, 2007, 03:22 PM
Problem is, all of this is illegal. Without substantial changes to the DMCA, Apple will never support anything that encourages ripping DVDs. Besides being illegal, which discourages many people, ripping DVDs is a cumbersome process which discourages others from doing it. Until Apple (or other download services) offers aTV compatible HD content online, there's nothing too special about video on the aTV (IMO).

What I don't understand is why is this ripping illegal for movies, but legal for music? Is there really a qualititative difference between the two that justifies different rules?

Adobe75
Mar 19, 2007, 03:24 PM
Netflix
MacBook Pro
400GB FW Drive
Handbrake
EyeTV Hybrid
AppleTV
+ Sanyo Z3 Projector
-------------------------
Awesomeness

williedigital
Mar 19, 2007, 03:29 PM
What I don't understand is why is this ripping illegal for movies, but legal for music? Is there really a qualititative difference between the two that justifies different rules?

I think because breaking the encryption on the DVD is itself illegal. No such encryption exists for cd. At least that's my understanding. It's always illegal to break the "use" part of the law (PTP trading, public screenings) but DMCA makes it illegal to "break" the protection layer of the DVD.

Is this right?

jaw04005
Mar 19, 2007, 03:32 PM
What I don't understand is why is this ripping illegal for movies, but legal for music? Is there really a qualititative difference between the two that justifies different rules?

Digital Rights Management.

CDs don't have it (usually), but DVDs do.

In the United States, it's illegal to circumvent copy protection (DMCA) despite the "fair use doctrine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine

williedigital
Mar 19, 2007, 03:34 PM
Netflix - $18
MacBook Pro $2,000
400GB FW Drive $130
Handbrake $0
EyeTV Hybrid $125
AppleTV $300
+ Sanyo Z3 Projector $1,500
-------------------------
Awesomeness

that entry cost sure make it seem like getting a $20 dvd player, a $250 EDTV, and a library card seem like a pretty good investment.

matticus008
Mar 19, 2007, 03:45 PM
HD has NEVER included 480p. NEVER. It's never even been called that by deceptive marketing types. They call 480p (which is DVD resolution) EDTV, for Enhanced Resolution TV. I've never seen anything ever done in 720i, either... in fact, here's what wikipedia has to say on that "format", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720i.
Before this gets out of hand, 480p *is* part of the HDTV standard. It is an official and sanctioned HDTV resolution; The ATSC standards body differentiates only between SDTV (480i) and HDTV(all progressive resolutions and 1080i). 480p is not "HD" content in marketspeak, though, which is just 720p and 1080i/p.

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 03:46 PM
What I don't understand is why is this ripping illegal for movies, but legal for music? Is there really a qualititative difference between the two that justifies different rules?
It makes absolutely no sense, except that movie studios have been more successful in getting laws passed to protect their content than have record studios.

The unavailability of quality video for AppleTV made me decide to cancel my order some weeks ago. I'm not satisfied with what's available at iTunes. So, my plan is to get a Mac mini instead and use it as a DVR while I wait for Apple to upgrade their iTunes Store video content.

This will cost me more money for the Mac hardware but I'll be able to dump the cable company's DVR (and its required expensive digital package of channels I never watch). The savings on cable will pay for the mini in less than a year.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 03:50 PM
Problem is, all of this is illegal. Without substantial changes to the DMCA, Apple will never support anything that encourages ripping DVDs. Besides being illegal, which discourages many people, ripping DVDs is a cumbersome process which discourages others from doing it. Until Apple (or other download services) offers aTV compatible HD content online, there's nothing too special about video on the aTV (IMO).

What about just putting a commercial DVD in your Mac, playing it wirelessly through iDVD onto your HDTV??? Wouldn't that be MUCH more simple than ripping them to your HD (and let's face it, a movie collection with 4-8 gig's per movie would be a HUUUUGE amount of data), and it would essentially replace the need for a DVD player next to your HDTV. Play DVD's from your computer wirelessly to your HDTV as well as iTunes content, music, pics, etc. :apple:TV would essentially replace a top set DVD player making your Mac a WIRELESS Media PC (as opposed to the wired Media Center's that some people custom build from Windows XP and/or Vista). Utilizing the new Airport N Base Station and N-compatible :apple:TV could easily wirelessly stream DVD's as they play in your Mac system (and maybe even Blu-ray discs as those drives become available - Sony has an internal Blu-ray drive already on the market for only $699). THEN that would make more sense.

twoodcc
Mar 19, 2007, 03:54 PM
well i guess we'll see if it ships tomorrow.....

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 03:55 PM
Before this gets out of hand, 480p *is* part of the HDTV standard. It is an official and sanctioned HDTV resolution; The ATSC standards body differentiates only between SDTV (480i) and HDTV(all progressive resolutions and 1080i). 480p is not "HD" content in marketspeak, though, which is just 720p and 1080i/p.
I'm pretty sure you are confusing digital TV with HDTV. ATSC defines everything up to 704x480 with a square or non-square pixel, and interlaced or progressive as standard definition. HD starts at 1280x720 or about a million pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc

Digital TV doesn't mean HD TV, just that it's digital.

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 03:59 PM
What about just putting a commercial DVD in your Mac, playing it wirelessly through iDVD onto your HDTV??? Wouldn't that be MUCH more simple than ripping them to your HD (and let's face it, a movie collection with 4-8 gig's per movie would be a HUUUUGE amount of data), and it would essentially replace the need for a DVD player next to your HDTV. Play DVD's from your computer wirelessly to your HDTV as well as iTunes content, music, pics, etc. :apple:TV would essentially replace a top set DVD player making your Mac a WIRELESS Media PC (as opposed to the wired Media Center's that some people custom build from Windows XP and/or Vista). Utilizing the new Airport N Base Station and N-compatible :apple:TV could easily wirelessly stream DVD's as they play in your Mac system (and maybe even Blu-ray discs as those drives become available - Sony has an internal Blu-ray drive already on the market for only $699). THEN that would make more sense.

Well, one, that wouldn't work. I can't think of any way to get DVD Player (which is what I assume you are referring to when you said iDVD which is for making DVDs) to send the video somewhere else. Two, if you are going to have to put the DVD in to watch it, why not use a $25 DVD player? The point of ripping the movie is to have instant access to all of them without the disc.

Three, you can compress DVD quality movies to about a gig to 1.5gb with a variety of MPEG4 compression schemes. Four, even storing 4gb DVD images isn't a big deal, imo. HDD's are cheap, like a quarter per gig, and falling.

Peace
Mar 19, 2007, 04:01 PM
I'm pretty sure you are confusing digital TV with HDTV. ATSC defines everything up to 704x480 with a square or non-square pixel, and interlaced or progressive as standard definition. HD starts at 1280x720 or about a million pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc

Digital TV doesn't mean HD TV, just that it's digital.

Here's the low-down on HDTV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 04:04 PM
What about just putting a commercial DVD in your Mac, playing it wirelessly through iDVD onto your HDTV???
You bet, that would make a lot of sense if Apple would include that capability in the AppleTV. I think they'd sell a lot more of them if you could do that.

There's one drawback to playing DVDs in a Mac vs. using a nice DVD player. Upscaling in quality DVD players makes for an improved picture on HDTV sets when playing standard DVDs. To my knowledge, Apple hasn't built that capability into their Mac optical drives or the DVD Player software itself.

jaw04005
Mar 19, 2007, 04:06 PM
So since my Samsung HDTV has a "non-standard" resolution of 1366 x 768, will the :apple: TV upscale from 720P to 1366 x 768 or will my TV have to do the upscaling?

On a side note, what's with 1366 x 768? It's not a broadcast standard, and it causes nothing but scaling issues. Do I select 720P and have the TV scale up to its native resolution? Or do I select 1080i and have the TV scale down? :mad:

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 04:07 PM
Here's the low-down on HDTV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV

From your link: "Current HDTV standards are defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R BT.709) as 1080 active interlace or progressive scan lines, or 720 progressive scan lines, using a 16:9 aspect ratio."

From an article listed in your link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p, "480p is not high enough to qualify as HDTV; it is considered Enhanced-definition television (EDTV)."

Since you didn't say anything other than give a link I'm not sure what you were trying to support. But, it pretty much says what I've been saying, so thanks. :D

Peace
Mar 19, 2007, 04:09 PM
From your link: "Current HDTV standards are defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R BT.709) as 1080 active interlace or progressive scan lines, or 720 progressive scan lines, using a 16:9 aspect ratio."

From an article listed in your link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p, "480p is not high enough to qualify as HDTV; it is considered Enhanced-definition television (EDTV)."

Since you didn't say anything other than give a link I'm not sure what you were trying to support. But, it pretty much says what I've been saying, so thanks. :D


Merely linking a reference point for you guys to argue about :)

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 04:09 PM
On a side note, what's with 1366 x 768?
Good freaking question. Nearly all 720P TV sets are 1366 x 768. I'm sure there's a reason but I've never heard a good one. :) :confused:

skinnylegs
Mar 19, 2007, 04:15 PM
Just received confirmation that my Apple TV shipped.....a day early no less!!!!!

There are other purposes: photos and music, for example. Exactly! I don't really care about streaming movies. I purchased an Apple TV for pictures and music.

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 04:18 PM
Good freaking question. Nearly all 720P TV sets are 1366 x 768. I'm sure there's a reason but I've never heard a good one. :) :confused:

Panel manufacturing. Panels tend to be cheaper at certain resolutions than forcing it into a particular resolution that isn't on certain pixel boundaries (768 is divisible by 32, while 720 is only divisible by 8, for example). So, to make the TV cheaper, they will use the cheaper panel, even if it has a couple more pixels.

The TV accepts 720p signals just fine, and doesn't even accept a '768p' signal, but scales the image itself.

youngfoool
Mar 19, 2007, 04:20 PM
Is it safe to say that if I can use my iPod with a dock and the s-video output to my SDTV, then I should be able to use Apple TV with the component video out to my SDTV and that will work? Right? I hope? Is it absolutely necessary to have an EDTV or HDTV?

CoreWeb
Mar 19, 2007, 04:22 PM
Digital Rights Management.

CDs don't have it (usually), but DVDs do.

In the United States, it's illegal to circumvent copy protection (DMCA) despite the "fair use doctrine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine

However, what I think Apple could do would be to allow ripping of (somehow) still-encrypted content, and leave it encrypted for the ripped version. Then, Apple would allow AppleTV and iTunes to play it. Thus, it is still the DVD, still encrypted, yet viewable. In other words, making an on-disk exact copy of the still-protected dvd and allowing it to be played in iTunes and AppleTV.

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 04:23 PM
The TV accepts 720p signals just fine, and doesn't even accept a '768p' signal, but scales the image itself.
Ok, interesting information, thanks. I've always understood that using a non-native resolution on a computer display results in a blurry image. I'd think this would be a problem upscaling 720 to 768?

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 04:25 PM
Is it safe to say that if I can use my iPod with a dock and the s-video output to my SDTV, then I should be able to use Apple TV with the component video out to my SDTV and that will work? Right? I hope? Is it absolutely necessary to have an EDTV or HDTV?
I hope we'll begin to get answers to questions like yours very soon, when people have these things in their living rooms.

Peace
Mar 19, 2007, 04:25 PM
However, what I think Apple could do would be to allow ripping of (somehow) still-encrypted content, and leave it encrypted for the ripped version. Then, Apple would allow AppleTV and iTunes to play it. Thus, it is still the DVD, still encrypted, yet viewable. In other words, making an on-disk exact copy of the still-protected dvd and allowing it to be played in iTunes and AppleTV.



Apple could do would be to allow ripping of (somehow) still-encrypted content



HOW in the world could Apple,Inc. allow ripping ? Apple doesn't own or run the Government.

CoreWeb
Mar 19, 2007, 04:29 PM
Apple could do would be to allow ripping of (somehow) still-encrypted content



HOW in the world could Apple,Inc. allow ripping ? Apple doesn't own or run the Government.

Because they technically aren't disassembling or destroying the DRM, they are simply moving it. If that's even possible...

jaw04005
Mar 19, 2007, 04:33 PM
However, what I think Apple could do would be to allow ripping of (somehow) still-encrypted content, and leave it encrypted for the ripped version. Then, Apple would allow AppleTV and iTunes to play it. Thus, it is still the DVD, still encrypted, yet viewable. In other words, making an on-disk exact copy of the still-protected dvd and allowing it to be played in iTunes and AppleTV.

The problem is you can't copy the encrypted files from the DVD to your computer without first decrypting (or circumventing the copy protection) the DVD first.

Apple would have to license both DeCSS and Macrovision copy protection. Therefore, allowing iTunes to unencrypt the DVD, copy the VOB files to your hard drive and re-encrypt them with FairPlay. Then, offer both MPEG-2 and AC3 codecs in QuickTime and iTunes for playback. Not to mention, get approval from the movie industries.

That's a lot of steps. I would expect some sort of FairPlay managed copy feature to be available with Blu-ray discs within the next few years. This should allow you to store a more compressed version of your movie on your hard drive and iPod.

GregA
Mar 19, 2007, 04:36 PM
Is it safe to say that if I can use my iPod with a dock and the s-video output to my SDTV, then I should be able to use Apple TV with the component video out to my SDTV and that will work? Right? I hope? Is it absolutely necessary to have an EDTV or HDTV?

The AppleTV only puts out progressive video. So your regular SDTV won't be able to handle it unless it's an SDTV Plasma (which most have been until recently).

There are ways of converting progressive to interlaced. Many computers can output TV signals and convert to interlaced.

As for component etc connections:
it supports component out, so pick up a component to scart converter for <$10 and just use that to hook it up. That's how I used to hook up my Mac Mini and it worked fine.

Will this handle the interlacing this guy needs though?
(actually, this guy said he had a widescreen SDTV... perhaps he has plasma).

skinnylegs
Mar 19, 2007, 04:37 PM
I could be *way* off base here (wouldn't be the first time) but.....

I think we have to make the distinction between copying a DVD to your HD versus burning a copy of a DVD. If I'm not mistaken, copy protection only presents a problem when you want to take that copy on your HD and make a DVD out of it.

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 04:38 PM
I was unaware of that limit. Would a macmini allow for playing these as opposed to streaming them? Of course, I'd have to get these from my mac into the livingroom where I'd put the macmini. I just want the highest quality and I wonder that the 4gb limit will make rips too compressed and compromise PQ?

The problem is two-fold... one, that if you use Streamclip/QT for the H.264 encode, then you can't actually encode anything larger than 4GB or it will fail. The second one is iTunes failing to stream 4GB files (it used to be even worse, before 7.1, you couldn't stream files larger than 2GB).

I am still looking at what is the best 'toolkit' for me to use when exporting Blu-Ray to 720p... so it won't be a huge issue yet. The mini could play them, but then you are talking about copying 5GB+ files over to it.

Right now, I just target 3.9GB (with luck), and it turns out pretty good. It isn't quite as nice as the disc itself, but it is about the same as 720p broadcast. This is with QT though, I haven't tried a full-blown ffmpeg/x264 encode, which is actually my next task.

Out of interest, how long are those BRD > H.264 conversions taking and on what spec Mac?

I used the Mac Pro in my sig. I am a bit of a quality junkie, so I was using Quicktime for the video in multipass mode which made the conversion about 8 to 16 hours, depending on if it scaled to a full 7-8 passes.

Using ffmpeg or similar to do a 2-pass encode will likely take about 6-8 hours for 720p if you use exhaustive search settings on x264.

psychofreak
Mar 19, 2007, 04:38 PM
I could be *way* off base here (wouldn't be the first time) but.....

I think we have to make the distinction between copying a DVD to your HD versus burning a copy of a DVD. If I'm not mistaken, copy protection only presents a problem when you want to take that copy on your HD and make a DVD out of it.

You are not allowed to back up a copy-protected DVD to a hard disk...

WilliamLondon
Mar 19, 2007, 04:42 PM
(and let's face it, a movie collection with 4-8 gig's per movie would be a HUUUUGE amount of data),

Are you kidding? At 8GB per movie, my cheap 2TB HDD would store 250 movies, and they'd be on a hard drive always available. Don't know about you, but I tend to be fickle sometimes when watching television - I flip around a lot even with movies - how wonderful the atv will be when it arrives!

68134
Mar 19, 2007, 04:59 PM
_

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 05:03 PM
Ok, interesting information, thanks. I've always understood that using a non-native resolution on a computer display results in a blurry image. I'd think this would be a problem upscaling 720 to 768?

When you are sitting 6-7 feet away, does it matter? ;)

The image is blurry, but that is due to the scaler using a very 'soft' method of stretching (I think it is a simple variant on bilinear filtering, which is cheap to do in hardware). The more the image stretches, the softer the image, but if you don't stretch as much, then the image isn't as soft.

Also, you can do tricks to avoid scaling, such as placing the extra pixels behind the TV's bezel, and only scaling to 1280x720 sources that aren't already 720p. What this does is get the cheaper panel, while at the same time avoiding the use of scaling for 720p material.

So, even with lots of manufacturers sometimes using the exact same panel in the TV, the TV quality can vary depending on what scaler chip they use, and how they put together the TV itself.

GregA
Mar 19, 2007, 05:06 PM
It all depends at which bit-rate they decide to encode so it is hard to provide anything but a very wide ballpark at the moment. As a guideline DVD rip of a 90 min movie converted to H.264 @ 2000 Kbs takes up approx. 1.5GB. Given that a standard DVD is approx. 300,000 (720*404) pixels and the 720p "HD" movies would occupy 3 times that many pixels for 1280*720 Then for the same bit-rate I would expect files of around 5 GB.

It also depends on what the AppleTV can handle.

Video formats supported:
H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): 640 by 480, 30 fps, LC version of Baseline Profile;
320 by 240, 30 fps, Baseline profile up to Level 1.3;
1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile.
MPEG-4: 640 by 480, 30 fps, Simple Profile
This, from http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html, doesn't tell us much.

However, the Australian Apple store says:
Video formats supported:
H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store); up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480, 30 fps, LC version of Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov;
up to 768 Kbps, 320 by 240, 30 fps, Baseline profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps;
MPEG-4 up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480, 30 fps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps
http://www.apple.com/au/appletv/specs.html
Note: I've put in the line breaks... hard to tell where each spec ends.

Now, the Aussie site simply doesn't mention 720p. I don't know why. But if 640x480 is limited to 1.5Mbps, a similar limitation would be horrendous for 720p (it'd really only be good quality for slide shows!). Apple's 720p movie trailers are at approx. 6.5Mbps.

Anyone know how accurate the bitrate figures above are? or have an update on those figures from somewhere else?

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 05:07 PM
When you are sitting 6-7 feet away, does it matter? ;)
That's exactly what I say to the 1080P gear heads. If you can't see the pixels on a 720P set, isn't it good enough? :)

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 05:11 PM
That's exactly what I say to the 1080P gear heads. If you can't see the pixels on a 720P set, isn't it good enough? :)

Hey, I am one of those people with a 1080p panel. ;)

Granted, mine is rather large, and I do see the difference between a 720p broadcast, and a 1080i broadcast with it... but I also like using it as a large PC monitor (very sharp display) when playing WoW. :)

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 05:13 PM
Hey, I am one of those people with a 1080p panel. ;)
Oops. :)

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 05:16 PM
Oops. :)

I don't disagree with the statement that "720p is good enough" though. For me, I would not buy a 1080p panel smaller than about 40", as it is a waste.

pjtro2
Mar 19, 2007, 05:26 PM
Not sure if someone has already posted, however the online Australia Apple Store has changed it's shipping date from "Mid March" to "5-7 Bus Days"....


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t246/pbags/Picture2.png

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 05:31 PM
Well, one, that wouldn't work. I can't think of any way to get DVD Player (which is what I assume you are referring to when you said iDVD which is for making DVDs) to send the video somewhere else. Two, if you are going to have to put the DVD in to watch it, why not use a $25 DVD player? The point of ripping the movie is to have instant access to all of them without the disc.

Three, you can compress DVD quality movies to about a gig to 1.5gb with a variety of MPEG4 compression schemes. Four, even storing 4gb DVD images isn't a big deal, imo. HDD's are cheap, like a quarter per gig, and falling.

1) Slingbox and other streaming media systems CAN play DVD movies on Media Center PC wirelessly, so it wouldn't be a stretch to incorporate iDVD to play wirelessly through :apple:TV, just a matter of software.

2) This isn't about MONEY, but simplification. Eliminating a top set DVD unit from your home entertainment system and utilizing the DVD player on a Mac or PC would make perfect sense, especially as internal Blu-ray DVD drives are currently available on the market for much less than stand alone top sets.

3) As I (and generally most movie lovers) have hundreds of DVD's, it would be a great deal of HD space. Currently I have about 1000+ DVD's in my collection stored in Case Logic books. If the point of ripping your movie collection is to have instant access to them wirelessly from your Mac or PC, then it would be a lot of physical HD space to have an entire collection at your instant fingertips. 1,000 DVD's would translate to at LEAST 4,000 gig. As a 750 gig Seagate Ultra (not Serial) ATA drive is roughly $400 at Bestbuy, you're talking at least $1,000 JUST for movie storage. Doesn't make much sense (not to mention the hours in ripping DVD's). Why would I want to rip hundred's if not thousands of DVD's onto a hard drive, then spend more time compressing them so they fit and quite possibly losing quality in compression?

In the end, it would make PERFECT sense to allow live wireless streaming of DVD's and Blu-ray DVD's through a unit such as :apple:TV to a HDTV. As Jobs always states, it's about simplicity. The point is to make the Mac the ENTERTAINMENT CENTER. By definition, an ENTERTAINMENT CENTER should play music, movies, etc. to any TV/Media receiver. Would it not make sense to elimimate redundant equipment such as a top set DVD player next to an HDTV and only have an :apple:TV with an AVR?

FURTHER, would it not make perfect sense to have the :apple:TV built in with a DVR, thus eliminating the cable box altogether? Assuming your HDTV has a Cable Card slot (which most HDTV's have since 2005), you wouldn't need a Cable Box unless you're using it's digital video recording capabilities. If the :apple:TV had that, then you would only need the :apple:TV and a good AVR next to your television, thus eliminating all that extra equipment. Again, simplicity right?

Think different.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 05:35 PM
Are you kidding? At 8GB per movie, my cheap 2TB HDD would store 250 movies, and they'd be on a hard drive always available. Don't know about you, but I tend to be fickle sometimes when watching television - I flip around a lot even with movies - how wonderful the atv will be when it arrives!

Um, yeah, and that cost you HOW much? I googled prices for a 2 Trillion byte HD, they start at about $1,000. As I have WELL over 1,000 DVD's in five case logic books, it would cost me a hell of a lot of money (and time in ripping). Pointless... :(

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 05:37 PM
Hey, I am one of those people with a 1080p panel. ;)

Granted, mine is rather large, and I do see the difference between a 720p broadcast, and a 1080i broadcast with it... but I also like using it as a large PC monitor (very sharp display) when playing WoW. :)

Ditto on that. I just dropped $10,000 on a Pioneer Pro Elite 1080P 50" Monitor (and got a second Pioneer 720P 50" for free during a promotion Pioneer had through this month). What sold me was watching "Ice Age 2: The Melt Down" in 1080P High Def. When 2 million pixels are coming at you, believe me, it makes a difference. Plus the monitor just looks like sex :D .

Peace
Mar 19, 2007, 05:39 PM
Ditto on that. I just dropped $10,000 on a Pioneer Pro Elite 1080P 50" Monitor (and got a second Pioneer 720P 50" for free during a promotion Pioneer had through this month). What sold me was watching "Ice Age 2: The Melt Down" in 1080P High Def. When 2 million pixels are coming at you, believe me, it makes a difference. Plus the monitor just looks like sex :D .

you pay a lot for sex...;)

Cult Follower
Mar 19, 2007, 05:58 PM
Hopefully because of the delay there will be no bugs.

berkleeboy210
Mar 19, 2007, 06:03 PM
someone over on the apple support discussion forums has reported that they have received their shipping notice w/ delivery by march 22, he reported that he ordered w standard shipping.

this is a good sign.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 06:07 PM
You bet, that would make a lot of sense if Apple would include that capability in the AppleTV. I think they'd sell a lot more of them if you could do that.

There's one drawback to playing DVDs in a Mac vs. using a nice DVD player. Upscaling in quality DVD players makes for an improved picture on HDTV sets when playing standard DVDs. To my knowledge, Apple hasn't built that capability into their Mac optical drives or the DVD Player software itself.

What about the SONY Blu-ray internal DVD drives already on the market? I have seen them at Bestbuy for roughly $699...

Wouldn't having a unit such as :apple:TV that allows wireless streaming of DVD's and Blu-ray DVD's as well as iTunes content, a built in DVR to replace set top Cable Boxes with HDTV's that have Cable Card capability AND how about a DVI output for wireless Mac/PC monitor use, allowing your HDTV to become your Mac Desktop???

1) Wirelessly play DVD's (and Blu-ray DVD's) from your Mac/PC

2) Wirelessly stream iTunes content to HDTV (including Music eliminating Airport Express stations)

3) Wireless Mac Desktop on HDTV through a DVI port

4) DVR capability of television content, eliminating Cable Boxes for HDTV's with Cable Card capability

This would allow the Mac/PC to become the entertainment hub of the home, eliminating DVD players and Cable Boxes with the only need of an :apple:TV and a good AVR surround sound system and HDTV. So simple.

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 06:10 PM
FURTHER, would it not make perfect sense to have the :apple:TV built in with a DVR, thus eliminating the cable box altogether. Assuming your HDTV has a Cable Card slot, you wouldn't need a Cable Box unless you're using it's digital video recording capabilities. If the :apple:TV had that, then you would only need the :apple:TV and a good AVR next to your television, thus eliminating all that extra equipment. Again, simplicity right?

Think different.

Think different(ly)... indeed...

Now, tell me again why I want a DVR if I can get on-demand content a-la carte without paying for 900 channels of BS out of which I maybe watch 2-3 programs a day, if that?

DVR's have very low market penetration for several reasons. One of these is the atrocious user interface of most DVR's. Say what you will about technological illiteracy but I'm a techno-junkie and frankly I find the design of most DVR UI's ergonomically inept.

Again... I'll say this: If I can buy whatever content I want, and leave the rest, why do I need a DVR? Now think about this carefully... because it's a loaded question...

Some will respond that they want to be able to catch the programming on their cable subscription.

Yet others will argue that they like the ability to record multiple programs off the subscription service for which they're paying a sizable fee.

Even still, others will rationalize that they don't want to ditch cable/dish because there's a wide range of programming across which they can surf.

If I can order the programs I want, watch them when I want, and store and access them on a system more powerful than any DVR in existence, a system that most consumers already have in their homes (it's called a computer)... why do I even need cable/dish?

The problem here should be obvious... people are trying to find reasons to rationalize a bad business model upon which they've become hopelessly (and mindlessly, some might argue) dependent without realizing they can throw out the baby AND the bathwater in this case.

The DVR is really a band-aid solution by the industry to try to fill the demand for what it is market surveys show that consumers really want... Instant access to programming of their choice. The interesting thing about the DVR is that it's the industry's way of trying to put a band aid over your eyes... in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you won't come to the glaringly obvious realization that you don't need to subscribe to 900 channels of crap.

And the DVR is failing because consumers, as dumb as they can be, do not live in a vacuum.

The big difference between AppleTV and previous efforts to launch solutions that bridge the average consumers existing computer network seamlessly with their living room isn't just the ease of set up/installation, or the user interface... It's the fact that Apple really believes in this product.

I have been waiting for tomorrow for at least ten years since I first wrote a research paper on the future of internet distribution of audio and video content. Apple understands that this is a huge revolution and they're treating it like one.

When the Media Center PC was launched... I don't remember much hype at all about it. It was sort of a "me too" add-on thrown out there to say "yeah you want to do this... ok" *slap-tape-nail-drill* "Here."

Apple has done their homework and timed the introduction of AppleTV so perfectly it would almost be absolute genius how they predicted the timing of technological convergence... that is, if they weren't the ones largely responsible for driving it.

Step by step Apple has been taking the hub strategy to heart... Instead of a "me too" product they've been driving the standardization of almost every essential component of technological convergence. To wit, here's a list of products they either invented and/or first made standard and where they fit in the historical evolution of the hub strategy that Apple themselves didn't seem to understsand until Steve Jobs came back, wrangled it in and gave a sense of direction:

0. Quicktime - 16-bit audio and 8-bit video support
1. Ethernet - facilitates network communication with the hub
2. CD-ROM - multimedia input/output
3. Newton - Flirtation with disaster? or Flirtation with appliances?
4. Firewire - audio/video/image
5. USB - audio/video/image
6. iMac - reintroducing consumers to the idiot-proof all-in-one
7. iTunes - Music
8. iPhoto - Images
9. iMovie - Movies
10. iDVD - Videos
11. iPod - Take 7 through 10 with you!
12. iPhone - 11 + some of 6 + wi-fi = Insane greatness to-go (now with multitouch!)
13. AppleTV - Harnesses 0, 1, 7-10
14. Mobile Mac - Take all of the above anywhere

This list may be missing a few things (e.g. core audio, core image, etc. ) but, really, need I say more?

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 06:35 PM
Now, tell me again why I want a DVR if I can get on-demand content a-la carte without paying for 900 channels of BS out of which I maybe watch 2-3 programs a day, if that?

You're not the general public, and as such most individuals do not mind paying for services. Generally speaking, there are still millions of individuals who do not have internet access and/or iTunes accounts with which to purchase such content. Choices are made based primarily on what is presented to the main stream customer.

This list may be missing a few things (e.g. core audio, core image, etc. ) but, really, need I say more?

You've completely missed my point. DVR capability was only ONE of the points I added (last minute), mostly because there are individuals who still record TV shows with DVR's. The success of TiVo is a perfect example of this fact.

While I agree that Apple is looking towards the future with internet television/movie content (I have much faith in that direction for many reasons, one of which is buying decent quality content without the endless commercials), the general public still rents and/or owns DVR boxes with their service and would like the use of such included in new technology.

My point was simplification. A device that has capabilities that would satisfy EVERYONE'S needs would be perfect for the present time. Steve Jobs seems to portray a growing sense of simplicity in the Apple product line. The :apple:TV seems to be just another hardware addition to an already growing stack of media players in most individuals homes. A device that could take the place of top set DVD players and cable boxes would simplify home entertainment. Taking it one step further by utilizing DVI output's would allow HDTV's to become wireless monitors. My 50" Pioneer Elite Pro has a DVI port built into the back for PC use, why not wirelessly stream desktops as well?

Further, you are making quite a jump by assuming the average consumer will be willing to throw away their DVD collection and strictly use internet content by blithely dismissing DVR units. When wireless technology becomes the mainstream with faster and more effecient connectivity and available online content then certainly cable television may become obsolete. Presently, it would be a huge mistake to assume that multi-billion dollar companies such as Time Warner and TiVo are wrong in investing in digital cable television. It will be years before internet content becomes the mainstream. Until then, cable boxes and DVR units are very much important to the general consumer.

Think Different indeed (and thanks for the grammar check, I realize the PROPER english is DIFFERENTLY), but that is not what Apple intended by using Different. Apple suggests "Think Different" not "Differently". Arrogrance is alive and well, eh kiddies? :rolleyes:

GregA
Mar 19, 2007, 06:48 PM
Now, tell me again why I want a DVR if I can get on-demand content a-la carte without paying for 900 channels of BS out of which I maybe watch 2-3 programs a day, if that?I agree with most of your post. There is one issue that you miss.

Consumers, in general, do not want to spend more than they currently spend. Naturally if something gives them considerable benefit that they weren't getting before, it becomes appealing to them.

That said, the iTunes model of purchasing all your content is far too expensive for regular TV viewing. I notice that you haven't spoken about costs in your extensive post - and technologically I'm with you 100%.

The question becomes - how can Apple lower the cost of watching a TV show? The options, as I see them, are
1) Rental
2) Subscription
3) DVR integration (FTA only)
4) DVR integration (cable/satellite)

Most of the shows I watch are FTA. If I could record them (free), + purchase the series I watch on cable & purchase some movies, I think it'd be a similar cost to my payTV bill.

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 06:49 PM
You're not the general public, and as such most individuals do not mind paying for services. Generally speaking, there are still millions of individuals who do not have internet access and/or iTunes accounts with which to purchase such content. Choices are made based primarily on what is presented to the main stream customer.

I would argue that the sorts of people that you are talking about here isn't the current target of the Apple TV. Here, Apple has an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of that future you see, and they want to show the infrastructure is in place. I see the Apple TV as it is now as the iPod was when it first came out. It didn't meet the needs of the average consumer that existed, but now it does because the average consumer has changed.

Sometimes, a company is better at showing you how it /could/ be, rather than trying to show you that they have what you thought you wanted.

I am getting an Apple TV because I am getting used to the idea of how it could be, and I like where it is heading... (and I have a chance to archive my DVD collection while I am at it, because of my geekery) When the content comes, I will be waiting gladly for it, since Comcast is pissing me off to no end right now. :/

Krevnik
Mar 19, 2007, 06:51 PM
Most of the shows I watch are FTA. If I could record them (free), + purchase the series I watch on cable & purchase some movies, I think it'd be a similar cost to my payTV bill.

I did the number crunching (for US customers in my area anyways), this route would let me subscribe to about 24-28 TV shows a year (36-40$ US) outside what is available FTA versus my current Comcast bill for digital cable. That is a lot of TV...

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 07:02 PM
When the content comes, I will be waiting gladly for it, since Comcast is pissing me off to no end right now. :/

I hear you on that. When I lived in NYC, I had Time Warner and paid roughly $80/month for everything. That included high speed earthlink at $29/mo and cable TV with everything, HD, Showtime/HBO - you name it. When I moved upstate to Rochester, NY for a bit, the comparable service for Time Warner is close to $150/mo. That's insane. Of course, when I asked them why my bills for the same exact services in the same exact company were so different, it came down to competition. NYC has Comcast and RCN, the only alternatives in upstate NY are DirectTV through phone companies such as Frontier. That's when I decided basic cable was fine as HD channels are legally required to be broadcast through basic digital cable. I don't buy shows through iTunes though, I usually use torrents and download them through other (free) online services.

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 07:06 PM
You're not the general public, and as such most individuals do not mind paying for services. Generally speaking, there are still millions of individuals who do not have internet access and/or iTunes accounts with which to purchase such content. Choices are made based primarily on what is presented to the main stream customer.

In 2003, 61 percent of households had a computer compared with 42 percent in 1998. From 2002 to 2003, broadband internet usage increased 50 percent from 26 to 39 million with projected usage of over 60 million by 2008. 2006 broadband usage rose to 42 million lines up from 32 million in the previous year, a ten

From 2000 to 2005, overall internet usage rose from 44% of the US population to 68%... tracking pretty closely with overall household ownership of computers.

Say what you will about the size of the market, but because of the niche that Apple's catering to, and the disposable income possessed by Apple's demographic, there are strong opportunities ahead. ThinkEquity analysts value the opportunities for AppleTV at $5 to $11 billion, roughly an increase of one quarter to one half over Apple's existing revenue.

You've completely missed my point. DVR capability was only ONE of the points I added (last minute), mostly because there are individuals who still record TV shows with DVR's. The success of TiVo is a perfect example of this fact.

By what stretch of the imagination are you calling them a success? Or are you just perceiving this without any hard figures?

TiVo went from positive to negative cash flow and has posted net losses for three consecutive years... posting higher net losses in 2006 than in 2004.

During this same period, Apple has tremendous positive cash flow relative to their size -- $2.9 billion in FY06; and they have posted net profits for more than three straight years.

Consumers are not picking up DVR's in droves... Most of the users of DVRs are cable/dish subscribers whose providers rent the equipment, but if given a choice consumers have identified a-la carte, on demand, internet-downloadable programming as one of their most highly desired products/services this year.

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 07:24 PM
The question becomes - how can Apple lower the cost of watching a TV show? The options, as I see them, are
1) Rental
2) Subscription
3) DVR integration (FTA only)
4) DVR integration (cable/satellite)

5) Not make you subsidize the 9 billion hours of programming you don't watch for the five to ten hours of programming a week you DO watch.

Most of the shows I watch are FTA. If I could record them (free), + purchase the series I watch on cable & purchase some movies, I think it'd be a similar cost to my payTV bill.

There's no reason you can't... but the point is that AppleTV is not the device to do this. Your computer is, and there are plenty of third-party solutions to add this functionality to your setup.

The biggest thing lacking in the equation is not these myriad features/benefits but the actual purposeful, smartly integrated and easy-to-use bridging of computer hardware with home entertainment hardware.

Apple may even grow other features around AppleTV but the place for those features is iTunes, not AppleTV.

Ever since they figured out how to drive a flicker-free cursor in software (which baffled Microsoft for another ten years), Apple have been the masters of knowing exactly where to stick features and how to prioritize them.

But first they need to address the technological gap between the computer and the TV... Because this has not been properly addressed with a viable solution. By keeping other features and specificity OUT of AppleTV, it makes AppleTV more useful.

How? Modular industrial design allows value to be added to the product at its endpoints... just as the value of the internet is not in the internet itself, but at its endpoints. As a financial analyst for one of the largest Tier 1 providers, I'll tell you that the greatest value the internet has to offer is by being a dumb network that does not prioritize any particular kind of content. Being the conduit is where the HUGE money is because you're allowing other more agile and diverse entities incur the fixed and variable costs of bringing feature-rich services and content to market that ultimately require your conduit.

This is precisely the genius of AppleTV. By not prioritizing it for any one service or feature, it is capable of bridging all kinds of features that can be facilitated at the endpoints.

Maybe some consumers don't want a 40 inch LCD... maybe I want a 70 inch Sony SXRD XBR LCoS display. Maybe some consumers don't want DiVX, DVR or subscription-based IPTV.

Most companies business models are predicated on products that do fifteen things badly, rather than doing one thing superbly. Apple's core competency is the latter. For them to do otherwise would mean annihilating the brand equity they've regained since 1997.

Don't believe me? Dig up the Harvard Business Review case study of Nicholas Hayek's resurrection of the Omega Watch Co. which at one point had diluted itself with too many watch lines at too broad a price range. Hayek eliminated the confusion and refocused the brand on high quality Swiss chronometers and spun their lower lines into a different business unit (you may have heard of them... Swatch).

To that end, Apple is indeed addressing the "everything else" market with their Mobile Mac business unit that will have some fantastic mobile computing devices coming out in the next three years that will demonstrate that they took "computer" out of their name not because they plan on making toasters and electric toothbrushes... but because while iPhone, iPod and AppleTV are essentially computers, Apple has redefined how we use this technology to the point where "computer" is no longer a useful term to describe it.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 07:28 PM
By what stretch of the imagination are you calling them a success? Or are you just perceiving this without any hard figures?

TiVo went from positive to negative cash flow and has posted net losses for three consecutive years... posting higher net losses in 2006 than in 2004.

During this same period, Apple has tremendous positive cash flow relative to their size -- $2.9 billion in FY06; and they have posted net profits for more than three straight years.

Consumers are not picking up DVR's in droves... Most of the users of DVRs are cable/dish subscribers whose providers rent the equipment, but if given a choice consumers have identified a-la carte, on demand, internet-downloadable programming as one of their most highly desired products/services this year.

Ok, breeeaaaath. I'm seriously not going to waste my time digging up corporate financial statistics/reports for Time Warner and TiVo to prove any point I have made about DVR and Cable Television subscription/viewership. I think people take things waaaaayyy to personally on these boards sometimes and forget that THIS IS ABOUT A COMPANY THAT NEITHER OF US OWN. Who really cares in the end? My simple statement would be things "I" would like to have seen included in :apple:TV. I didn't make any outlandish standments or personal attacks on any one, so I think some of you need to relax a little and realize the world will continue with or without :apple:TV. :rolleyes:

Avatar74
Mar 19, 2007, 07:45 PM
Ok, breeeaaaath. I'm seriously not going to waste my time digging up corporate financial statistics/reports for Time Warner and TiVo to prove any point I have made about DVR and Cable Television subscription/viewership.

Obviously. But for sake of argument, the numbers I presented are from Tivo's corporate statements.

I think people take things waaaaayyy to personally on these boards sometimes and forget that THIS IS ABOUT A COMPANY THAT NEITHER OF US OWN. Who really cares in the end? My simple statement would be things "I" would like to have seen included in :apple:TV. I didn't make any outlandish standments or personal attacks on any one, so I think some of you need to relax a little and realize the world will continue with or without :apple:TV. :rolleyes:

I didn't make a single personal attack. I don't have any need to. It's not you I'm interested in dismantling... it's your argument, which I dissociate from you just as I dissociate myself from my argument (as soon as I walk away from this keyboard I'll have forgotten this debate, and hopefully so will you have).

But to put a point on it... I'm a financial analyst, and a person who loves to deconstruct arguments just as I break down numbers. I simply find your statement completely incongruous with the financials.

I am passionate about technology just as I am passionate about evolutionary biology, and while I don't care what you stand behind after you leave a discussion (I'm not interested in changing your mind) I am interested in arguing one's case on the basis of the facts.

What I find lacking in your argument are the facts to substantiate your assertions.

You can confuse that for a personal attack if you like... but I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling your argument lacking.

iDave
Mar 19, 2007, 07:59 PM
Think different(ly)... indeed...

Now, tell me again why I want a DVR if I can get on-demand content a-la carte without paying for 900 channels of BS out of which I maybe watch 2-3 programs a day, if that?

<snip>

If I can order the programs I want, watch them when I want, and store and access them on a system more powerful than any DVR in existence, a system that most consumers already have in their homes (it's called a computer)... why do I even need cable/dish?

<snip>
I agree with your lengthy discussion 100%. The only thing missing at this point is the HD 720p content for which AppleTV is designed. Currently, cable, satellite and over the air are the best ways to get HD TV. iTunes Store content is substandard. Hopefully that will change really soon and I'll be onboard in a flash.

mrgreen4242
Mar 19, 2007, 08:04 PM
1) Slingbox and other streaming media systems CAN play DVD movies on Media Center PC wirelessly, so it wouldn't be a stretch to incorporate iDVD to play wirelessly through :apple:TV, just a matter of software.

2) This isn't about MONEY, but simplification. Eliminating a top set DVD unit from your home entertainment system and utilizing the DVD player on a Mac or PC would make perfect sense, especially as internal Blu-ray DVD drives are currently available on the market for much less than stand alone top sets.

3) As I (and generally most movie lovers) have hundreds of DVD's, it would be a great deal of HD space. Currently I have about 1000+ DVD's in my collection stored in Case Logic books. If the point of ripping your movie collection is to have instant access to them wirelessly from your Mac or PC, then it would be a lot of physical HD space to have an entire collection at your instant fingertips. 1,000 DVD's would translate to at LEAST 4,000 gig. As a 750 gig Seagate Ultra (not Serial) ATA drive is roughly $400 at Bestbuy, you're talking at least $1,000 JUST for movie storage. Doesn't make much sense (not to mention the hours in ripping DVD's). Why would I want to rip hundred's if not thousands of DVD's onto a hard drive, then spend more time compressing them so they fit and quite possibly losing quality in compression?

1) OK, again, iDVD DOES NOT PLAY DVDs.
2) How is this simpler? I have to dig out my DVD, put it into a player that is generally in another part of the house (the computer), then go watch it in the living room? Plus, I need a remote that can control my computer through walls, etc, which is more expensive and less reliable.
3) A 250gb HDD is <$70 and will hold 250 movies at DVD quality if you encode them in MPEG4.

I'm turning my wife's several year old PC into a box to hold DVD rips to playback through my TiVo. I'm not even going to re-encode them, just rip the main movie and main soundtrack to the disk and store it. Most movies are between 3.5gb and 5gb with all the features and foreign languages removed. It takes about 15 minutes to rip them like this. I've got a 120gb HDD in there, with about 100gb free after OS and apps, etc. I'm going to spend $70 and add 250gb more. So I can store about 80-90 movies at a time. Not my ENTIRE collection, but I can keep my 50 favorite movies on there in PERFECT DVD quality and have room for my 30-40 newest movies, stuff I've rented but didn't have time to watch, movies I've borrowed, whatever. Plenty of space, for my needs. Total expense: 1 out-dated Dell PC (it's seriously 3+ years old), and $70 for a new HDD. I could EASILY go for a 400gb drive for $100 if I feel like it at the time and add 30 movies to the system.

I could use a spiffy on the fly MPEG4 to MPEG2 conversion utility for TiVos that would let me store roughly 4x as many movies at the expense of some quality and the extra time to reencode them. I'm going to stick with the lossless quality and sub-15 minute rip time.

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 08:08 PM
Obviously. No matter... the numbers I presented are, in fact, from Tivo's corporate SEC filings.



I didn't make a single personal attack. I don't have any need to. It's not you I'm interested in dismantling... it's your argument, which I dissociate from you just as I dissociate myself from my argument (as soon as I walk away from this keyboard I'll have forgotten this debate, and hopefully so will you have).

But to put a point on it... I'm a financial analyst, and a person who loves to deconstruct arguments just as I break down numbers. I simply find your statement completely incongruous with the financials.

I am passionate about technology just as I am passionate about evolutionary biology, and while I don't care what you stand behind after you leave a discussion (I'm not interested in changing your mind) I am interested in arguing one's case on the basis of the facts.

What I find lacking in your argument are the facts to substantiate your assertions.

You can confuse that for a personal attack if you like... but I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling your argument stupid.

1) Referring to any one's argument as stupid is indirectly referring to their logic and such as rudimentary and stupid (my BA from Stanford and MA in social organizational psych from Columbia may prove that point invalid). There are other terms in the English lexicon to refer to someone's argument other than "stupid" - we are adults here, right?

2) Assuming that your statistics are sound (no links?), just because internet use has increased nationally does not automatically equate to millions of DVR/Cable users automatically ditching their DVR units for :apple:TV and internet content. There is no correlation between increased internet use and decreased cable television viewership and DVR ownership (or causality).

3) Mediamark Research (MRI) finds that 11.2 percent of U.S. adult households have DVRs, up from 8.6 in the fall of 2005 and 3 percent in 2004. DVRs households record an average 11.3 shows per week, up 23 percent from last year. The number of shows actually recorded on DVRs is low relative to the volume of TV consumed. The report estimates 4 percent of all TV viewing in the U.S. is recorded or consumed through on-demand channels.

DVR owners tend to have higher levels of education and household incomes. College educated adults comprise 36.8 percent of DVR owners, compared to 25.2 percent of the U.S. adult population. Seventeen percent of DVR homes have an average household income exceeding $150,000, compared to 8 percent of the general adult population. Nearly 16 percent of DVR households own homes worth over $500,000, compared to 9 percent of the general population.

The DVR market is still considerably a HUGE market Apple, Inc. is essentially ignoring through :apple:TV.

While the iPod took years to obtain cult status and popularity, the iPod entered a market that was new and undeveloped (digital music content). Many individuals scoffed at the idea of throwing away their CD's for MP3's, and it took a few years for just such to occur. However, comparing CD's to DVD's and DVR equipment is essentially comparing apple's (no pun intended) to oranges, for reasons I will not go into now (such as heavier copy right protection and laws associated with DVD's and the psychology of the average consumer switching from DVD content to even more heavily regulated iTunes video content - is it possible to burn iTunes movies to DVD's?)...

More DVR statistics:
DVR Ownership and Usage

• DVR ownership is growing rapidly: In Feb. 2006, a study by Rider Research concluded that world DVR usage among digital TV subscribers will increase from 7% in 2004 to 61% in 2010.
• Forrester Research generally concurs: the firm estimated in 2006 that approximately 15 percent of US households currently own a DVR. By 2010, Forrester predicts that more than 50% of US households will own DVRs.
• An October 2006 estimate by market-research firm IDC predicts that nearly 20 million DVRs will be sold in 2006, increasing to more than 43 million units in 2010.
• According to figures published in the Hollywood Reporter in Nov. 2005, DVR households watch 12% more TV than non-DVR households.

So how is my argument about DVR usage "stupid"? :eek:

macinfojunkie
Mar 19, 2007, 08:17 PM
What I don't understand is why is this ripping illegal for movies, but legal for music? Is there really a qualititative difference between the two that justifies different rules?

The problem stems from the fact that DVDs are encrypted and CDs are generally not. You are allowed to make copies under the fair use terms of copyright laws in various jurisdictions, but in the US as increasingly in other countries, it is now illegal to break encryption (which is specifically put in place to control copyright). If you think this lay (at least in the US is anti consumer - you would be right) - But that is what happens when commercial interests end up running a country - the companies get their way and the little people get screwed. Having said that I can't blame the companies who market content for trying to protect their interests, it is just the way they go about i which is wrong in that it penalises the legitimate user without doing much to stifle the pirate. FYI it is also a crime in an increasing amount of western jurisdictions to even try to reverse engineer an copy protection method - such s applied to DVD and also DRB or HD-DVD. Thankfully that does not seem to deter the skilful and determined few who provide salvation for the infuriated many :-)

CJD2112
Mar 19, 2007, 08:21 PM
1) OK, again, iDVD DOES NOT PLAY DVDs.

Easy champ, my bad, I meant DVD player. I think you know what I meant (I've been using iDVD all day long on projects so it was in my mind).

2) How is this simpler? I have to dig out my DVD, put it into a player that is generally in another part of the house (the computer), then go watch it in the living room? Plus, I need a remote that can control my computer through walls, etc, which is more expensive and less reliable.

As someone who has left I/O psych for interior design and architecture, one of the pro's with Apple has been the ability to have wireless surround sound capability with Mac/PC systems using wireless routers and Airport Express stations. This takes out the need for multiple stereo equipment throughout most homes. Most people, including myself, have a few AVR's linked to Airport Expresses in various rooms and a BT remote control (various manufacturers have them available on the market) that allows the user to view what is playing and what is next in iTunes, etc.

This system has generally eliminated top set CD players from most homes, with the Airport Express wirelessly playing music from a "virtual" CD Player - the home computer.

Now, this model could be EXACTLY the same with DVD's. Why not have the home Mac/PC become the "virtual" DVD player WITHOUT having to rip every DVD in your library? Who cares if you have to go to your Mac/PC to insert a DVD to watch a movie? Are people THAT lazy??? Further, using this model suggests the need for only ONE DVD player on a Mac/PC, meaning you don't need multiple DVD players in every room of the house, just a Mac/PC with a high end internal DVD optical drive to play/stream from... and yes, there ARE remotes on the market with corresponding software that would allow such, yet my point is if Apple incorporated such capabilities within their :apple:TV product, then the software would be included.

I'm turning my wife's several year old PC into a box to hold DVD rips to playback through my TiVo. I'm not even going to re-encode them, just rip the main movie and main soundtrack to the disk and store it. Most movies are between 3.5gb and 5gb with all the features and foreign languages removed. It takes about 15 minutes to rip them like this.

Ok, so basically I should spend 15 minutes a DVD to rip them into another computer. That means I will have ANOTHER piece of hardware along with the :apple:TV I could presumably buy. 15 minutes a DVD times 1,000+ DVD's, I don't have the time for that and I can bet not many people do. More over, what happens if those HDD's fail and alllll those DVD's you ripped are gone? Will you have backup's of all your DVD's? And if so, that will require more drives and more money. Or will you keep your original DVD's just in case, taking up more room and detracting from the simplicity of the :apple:TV, and requiring the ripping process all over again? How is this simpler?

Wouldn't it make more sense just to stream DVD's from the Mac to a HDTV? Nothing seems simpler than that... :confused:

caccamolle
Mar 19, 2007, 08:25 PM
I agree with your lengthy discussion 100%. The only thing missing at this point is the HD 720p content for which AppleTV is designed. Currently, cable, satellite and over the air are the best ways to get HD TV. iTunes Store content is substandard. Hopefully that will change really soon and I'll be onboard in a flash.

And I agree with you BOTH !!!

All very good and valid points.

I would add, as to 720p content, that is just a matter of time but it is coming, SJ knows it, who doesn't after all ?

The reality is however that 720p content has just begun to appear in some quantity - I can testify to that having had a HD panel for nearly 4 years !!!

matticus008
Mar 19, 2007, 08:28 PM
You are not allowed to back up a copy-protected DVD to a hard disk...
Yeah, you are. You're just not allowed to break the encryption on it. If you make an image of your DVD verbatim and store it archivally, that's fine, so long as you're not doing anything disallowed with that backup copy.

nanaky1982
Mar 19, 2007, 08:29 PM
You people keep forgetting that Apple TV is not just video.

Is having your music in your living room playing thru your home cinema in a really easy way. Playing videoclips in parties. Showing your pics of your last trip to people from the couch.

And probably more functionality down the road. This is what i think apple tv will be capable of really soon:

-display your computer screen (leopard) thru your tv (imaging internet that easy in your big ass tv

-games

-itunes rental of shows and movies right from the tv

-etc?

:)

Plus is just cool and looks beautiful under the tv!!!!

caccamolle
Mar 19, 2007, 08:29 PM
Easy champ, my bad, I meant DVD player. I think you know what I meant (I've been using iDVD all day long on projects so it was in my mind).



As someone who has left I/O psych for interior design and architecture, one of the pro's with Apple has been the ability to have wireless surround sound capability with Mac/PC systems using wireless routers and Airport Express stations. This takes out the need for multiple stereo equipment throughout most homes. Most people, including myself, have a few AVR's linked to Airport Expresses in various rooms and a BT remote control (various manufacturers have them available on the market) that allows the user to view what is playing and what is next in iTunes, etc.

This system has generally eliminated top set CD players from most homes, with the Airport Express wirelessly playing music from a "virtual" CD Player - the home computer.

Now, this model could be EXACTLY the same with DVD's. Why not have the home Mac/PC become the "vitrual" DVD player WITHOUT having to rip every DVD in your library? Who cares if you have to go to your Mac/PC to insert a DVD to watch a movie? Are people THAT lazy??? ... and yes, there ARE remotes on the market with corresponding software that would allow such, yet my point is if Apple incorporated such capabilities within their :apple:TV the software included.

[QUOTE}I'm turning my wife's several year old PC into a box to hold DVD rips to playback through my TiVo. I'm not even going to re-encode them, just rip the main movie and main soundtrack to the disk and store it. Most movies are between 3.5gb and 5gb with all the features and foreign languages removed. It takes about 15 minutes to rip them like this.

Ok, so basically I should spend 15 minutes a DVD to rip them into another computer. That means I will have ANOTHER piece of hardware along with the :apple:TV I could presumably buy. 15 minutes a DVD times 1,000+ DVD's, I don't have the time for that and I can bet not many people do. More over, what happens if those HDD's fail and alllll those DVD's you ripped are gone? Will you have backup's of all your DVD's? And if so, that will require more drives and more money. Or will you keep your original DVD's just in case, taking up more room and detracting from the simplicity of the :apple:TV, and requiring the ripping process all over again? How is this simpler?

Wouldn't it make more sense just to stream DVD's from the Mac to a HDTV? Nothing seems simpler than that... :confused:[/QUOTE]

yes, ripping dvd's is a major PIA, in fact not practical at all. So far. This may change.

matticus008
Mar 19, 2007, 08:34 PM
I'm pretty sure you are confusing digital TV with HDTV. ATSC defines everything up to 704x480 with a square or non-square pixel, and interlaced or progressive as standard definition. HD starts at 1280x720 or about a million pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc

Digital TV doesn't mean HD TV, just that it's digital.
Nope, no confusion here. 480p (when marketed as EDTV) is part of the HDTV standard. There is no such thing as 'EDTV' officially--there is SDTV (which is exclusively limited to 30fps) and HDTV. See your preferred source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced-definition_television.

Again, that's not to say that 480p is "high definition" content, but merely that it is part of the standard. ATSC does not recognize EDTV as a standard, as it's purely a marketing fabrication. The trouble lies in the fact that 480p can also fall into the SDTV category, but no 480p broadcasts are made in SDTV.

Sport73
Mar 19, 2007, 08:41 PM
MacinJosh and Avatar74,

for all intensive purposes, you both are right... just arguing the same side of the coin so to speak. I see you both are very passionate about the subject of dvd resolution, but in the interest of our general readers, would it be possible to move this geek debate into a new thread?

thanks, spicy :)

There are no INTENSIVE purposes, unless you're really intense about doing multiple things.

The correct phrase is "for all INTENTS and PURPOSES".

Pet Peeve. Move along. Nothing to see here.

jaw04005
Mar 19, 2007, 09:23 PM
Nope, no confusion here. 480p (when marketed as EDTV) is part of the HDTV standard. There is no such thing as 'EDTV' officially--there is SDTV (which is exclusively limited to 30fps) and HDTV. See your preferred source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced-definition_television.

480p is part of the ATSC digital television standard, not the HDTV standard. The article you referenced, clearly describes 480p under the "standard definition" designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc#Resolution

As marked by the HDTV resolution graphic below, only 720p, 1080i and 1080p resolutions are considered part of the HDTV standard.

"Current HDTV standards are defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R BT.709) as 1080 active interlace or progressive scan lines, or 720 progressive scan lines, using a 16:9 aspect ratio."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV#Standard_resolutions

lucascantor
Mar 19, 2007, 09:32 PM
My "XTREMEMAC HDMI TO DVI CABLE," which I ordered with the Apple TV, just shipped. Wahoo!

berkleeboy210
Mar 19, 2007, 10:10 PM
AppleTV now 3-5 day lead time for orders placed today on the US Apple Online Store.

Krevnik
Mar 20, 2007, 01:39 AM
AppleTV now 3-5 day lead time for orders placed today on the US Apple Online Store.

Even better, I just got a shipment notice. FedEx is aware of the package, but has yet to receive it.

http://web.mac.com/adamth/Files/Picture 3.png

Sorry for the crappy blur job, but I wound up using iPhoto on a trackpad to blur it.

Peace
Mar 20, 2007, 02:23 AM
Even better, I just got a shipment notice. FedEx is aware of the package, but has yet to receive it.



Sorry for the crappy blur job, but I wound up using iPhoto on a trackpad to blur it.


Mine just changed to shipped March 20th with a fedex tracking # also..:D

Jim Campbell
Mar 20, 2007, 03:18 AM
(my BA from Stanford and MA in social organizational psych from Columbia may prove that point invalid)

And yet, somehow, all that expensive education didn't result in the ability to correctly deploy an apostrophe?

Cheers!

Jim

PS - No comment on the relative merits of either side of this argument - I'm just an apostrophe fascist.

WilliamLondon
Mar 20, 2007, 04:03 AM
Um, yeah, and that cost you HOW much? I googled prices for a 2 Trillion byte HD, they start at about $1,000. As I have WELL over 1,000 DVD's in five case logic books, it would cost me a hell of a lot of money (and time in ripping). Pointless... :(

I just saw advertised in the US (I'm in the UK) the same HDD I bought here for about $500. Not much compared to what you spent acquiring such an enviable number of DVDs (and I AM envious! mine is just around 300 or so<sigh>), and you must admit your library size is more than most. Not pointless, just different priorities and where you are in the adoption curve (those little discs have an end date in sight).

virduk
Mar 20, 2007, 04:57 AM
One thing I'm wondering about with the AppleTV is the whole audio issue as it relates to TV and film. These days thats in 5.1 Dolby or DTS (or lossless formats on HDDVD/BluRay). What exactly can the AppleTV handle? Is it stuck with just stereo?

Supposedly AAC can handle up to 7.1...but can anything decode that audio?

stillwater
Mar 20, 2007, 05:04 AM
I got the shipping notice from Apple about three hours ago. On the Fedex tracking page, it says Package data transmitted on March 18.

lyonsden
Mar 20, 2007, 05:21 AM
As of 3/19 23:30 PDT, my :apple:tv has shipped! :D

Been waiting for mine since January 11th, now a different kind of waiting game has begun.

Cintos
Mar 20, 2007, 06:21 AM
Greetings: My Apple TV shipped today (March 20, 6PM local time) via FEDEX from SHENZHEN, China. :)

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 07:12 AM
And yet, somehow, all that expensive education didn't result in the ability to correctly deploy an apostrophe?

Cheers!

Jim

PS - No comment on the relative merits of either side of this argument - I'm just an apostrophe fascist.

Arrogance is the ugliest form of insecurity. If I really cared about the perfection of my [causual] postings on a Apple website, I might take the time to proof read. Sadly, I have better things to do [but thank you for pointing out my misappropriation of "apostrophes". kudos]. :rolleyes:

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 07:23 AM
I just saw advertised in the US (I'm in the UK) the same HDD I bought here for about $500. Not much compared to what you spent acquiring such an enviable number of DVDs (and I AM envious! mine is just around 300 or so<sigh>), and you must admit your library size is more than most. Not pointless, just different priorities and where you are in the adoption curve (those little discs have an end date in sight).

lol true, but you should see my friend's collection who works for Dreamworks (well, worked, I think he switched studios recently). His name is Mark and they call him "Markbuster" for the walls of DVD's he has (and he insists on keeping them in their original DVD containers). He actually had a room built with bookshelves just for his DVD collection. Yeah, insane eh :eek:

I would love nothing more than to rip them all to a system as I tend to minimize the clutter in my home and I like simplicity in my media and such. When the iPod first came out, I was one of the many who spent close to $500 on the 5GB unit, but still had difficulty letting go of my CD collection. Now that I am 100% digital, I would love for the same to apply to my DVD collection. My only concerns are:

1) the time spent in ripping my collection

2) any quality that may be "lost in translation" from ripping

3) the total size in DVD movies would be much greater than my measly 10.14 GB song collection, which due to its size my music is much easier to back up in case of any possible HDD failure

I'm certain once the :apple:TV takes off, issues with excessive drive sizes and ripping times will be extremely improved. Until then, my concerns mean nothing, just the banter of a spoiled American enjoying the benefits of a blossoming digital age.

(Now excuse me while I proof read for any punctuation errors ;) )

--Oh, and where in the UK are you? I LOVE the UK, used to live in London and spent many vacations there wishing I could move (and if things keep up in the US political and cultural departments I may be seeking asylum soon lol - although I have been disappointed to see more and more American corporations such as Blockbuster and fast food franchises such as KFC and Starbucks taking over all the private Mom and Pop businesses that made [my] London so memorable *sigh* ).

---Oh, and PPS, sorry about the Whitney joke, I was just playing, didn't mean anything by it but stupid humor ;)

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 07:29 AM
One thing I'm wondering about with the AppleTV is the whole audio issue as it relates to TV and film. These days thats in 5.1 Dolby or DTS (or lossless formats on HDDVD/BluRay). What exactly can the AppleTV handle? Is it stuck with just stereo?

Supposedly AAC can handle up to 7.1...but can anything decode that audio?

From the specs, it has dolby digital out and I believe :apple:TV can handle 5.1 surround sound. Not sure about 7.1, don't think that it can. My Denon AVR has 6.1 and 7.1 capabilities but I never bothered. Wonder that that must be like, more theatre like I suppose? If you use it often, is it worth it in your opinion?

Jim Campbell
Mar 20, 2007, 07:49 AM
Arrogance is the ugliest form of insecurity. If I really cared about the perfection of my [causual] postings on a Apple website, I might take the time to proof read.

You were the one who brought up the level of your education as if others were supposed to be impressed, and yet seemed unaware that MP3's, CD's, DVD's and even (in your context) "apple's" were all sporting completely erroneous apostrophes.

I'm unsure why you chose to put the word apostrophe in quotation marks, by the way. That's the correct name for one of these: '.

I would have hoped that describing myself as an "apostrophe fascist" might have clued you in to the fact that I wasn't entirely serious, but there you go. Would it help if I used smileys?

Cheers!

Jim

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 08:00 AM
You were the one who brought up the level of your education as if others were supposed to be impressed, and yet seemed unaware that MP3's, CD's, DVD's and even (in your context) "apple's" were all sporting completely erroneous apostrophes.

I'm unsure why you chose to put the word apostrophe in quotation marks, by the way. That's the correct name for one of these: '.

I would have hoped that describing myself as an "apostrophe fascist" might have clued you in to the fact that I wasn't entirely serious, but there you go. Would it help if I used smileys?

Cheers!

Jim

It'd help if you kept a little perspective and realized that THIS IS A MESSAGE BOARD, and not submissions for Columbia'S Pulitzer Prize.

Keep one thing in mind, sarcasm does NOT carry well online between individuals who do not personally know one another. When dissecting the insignificant comments of individuals you do not personally know, it might make more sense in exercising a little caution and respect when addressing others...

and no, I will not be checking my quick comment for grammatic and punctuation errors. :rolleyes:

Cheers!

FleurDuMal
Mar 20, 2007, 08:09 AM
Why does every AppleTV thread turn into a geek fight?! :confused:

Jim Campbell
Mar 20, 2007, 08:28 AM
It'd help if you kept a little perspective and realized that THIS IS A MESSAGE BOARD, and not submissions for Columbia'S Pulitzer Prize.

Sorry ... I genuinely am a language fascist on matters like this.

It's only a short hop and a step from "Lighten up, dude - it's only an apostrophe" to having all of our written communication being in this style:

GR8 C U 2mora B4 7 M8

I know this sort of thing doesn't upset everyone the way it upsets me, but there you go.

Off-topic by a mile, so I'll shut up now.

Cheers!

Jim

skinnylegs
Mar 20, 2007, 09:08 AM
Who really cares in the end?I care.....I own :apple: stock. :D

CJD.....you have presented a compelling argument. Nice job and great read.

BTW.....for those of you who are screaming about the lack of a DVD drive in the :apple: TV; try watching a DVD on your widescreen LCD via your computer and *then* tell me you still want one. In short order, you will end up ditching your computer based DVD player for your trusty 'ol standalone DVD player. The quality of set top DVD players is *far* superior to software driven DVD players on computers.

iDave
Mar 20, 2007, 09:20 AM
The quality of set top DVD players is *far* superior to software driven DVD players on computers.
If they have the built-in HD upscaling feature, I agree. Many of the el-cheapo $40 DVD players don't.

skinnylegs
Mar 20, 2007, 09:24 AM
'Ya know, iDave (great name BTW), I've found that the *cheapest* DVD players provide better picture quality than software solutions with every codec known to man installed.

I was an early adopter in terms of media centers. A number of years ago I purchased an Alienware Media Center PC. I ended up using it solely for pictures and music because I couldn't live with having my pristine digital signal essentially degraded to craptastic analog quality. I also was not at all happy with software driven DVD players. So.....I used my standalone DVD player for watching DVD's, my Cox Cable DVR for PVR duties and the Alienware rig for music and pictures.

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 09:55 AM
I care.....I own :apple: stock. :D

CJD.....you have presented a compelling argument. Nice job and great read.

BTW.....for those of you who are screaming about the lack of a DVD drive in the :apple: TV; try watching a DVD on your widescreen LCD via your computer and *then* tell me you still want one. In short order, you will end up ditching your computer based DVD player for your trusty 'ol standalone DVD player. The quality of set top DVD players is *far* superior to software driven DVD players on computers.

Certainly true, top set DVD units are currently far superior to computer internal drive DVD units. Yet that could always change, especially if :apple:TV incorporated streaming DVD capability, certainly internal drives would match. As Apple has proudly proclaimed 2006 to be "The Year of High Def", I wouldn't be surprised if Blu-ray drives and high definition units become standard fare in up-coming Apple systems. That being stated, perhaps DVD drives and software will become top set quality.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments :D, and I'm still kicking myself for not investing in Apple years ago *sigh*

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 09:59 AM
Sorry ... I genuinely am a language fascist on matters like this.

It's only a short hop and a step from "Lighten up, dude - it's only an apostrophe" to having all of our written communication being in this style:

GR8 C U 2mora B4 7 M8

I know this sort of thing doesn't upset everyone the way it upsets me, but there you go.

Off-topic by a mile, so I'll shut up now.

Cheers!

Jim

Excellent point. What is even more alarming (and sadly humorous) are the recent trends for American High School students to submit final papers with "BTW", "ur", "imho", etc. as proper english. Makes me so proud of the current American educational state and the "No Child Left Behind" Bush political educational "strategy". *sigh*

skinnylegs
Mar 20, 2007, 10:02 AM
Certainly true, top set DVD units are currently far superior to computer internal drive DVD units. Yet that could always change, especially if :apple:TV incorporated streaming DVD capability, certainly internal drives would match. As Apple has proudly proclaimed 2006 to be "The Year of High Def", I wouldn't be surprised if Blu-ray drives and high definition units become standard fare in up-coming Apple systems. That being stated, perhaps DVD drives and software will become top set quality.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments :D, and I'm still kicking myself for not investing in Apple years ago *sigh*I'll be interested to see how streaming DVD's panns out. Can this be accomplished without degrading visual quality?

BTW.....have you checked out HD DVD or Blu-Ray? It is most excellent! I went with HD DVD 'cause I already had an Xbox 360 and the add-o moudule was only $100 additional. I am sold on HD DVD and Netflix has a *huge* library of HD DVD films. If I'm not mistaken, they get them as they are released.

Jim Campbell
Mar 20, 2007, 10:10 AM
Certainly true, top set DVD units are currently far superior to computer internal drive DVD units.

Really? Maybe it's because our old DVD player was 1) old and 2) cheap, or maybe it's because our new TV isn't actually that big, but we've found picture quality much, much better through the Mac Mini than the dedicated box.

Quick question, though ... I've fiddled with the settings in DVD Player so that the playback is lovely. However, Front Row doesn't seem to pick up DVD Player's preferences (I've fiddled with the volume EQ, f'r instance). Am I doing something wrong, or this an oversight on the part of Apple?

Cheers!

Jim

CJD2112
Mar 20, 2007, 10:28 AM
Really? Maybe it's because our old DVD player was 1) old and 2) cheap, or maybe it's because our new TV isn't actually that big, but we've found picture quality much, much better through the Mac Mini than the dedicated box.

Quick question, though ... I've fiddled with the settings in DVD Player so that the playback is lovely. However, Front Row doesn't seem to pick up DVD Player's preferences (I've fiddled with the volume EQ, f'r instance). Am I doing something wrong, or this an oversight on the part of Apple?

Cheers!

Jim

Good question. Unfortunately I own a Mac Pro and Aluminum Cinema Display so I don't have Front Row capability (although I have tinkered with the software and got Front Row to work with keyboard commands).

As I have a Pioneer 50" Elite Pro 1080P plasma, I'm next going to purchase a top set Blu-ray DVD unit (although for $1,000+ I'm hesitant as prices will certainly tumble). I remember back in 1998 I purchased a Sony 5-Disc DVD/CD player for $899 (crazy eh) and now they can't give away units such as those. Sony does make an internal Blu-ray DVD drive for $699. I almost considered purchasing it but then realize it wouldn't be worth it as I hardly watch movies on my Mac, but would be worth it if I could watch Blu-ray DVD's from my Mac to my HDTV (and $699 is much less expensive than $1200 for a Sony Blu-ray top set). In the end, I would just hate to purchase a top set Blu-ray player AND an internal Blu-ray optical drive when just one unit would be perfect for my needs.

I completely forgot that Pioneer has a Blu-ray unit on the market for roughly $1500 that also incorporates wireless streaming and connectivity to Mac/PC systems JUST as the :apple:TV does LOL. Check this out:

Only Pioneer's Blu-ray Disc Player connects easily into your existing home network, allowing you to serve up movies, music and photos from your PC to your flat panel—at your TV's highest possible resolution.

So it seems Pioneer has a DVD unit that also syncs up to computer systems just as the :apple:TV

Here's the link:

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/top/product/0,,2076_310069741,00.html:apple: