PDA

View Full Version : Apple TV Unboxing Photos (and Video)




MacRumors
Mar 21, 2007, 05:12 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/21/apple-tv-unboxing-photos/)


Gizmodo (http://www.gizmodo.com) has posted the first unboxing photos (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/appletv-first-unboxing-246057.php) of the Apple TV.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/03/21/medium_300.jpg

It looks like they really got into it, with Unboxing Photos (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/appletv-first-unboxing-246057.php) and then a series of 57 photos "From Backside to Unbox" (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/57-photos-of-the-appletv-+-from-backside-to-unbox-246076.php) and a few additional notes about it (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/what-you-dont-already-know-about-appletv-246088.php).

A couple of the more interesting notes:

- AppleTV will pick up where your iPod left off
- Your iTunes season passes are automatically pushed over to your AppleTV's hard drive, and the episodes you've already watched will be removed automatically.

Update: Video of Apple TV Setup (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple-tv/first-video-setting-up-apple-tv-246124.php)

Article Link: Apple TV Unboxing Photos (and Video) (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/21/apple-tv-unboxing-photos/)



avensis087
Mar 21, 2007, 05:15 PM
awesome...i want mine now

Zwhaler
Mar 21, 2007, 05:15 PM
As always, Apples unboxing is always fun of any of their products. Now I almost want one when I get my nice TV.

milo
Mar 21, 2007, 05:15 PM
I'd love to buy one of these right now. I guess it's good for me that Apple made it only HDTV compatible since it forces me to wait. Can't wait to get my hands on one, right now I'm watching a ton of TV from ipod and this would be a big step up.

adamw
Mar 21, 2007, 05:17 PM
Gizmodo calls the Apple TV "an iPod for your TV". It looks like that is what Apple is positioning Apple TV for. You still create/encode/download your content via iTunes on your PC or Mac. Then use Apple TV as the "conduit" to display your content on your widescreen HDTV. That about sums it up. Easy interface. Apple does it again - iPod for Video for your TV.

zane
Mar 21, 2007, 05:18 PM
That was so awesome

queshy
Mar 21, 2007, 05:22 PM
Looks nice, typical apple packaging. No cables sucks though. If they included HDMI and component cables, they would eliminate like 100 negatives that this thread is gonna get lol

twoodcc
Mar 21, 2007, 05:24 PM
nice pics. it seems it's always fun looking at stuff like this from apple. kinda makes me want one, even though i really don't need it :apple:

puckhead193
Mar 21, 2007, 05:30 PM
does anyone know if the demo is at the store yet?

Darkroom
Mar 21, 2007, 05:30 PM
i'm surprised the Apple Remote still uses IR... an Apple Remote that finally uses Bluetooth would have been an interesting addition to the Apple TV...

on that note, i can't wait until the iPod Nano doubles as the official Apple Remote (with Bluetooth of course).

zeppo93008
Mar 21, 2007, 05:35 PM
I betcha that this AppleTV has no closed caption capabilities. If it does not, WAY TO GO, APPLE. Thank you, Steve, for thinking about us, hearing impaired. When you download TV programs and Movies. AppleTV and iTunes does NOT support closed captions. You can not find anywhere on AppleTV and iTunes specs that it supports closed captions. I understand that the videos must have symbol "cc" next to download page of each program or movie to tell you that it has closed caption capability. I have yet not been able to get"cc" to work in which way possible. If there is anyone out there in AppleLand that can tell me how to get closed caption to work or will there be any support in the near future, please tell me. Thank you. :-(

Konradx
Mar 21, 2007, 05:42 PM
no video cables..lame.

pale9
Mar 21, 2007, 05:42 PM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

mduser63
Mar 21, 2007, 05:43 PM
does anyone know if the demo is at the store yet?

Wasn't there at my local apple store at closing time last night. Haven't been today...

nsjoker
Mar 21, 2007, 05:43 PM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.

Jonnyfive
Mar 21, 2007, 05:44 PM
The pakaging looks amazing, as per usual...

Peace
Mar 21, 2007, 05:48 PM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

Why should Apple include FOUR different cable connectors ?

Dishnetwork now uses the mpeg-4 codec for it's delivery of HD content.And the 720P looks better than 1080i.

AVI sucks.
divx is too closely associated with rippers and hackers
mpeg-2 is a bandwidth HOG that is on it's way out.

pale9
Mar 21, 2007, 05:55 PM
Why should Apple include FOUR different cable connectors ?


why? because others like the sling company do it! and, it would cost apple only a buck or two, but go out to buy these retail and you will pay at least another 30 bux.

Peace
Mar 21, 2007, 06:03 PM
why? because others like the sling company do it! and, it would cost apple only a buck or two, but go out to buy these retail and you will pay at least another 30 bux.


Here's what's in the box for the slingbox pro :
http://us.slingmedia.com/page/boxcontents.html
1 SlingBox™ PRO
1 SlingPlayer™ CD ROM
1 AC Adapter (100-240V 50-60Hz)
1 Ethernet Cable
1 Quick Start Guide
1 Composite AV Cable
1 Stereo Audio Cable
1 S-Video Cable
1 Remote Control IR Cable
1 RF/Coax Cable

The :apple: TV is designed for wireless so it doesn't need ethernet cable included.

The slingbox does NOT include HDMI OR Component cables which the :apple: TV uses.
The slingbox does NOT include a Toslink Optical cable.

macjonny1
Mar 21, 2007, 06:03 PM
I'm glad that there is no cables. First, I'd rather save the $$$ than get a cable that I may or may not need. Second, with my current setup I need cables almost 6' long. What if they put in a 4' or 5' HDMI cable and I couldn't use it then, I'd be pissed off. If apple put in the cable, then it would cost more. Apple isn't going to do anything for free. I guess you could argue that they would never charge $309 for a product and that they in fact wouldn't charge more but who knows.

DaveGee
Mar 21, 2007, 06:03 PM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

I wouldn't go that far... tho my box does have XP Pro, Ubu & "OS X" playing quite nicely together... Can't say I got the box from Apple tho.. :cool:

As far as codec support.... How else would you know you were on a Mac if it wasn't for the inability to (out of the box) play 95%+ of all the video content available on the net. :rolleyes: :eek:

So sad... Apple fell flat on its face more times then I care to remember - the one that sticks out the most is when I was pleading with the quicktime team to roll out a plug-in for this 'hot new' (shows you how far back it was) software called NCSA Mosaic... A web browser that we all know today as Netscape/Mozilla. They team leader I was speaking to politely smiled and said it was a idea... with a look like 'why on earth would we want to do that? Now go away, you're bothering us...' - The team obviously didn't do a darn thing and in less than 6 months Real came on the scene and ate Apples lunch...

The are doing it again with the total lack of support for all the popular codecs. Quite sad really... :(

Audio is another total screw-up... Why would we need to support 5.1 audio when it quite clearly a flop... Well that's what I can imagine them saying anyway... :lol:

Oh well Apple wouldn't be Apple without them constantly stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. :apple:

Dave

CoreWeb
Mar 21, 2007, 06:03 PM
why? because others like the sling company do it! and, it would cost apple only a buck or two, but go out to buy these retail and you will pay at least another 30 bux.

No, Apple would probably still need to pay that $30. Maybe not quite so much, maybe only $20, or even $15. But multiply that times four+cables.

Let's see... about $100 for all the cables put together retail, say they save 50%, that would still be $50. Do you want to pay $350 for the AppleTV?

All the cables you SHOULD need to buy will cost about $20 to $40. If you are going HDMI, $20.

uNext
Mar 21, 2007, 06:06 PM
For all inquiring minds out there.

I am lucky enough to live near 2 apple stores (aventura & lincoln road)
I called both stores and they both confrimed that this friday all apple stores will have on display and in stock ready to purchase the :apple: t.v.

henryb7318
Mar 21, 2007, 06:12 PM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

Umm, avi, divx, ogg - not standards of any sort. DivX is a bastardized codec if ever I saw one, yuk, and doesn't hold a patch on H264. Avi - an early attempt to beat Quicktime, that has become dated and abandoned by Microsoft.

What is supported is MPEG4, which is great. H264 is playable on all sorts of systems and devices, probably being the only real standard (alongside other MPEG codecs) there is. Get a grip.

amberashby
Mar 21, 2007, 06:13 PM
I have one on order and think I will use it enough to justify purchasing it as is, but I bet there will be software hacks soon that will let you play anything on your Apple TV. Then it will be really cool.

Also, I hope the rumor that Leopard will display your desktop to the Apple TV comes true.

Peace
Mar 21, 2007, 06:13 PM
I wouldn't go that far... tho my box does have XP Pro, Ubu & "OS X" playing quite nicely together... Can't say I got the box from Apple tho.. :cool:


Dave

You DO realize OS X on "your box" is illegal unless it's an Intel Mac don't you?

Kid Red
Mar 21, 2007, 06:15 PM
Very few in any, digital devices include cables other than RCAs. Some will include an HDMI cable but not an HDMI AND component and those are DVD players trying to get your business. Otherwise why fault Apple for doing what everyone else does- not include high end cables?

As for cables, knowing monoprice.com makes all uneasiness about buying cables goes away. Nowhere will you find their prices or quality/value.

pale9
Mar 21, 2007, 06:17 PM
No, Apple would probably still need to pay that $30. Maybe not quite so much, maybe only $20, or even $15.

hello, when you buy any kind of cable in bulk in asia you are paying a fraction of what retail costs! a 40 shirt at macys cost them a 3-5 to produce in china. so yes, it would add very little to their cost to include these. i happen to have a closet full of cables but i am not joe average.

slffl
Mar 21, 2007, 06:19 PM
Umm, avi, divx, ogg - not standards of any sort. DivX is a bastardized codec if ever I saw one, yuk, and doesn't hold a patch on H264. Avi - an early attempt to beat Quicktime, that has become dated and abandoned by Microsoft.

What is supported is MPEG4, which is great. H264 is playable on all sorts of systems and devices, probably being the only real standard (alongside other MPEG codecs) there is. Get a grip.

I completely agree. It would be nice if we could 'Digg' comments :) . I'm so tired of all of the PC switchers bitching that all of these lame ass codecs aren't supported.

Why would people care about these codecs if they can just rip their legally purchased material into a supported codec? Oh that's right, because they want to be able to play all of their torrent files.

cycocelica
Mar 21, 2007, 06:19 PM
a great looking product as always. but like i have said before, its over priced and not exactly a new technology.

CoreWeb
Mar 21, 2007, 06:23 PM
hello, when you buy any kind of cable in bulk in asia you are paying a fraction of what retail costs! a 40 shirt at macys cost them a 3-5 to produce in china. so yes, it would add very little to their cost to include these. i happen to have a closet full of cables but i am not joe average.

But Apple still has to buy them from suppliers. And it isn't only manufacturing costs, anyway - some of the materials are expensive. I said $100 for all the cables normal, if Apple saves half by buying in bulk, $50. Too expensive!

Ethernet cables would be the cheapest. Optical cables could run quite expensive. Plus, theater cables will be of all different lengths anyway!

pale9
Mar 21, 2007, 06:24 PM
I completely agree. It would be nice if we could 'Digg' comments :) . I'm so tired of all of the PC switchers bitching that all of these lame ass codecs aren't supported.
.

OK! all apple lemings now stand in a row and march off the cliff! we lame pc switchers (we must be real stupid) will stand by and watch!

steve_hill4
Mar 21, 2007, 06:27 PM
I betcha that this AppleTV has no closed caption capabilities. If it does not, WAY TO GO, APPLE. Thank you, Steve, for thinking about us, hearing impaired. When you download TV programs and Movies. AppleTV and iTunes does NOT support closed captions. You can not find anywhere on AppleTV and iTunes specs that it supports closed captions. I understand that the videos must have symbol "cc" next to download page of each program or movie to tell you that it has closed caption capability. I have yet not been able to get"cc" to work in which way possible. If there is anyone out there in AppleLand that can tell me how to get closed caption to work or will there be any support in the near future, please tell me. Thank you. :-(

Not sure what the situation is now, but Leopard will be adding a fair amount of Closed Captioning support, especially into Quicktime. Not too much longer to wait and hopefully the playing field will be levelled for you my friend. :)

CoreWeb
Mar 21, 2007, 06:31 PM
OK! all apple lemings now stand in a row and march off the cliff! we lame pc switchers (we must be real stupid) will stand by and watch!

Don't speak for PC switchers as a whole! I happen to be one - I already hated Windows, and I just happened to see a Mac in action, and voila!

I think that the AppleTV is a pretty good product. Let me compare the negatives to the iPod:
Other products do the same thing, with more features - Well, the iPod also had competitors which had more features. It STILL has competitors with more features. These competitors often cost LESS! But, the iPod is the simplest to use. iTunes works perfectly (usually), and iPod syncs effortlessly. It is this smoothness that makes the iPod popular, and so good. The AppleTV also has competitors which do more for (sometimes) less, but the AppleTV does it the nicest, and is supposed to work effortlessly.

donlphi
Mar 21, 2007, 06:35 PM
Here's what's in the box for the slingbox pro :
http://us.slingmedia.com/page/boxcontents.html
1 SlingBox™ PRO
1 SlingPlayer™ CD ROM
1 AC Adapter (100-240V 50-60Hz)
1 Ethernet Cable
1 Quick Start Guide
1 Composite AV Cable
1 Stereo Audio Cable
1 S-Video Cable
1 Remote Control IR Cable
1 RF/Coax Cable

The :apple: TV is designed for wireless so it doesn't need ethernet cable included.

The slingbox does NOT include HDMI OR Component cables which the :apple: TV uses.
The slingbox does NOT include a Toslink Optical cable.

We're comparing Cadillacs to Harley Davidsons here... You can't really compare Apple TV and a Slingbox. IMPO if you did, Apple would fall short when it comes to features and inovation (not the point). TOTALLY DIFFERENT PRODUCTS WITH DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.

I understand Apple's logic in not including 3 or 4 types of cords in a box. They want to keep the packaging simple. Unfortunately, if you live out in the middle of nowhere (miles from a Best Buy, Apple Store, or Circuit City), you are probably looking at another week before you are up and running, which is very possible if you don't read the fine print.

The other problem is LENGTH. If people aren't complaining about the lack of a cord, they will bitch about the cord only being 3 foot long or something. That is one of the problems I actually had with Slingbox. I had to get a slightly longer ethernet cord to connect my router.

If anybody actually finds a solution to use Slingbox WITH Apple TV, I think that would be a WIN WIN... No more complaining about the cord (or lack there of).

mixel
Mar 21, 2007, 06:35 PM
Yeah it would've been nice if they'd supported more codecs.. From my Pov anyway, I have a dvd player which plays xvid and divX (as many, many do), so I've burnt a lot of stuff over the last couple of years in those formats (from my macs). Its a shame to have to reencode stuff again if i want them to play on :apple:TV

People are doing it again.. Getting all tribal.. About.. Codecs of all things. From the end user perspective it'd be nice if apple gave more options.. But I can understand why it's not as good an idea from a profit perspective for Apple.. They can't claim it makes it any easier to use or benefits the user by cutting out support for standards in this case.

It'd be a better device for a lot of people (not just pirates) with more codec support, but that doesn't mean it's not a good device now.. Just.. a weird one. :)

matthemercyless
Mar 21, 2007, 06:37 PM
I haven't read the Walt Mossberg review yet, but I hear that he mentions the AppleTV runs OS X. If you look at the settings preview on the AppleTV page (http://www.apple.com/appletv/tour.html)

you can clearly see that the screen saver was made using Core Animation. AppleTV running leopard?

Anyone care to correct me?

combustible
Mar 21, 2007, 06:42 PM
i think one of the most beautiful things about the mac (and appletv) (and ipod) are their limitations. they have a focus and clarity to their use and design that is in clear and relieving in contrast to the scattergun approach of competitors.
the ability to play every bastardised video codec out there would not be a benefit to me, or 95% of the people out here in the real world, whereas the limitting of the codecs allows apple to provide a consistent, trouble free environment to enjoy my movies/music/tv shows. and i think, that is the aim of apple with this product.

(and you can of course, transcode any dodgey divx/avi material easily and for free with a product like iSquint)

balamw
Mar 21, 2007, 06:43 PM
OK! So when do we get to see pictures of the insides, looking for some true geek porn.

It'll be very interesting to see whats on the HDD itself, when it is removed and connected to a Mac.

B

guzhogi
Mar 21, 2007, 06:44 PM
You DO realize OS X on "your box" is illegal unless it's an Intel Mac don't you?

Sorry if this is a stupid ?, but y is it illegal?

CoreWeb
Mar 21, 2007, 06:46 PM
I haven't read the Walt Mossberg review yet, but I hear that he mentions the AppleTV runs OS X. If you look at the settings preview on the AppleTV page (http://www.apple.com/appletv/tour.html)

you can clearly see that the screen saver was made using Core Animation. AppleTV running leopard?

Anyone care to correct me?
No, the AppleTV is most likely NOT running Leopard. It COULD be running a very stripped-down OSX that includes Leopard components. But, not likely that it is running Leopard itself. Most likely, it includes basic input/output components (for remote), ethernet components, bonjour frameworks, graphics frameworks, and CoreAnimation.

i think one of the most beautiful things about the mac (and appletv) (and ipod) are their limitations. they have a focus and clarity to their use and design that is in clear and relieving in contrast to the scattergun approach of competitors.
the ability to play every bastardised video codec out there would not be a benefit to me, or 95% of the people out here in the real world, whereas the limitting of the codecs allows apple to provide a consistent, trouble free environment to enjoy my movies/music/tv shows. and i think, that is the aim of apple with this product.

(and you can of course, transcode any dodgey divx/avi material easily and for free with a product like iSquint)

I agree entirely.

matthemercyless
Mar 21, 2007, 06:50 PM
[QUOTE=CoreWeb;3467485]No, the AppleTV is most likely NOT running Leopard. It COULD be running a very stripped-down OSX that includes Leopard components. But, not likely that it is running Leopard itself. Most likely, it includes basic input/output components (for remote), ethernet components, bonjour frameworks, graphics frameworks, and CoreAnimation.


:o Awesome. Even a stripped down version is awesome. I really can't wait to see what sexy animations are used in future Leopard/applications etc. Yummy.

So the :apple:TV has literally been out some hours, and theres no iFixit guide or internal component porn...

I've lost all faith:D

mixel
Mar 21, 2007, 07:14 PM
The "more codecs please" crowd are well aware of the Apple mindset, and how the limitations it imposes are often good for consumers.

Adding more codec support would *not* in any way effect the .h264 support, or the function of the device. Who knows how many people have divX/xvid encoded stuff? I have lots of it from eyeTV, as I'd imagine do thousands of other people.

The ability to play every bastardised video codec out there would not be a benefit to me, or 95% of the people out here in the real world, whereas the limitting of the codecs allows apple to provide a consistent, trouble free environment to enjoy my movies/music/tv shows. and i think, that is the aim of apple with this product.
Saying 95% of people don't need to do it so the 5% should stop moaning is great and all, but those 5% are still the "real world", and important. Mac users are only 5% of the computer scene and we still manage to pick apart and come up with problems in everything.

More codecs wouldn't make the device any worse, and wouldn't affect the device's successfulness. They wouldn't even probably impact on the itunes media sales - All its absense is doing is meaning a lot of people have to spend ages re-encoding stuff.. Which is fair, but.. a bit annoying for those who have to do it. How would supporting more codecs make it harder to use? All it has to do it play media fer chrissakes.

I appreciate the :apple:TV and see it as a good product, it's just a terribly inconvenient one for a large number of people who'd otherwise appreciate it more. :D I'd still be interested it buying one.. maybe. One day.

bleachthru
Mar 21, 2007, 07:19 PM
Wasn't there at my local apple store at closing time last night. Haven't been today...

Just got home from my store, no apple tvs, some of the employees seemed confused by my question.:rolleyes:

thejadedmonkey
Mar 21, 2007, 07:22 PM
6. You can't delete the shows on your AppleTV hard drive through the iTunes interface. So it's not exactly like an iPod either.
So.. how do you delete stuff off of it?

mhouse
Mar 21, 2007, 07:29 PM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

I can't believe how fast and furious the euphemisms fly on this board...

We are all adults...can't we just say "it doesn't support enough of the video I've stolen"?

Or maybe people are actually just encoding their home movies and DVDs that they already own in six or seven different formats.:rolleyes:

zap2
Mar 21, 2007, 07:37 PM
Yum.....hopefully my HDTV, which has been having some picture problems recently, will hold out with the solution I did(sent the color options around) so I can have a TV for the :apple: TV...if the HDTV holds out unti Sat/Fri I'll go try and pick up an AppleTV from my local Apple store


Dam....it "unfixed" itself....well its shot.

CJD2112
Mar 21, 2007, 07:50 PM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.

ROFL that's hilarious :p

or how about a clown midget. scaaaaary.

coolfactor
Mar 21, 2007, 07:52 PM
So.. how do you delete stuff off of it?

Question: How do you delete stuff from an iPod?

Answer: Just like an iPod, the Apple TV synchronizes with your computer. That includes removing content that shouldn't be on there.

combustible
Mar 21, 2007, 07:55 PM
More codecs wouldn't make the device any worse, and wouldn't affect the device's successfulness. They wouldn't even probably impact on the itunes media sales - All its absense is doing is meaning a lot of people have to spend ages re-encoding stuff.. Which is fair, but.. a bit annoying for those who have to do it. How would supporting more codecs make it harder to use? All it has to do it play media fer chrissakes.

this would make the device worse. it opens up channels for content that apple cannot control. media files that need the new version of a codec, or avi wrappers over divx files. it is ridiculously complicated out there in video codec land, and would open up a cornucopia of headaches (which i think most of us have been through) and i wouldn't wish that on consumers.
narrowing the output of the media also narrows the input. makes it clean. makes it simple.
i know it is easy for most of us here to work through an issue with an odd media file, be it codec or corruption, but for most everybody else, (and this is very much a consumer device) they expect the device to just work.

mixel, i understand your frustrations, and perhaps i can be too flippant because i don't have that much transcoding to do, but i think apple got this one right (again).

williedigital
Mar 21, 2007, 08:04 PM
i think one of the most beautiful things about the mac (and appletv) (and ipod) are their limitations. they have a focus and clarity to their use and design that is in clear and relieving in contrast to the scattergun approach of competitors.
the ability to play every bastardised video codec out there would not be a benefit to me, or 95% of the people out here in the real world, whereas the limitting of the codecs allows apple to provide a consistent, trouble free environment to enjoy my movies/music/tv shows. and i think, that is the aim of apple with this product.

(and you can of course, transcode any dodgey divx/avi material easily and for free with a product like iSquint)

There wouldn't be any additional trouble at all to support divx/vxid, especially if you required it be in the .mp4 container. Wouldn't affect the user experience any more than allowing .mp3 playback on an ipod.

Or maybe people are actually just encoding their home movies and DVDs that they already own in six or seven different formats.:rolleyes:

Actually, that's my exact problem. Apple TV wont play back any of my foreign dvd backups since it can't play either standard subtitle format. That's a pretty big feature to lack in my eyes.

this would make the device worse. it opens up channels for content that apple cannot control. media files that need the new version of a codec, or avi wrappers over divx files. it is ridiculously complicated out there in video codec land, and would open up a cornucopia of headaches (which i think most of us have been through) and i wouldn't wish that on consumers.
narrowing the output of the media also narrows the input. makes it clean. makes it simple.
i know it is easy for most of us here to work through an issue with an odd media file, be it codec or corruption, but for most everybody else, (and this is very much a consumer device) they expect the device to just work.

mixel, i understand your frustrations, and perhaps i can be too flippant because i don't have that much transcoding to do, but i think apple got this one right (again).

VLC manages to keep itself up to date and play every format pretty easily. And it doesn't even have a corporate software team behind it.

Stella
Mar 21, 2007, 08:24 PM
You DO realize OS X on "your box" is illegal unless it's an Intel Mac don't you?

<crickets />

So?

---


I hope the aTV is everything people expected, in a positive way.

MattyMac
Mar 21, 2007, 08:31 PM
I really enjoy the unpacking pics. I can't wait to see the iPhone unpacking pics...actually, hopefully I'll be one of the first to post them:D

If I'm not I won't look and spoil the fun...I've been anticipating this phone for wayyyyy to long.

Anyhow...nice :apple: TV I'm sure I'll be getting one someday.

craigverse
Mar 21, 2007, 08:34 PM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.


"So he hands me the box, and I open up the lid, and the ferrets jump out and they immediately latch onto my face and start bitin' me all over. Oh, man, they were just goin' nuts! They were tearin' me apart! You know, I think it was just about that time that a little ditty started goin' through my head. I believe it went a little somethin' like this:

DOH! Get 'em off me! Get 'em off me! Ohhh! No, get 'em off, get 'em off! Oh, oh God, oh God! Oh, get 'em off me! Oh, oh God! Ah, AaaaaaahhhhhhhhhOhhhhhhhhhh!"

That would SOOOO make the unboxings more interesting.

helpinghand
Mar 21, 2007, 08:48 PM
How do I get current content (CD's I own) on to this?

EricNau
Mar 21, 2007, 08:54 PM
How do I get current content (CD's I own) on to this?
You import them into iTunes, and from there the Apple TV will sync with your computer ...just like an iPod.

aristotle
Mar 21, 2007, 09:08 PM
Supporting codecs that have no legal content available for them violates the KISS principle as well has putting them in hot water with the MPAA. AVI is a dead legacy format.


How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats? Who encodes their home videos with codecs?

pale9
Mar 21, 2007, 09:14 PM
Supporting codecs that have no legal content available for them violates the KISS principle as well has putting them in hot water with the MPAA. AVI is a dead legacy format.


How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats? Who encodes their home videos with codecs?

uh, dude... do you have a recent model dvd player in your house? well, the big players like samsung support divx. so does that make them accomplices in criminal acts like you want us to believe....?

donlphi
Mar 21, 2007, 09:14 PM
Supporting codecs that have no legal content available for them violates the KISS principle as well has putting them in hot water with the MPAA. AVI is a dead legacy format.


How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats? Who encodes their home videos with codecs?

I would say most people that are stealing movies are actually just more pissed they have to convert their movies to mpeg4. Oh well... :apple: TV is probably not for them.

:D

mixel
Mar 21, 2007, 09:15 PM
i know it is easy for most of us here to work through an issue with an odd media file, be it codec or corruption, but for most everybody else, (and this is very much a consumer device) they expect the device to just work.

mixel, i understand your frustrations, and perhaps i can be too flippant because i don't have that much transcoding to do, but i think apple got this one right (again).

I agree Apple have got it right from a business perspective - it's easier for them this way, certainly. But I don't think opening it to stuff they don't control is that much of a biggie.. I don't think stopping power users from being able to do something "because it might go wrong" is all that great. It wouldn't be Apple's fault if it did. 2y/o economy DVD players can play this stuff - from one angle it seems weird that this thing can't.

Anyway, yeah.. I don't think people complaining about the codec support is completely baseless is all. :) Someone will probably hack it to play whatever they want anyway.. (within weeks I'd guess.. remove hd, plug into mac, install extra patches and codecs, etc..) - then it could get really interesting!


I'm definitely for free ferrets too. :)

combustible
Mar 21, 2007, 09:21 PM
yep. if it proves to be easily hackable, then, it seems, everybody wins.

mixel
Mar 21, 2007, 09:22 PM
I would say most people that are stealing movies are actually just more pissed they have to convert their movies to mpeg4. Oh well... :apple: TV is probably not for them.
What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..

Also there's the matter of the truckloads of movies you can't get on DVD and are very infrequently (if ever) transmitted, some foreign films, etc etc.. The piracy issue isn't so simple.

The whole "haha, the pirates will have to convert all their movies!" thing is judgemental and bad.

Mgkwho
Mar 21, 2007, 09:29 PM
Like people are saying, AppleTV is a trojan horse that will have many many uses. Maybe even when Leopard comes out.

-=|Mgkwho

EagerDragon
Mar 21, 2007, 09:33 PM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.

Best post I read all day, LOL.

ftaok
Mar 21, 2007, 09:41 PM
How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats? Who encodes their home videos with codecs?
There is legally purchased/obtained content that has been encoded with Divx.
One such content provider is Mariposa HD. They've been experimenting with many different codecs.

Another is a more adult oriented site. It's run by the guy married to Luba. Do a google if you want.

As for Xvid, I've never seen anything that was legit in Xvid, but it doesn't mean there isn't any.

ft

I was wrong about Mariposa HD, they have WMV-HD episodes. No Divx.

Stridder44
Mar 21, 2007, 09:56 PM
The "more codecs please" crowd are well aware of the Apple mindset, and how the limitations it imposes are often good for consumers.

Adding more codec support would *not* in any way effect the .h264 support, or the function of the device. Who knows how many people have divX/xvid encoded stuff? I have lots of it from eyeTV, as I'd imagine do thousands of other people.


Saying 95% of people don't need to do it so the 5% should stop moaning is great and all, but those 5% are still the "real world", and important. Mac users are only 5% of the computer scene and we still manage to pick apart and come up with problems in everything.

More codecs wouldn't make the device any worse, and wouldn't affect the device's successfulness. They wouldn't even probably impact on the itunes media sales - All its absense is doing is meaning a lot of people have to spend ages re-encoding stuff.. Which is fair, but.. a bit annoying for those who have to do it. How would supporting more codecs make it harder to use? All it has to do it play media fer chrissakes.

I appreciate the :apple:TV and see it as a good product, it's just a terribly inconvenient one for a large number of people who'd otherwise appreciate it more. :D I'd still be interested it buying one.. maybe. One day.


The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.

You don't buy a Delorean and walk around town going "DUDE WHAT THE HELL WHY ARE THERE NOT MORE SHOPS FOR DELOREANS!? THIS TOWN SUCKS."

But I will agree, they are just codecs, and it's not like it would take 10 years of R&D to put a few more measly codecs in there (even if they do suck).

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 09:58 PM
uh, dude... do you have a recent model dvd player in your house? well, the big players like samsung support divx. so does that make them accomplices in criminal acts like you want us to believe....?
No, but it's not like Samsung is negotiating with the major studios to be able to provide their content as downloadable DVDs in the Samsung Store, either.

Apple needs the studios' support.

Putting out a device that makes it amazingly easy to watch content that is almost always pirated isn't a great way to get that support.

What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..
Napster tried that argument. The court didn't buy it.

ftaok
Mar 21, 2007, 09:59 PM
The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.

You don't buy a Delorean and walk around town going "DUDE WHAT THE HELL WHY ARE THERE NOT MORE SHOPS FOR DELOREANS!? THIS TOWN SUCKS."

Just my opinion, but Divx is a pretty good codec. I've seen stuff encoded with Divx compared to the same stuff encoded with QT mpeg-4. The Divx material was markedly better at the same bit rate.

ft

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 10:01 PM
But isn't MPEG-4 becoming the standard? If the satellite providers are using it, ...

GoCubsGo
Mar 21, 2007, 10:03 PM
Well $300 and no HDMI cable? That's just special.

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 10:05 PM
Right, right.

The total price is $319.95 and you get to choose your own cable as you're checking out.

From what I've seen in other online forums, audio/videophiles are anal beyond belief about their freaking cables. For some, if it's not gold-tipped titanium wrapped Monster brand, but made on Tue-Thur (because Mon and Fri are bad days), then they would never use it on their fabulous home theatre.

ftaok
Mar 21, 2007, 10:05 PM
But isn't MPEG-4 becoming the standard? If the satellite providers are using it, ...

MPEG-4 is not the standard. It's a good codec, but just because DirecTV and Dish are using it doesn't mean a thing. MPEG-2 (like it or not) is the de-facto standard for TV content. ATSC calls for MPEG-2 and if ATSC lasts as long as NTSC did, MPEG-2 will be around for many years to come.

The only reason that the satellite companies are going MPEG-4 is to cram more HD channels to their subscribers. I don't believe that they will stop down-rez'ing their HD offerings. They'll just provide more channels of HD-Lite(R)

ft

ftaok
Mar 21, 2007, 10:07 PM
Right, right.

The total price is $319.95 and you get to choose your own cable as you're checking out.

$20 for an HDMI cable is just plain robbery. If you know where to go, you could get an HDMI and component cables and have enough left over to buy a couple of iTS TV shows.

ft

curmi
Mar 21, 2007, 10:17 PM
Supporting codecs that have no legal content available for them violates the KISS principle as well has putting them in hot water with the MPAA. AVI is a dead legacy format.


How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats? Who encodes their home videos with codecs?

I have a DVD player that plays DivX. I have lots of stuff I've recorded off TV and converted to DivX so I could play on my DivX player. Suddenly all that stuff has to be converted to H.264.

In Australia, there is NO legal content in ANY format that works on a Mac. We have no iTunes movie store!

As for the guy who asked why anyone would use DivX to encode stuff - it has been around a long time, before Apple started pushing H.264. What were we all supposed to do back then?

As I've said previously, imagine if Apple had come out with the iPod and said "Here is a great new music player. It only plays AAC". When the iPod came out, people had been encoding their music for years in mp3 format. The thing would have been a massive flop.

I'm not saying Apple TV will be a flop - just that it would have been a bigger hit if Apple weren't being so stubborn. It is ok to support legacy codecs.

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 10:18 PM
MPEG-4 is not the standard. It's a good codec, but just because DirecTV and Dish are using it doesn't mean a thing. MPEG-2 (like it or not) is the de-facto standard for TV content. ATSC calls for MPEG-2 and if ATSC lasts as long as NTSC did, MPEG-2 will be around for many years to come.
Cool, I didn't know that.

If you know where to go, you could get an HDMI and component cables and have enough left over to buy a couple of iTS TV shows.
This is very true, but obviously the average person doesn't know that. If the cheapest HDMI cable you can find at Best Buy is $49.99 for three feet (and $89.99 for three feet at Circuit City), $19.99 for 6-feet at the Apple store isn't half-bad.

stephenli
Mar 21, 2007, 10:20 PM
Also, I hope the rumor that Leopard will display your desktop to the Apple TV comes true.

sounds cool!!! i'll buy immediately if it is the case.
but please.....make it support at least 1080i...
1280 x 720 desktop isnt enough for use...

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 10:22 PM
I'm not saying Apple TV will be a flop - just that it would have been a bigger hit if Apple weren't being so stubborn. It is ok to support legacy codecs.
And I'm not saying I don't agree about the point that the AppleTV would be much nicer if it did support other codecs, but I think the point that Apple may not have included them in order to win the business of the studios is probably more likely than they didn't include them just to be so stubborn.

IMO, Apple has way more potential money to make by being able to offer DVDs from all of the major studios to the average American that doesn't know what a codec is (but knows how to download from iTunes) than they stand to loose from geeks like us that have already encoded everything we own in something other than what the AppleTV plays.

mickhyperion
Mar 21, 2007, 10:27 PM
We are all adults...can't we just say "it doesn't support enough of the video I've stolen"?

Or maybe people are actually just encoding their home movies and DVDs that they already own in six or seven different formats.:rolleyes:
Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!

We all have it (those of us who will admit it) and we'd all like to watch it somewhere more comfortable and romantic than the desk chair. Sometimes I have a guest or two over and I'd like to be able to throw some PORN on my TV. (Don't you have any new videos, they ask? Why yes, but they're all on my computer these days cause I got tired of paying $80 for a dvd.) I'd like to be able to play all of my PORN videos on AppleTV, just like Steve does when he's alone, and that includes the zillions of wacky codecs these things seem to be encoded with. This isn't an unreasonable request. I've been playing them for years on my computer just fine. These are as legally obtained as jpg's.

Is it too much to ask it to just handle the codecs Quicktime seems to handle on the regular OS? Sure, I can sit and export all of these (hundreds of) videos to another codec, but that would be an event.

curmi
Mar 21, 2007, 10:28 PM
And I'm not saying I don't agree about the point that the AppleTV would be much nicer if it did support other codecs, but I think the point that Apple may not have included them in order to win the business of the studios is probably more likely than they didn't include them just to be so stubborn.

IMO, Apple has way more potential money to make by being able to offer DVDs from all of the major studios to the average American that doesn't know what a codec is (but knows how to download from iTunes) than they stand to loose from geeks like us that have already encoded everything we own in something other than what the AppleTV plays.

Yes, I agree - and stand corrected. :)

It is frustrating though sometimes being a geek who loves Apple stuff - when Apple release things that are close to being perfect, but just missing some geek feature you'd really like.

Also frustrating when you see all these other media server type devices that support all the things you'd like as a geek, but suck in terms of the user interface and style.

Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!

We all have it (those of us who will admit it) and we'd all like to watch it somewhere more comfortable and romantic than the desk chair. Sometimes I have a guest or two over and I'd like to be able to throw some PORN on my TV...

I must say, I've never considered showing porn to my guests when they visit. I've never quite considered porn to be "romantic" either. :) :)

stephenli
Mar 21, 2007, 10:30 PM
I'm not saying Apple TV will be a flop - just that it would have been a bigger hit if Apple weren't being so stubborn. It is ok to support legacy codecs.

same here...no iTS (even i buy pre-paid card, movie without caption is still a problem....) encode and re-encode is tooooooo resources consuming...
in this case i better buy an extra Mac Mini instead of apple tv..

aristobrat
Mar 21, 2007, 10:35 PM
It is frustrating though sometimes being a geek who loves Apple stuff - when Apple release things that are close to being perfect, but just missing some geek feature you'd really like.
Amen brother. I think you just summed up 75% of the posts in this thread. :)

CoreWeb
Mar 21, 2007, 10:36 PM
Yes, I agree - and stand corrected. :)

It is frustrating though sometimes being a geek who loves Apple stuff - when Apple release things that are close to being perfect, but just missing some geek feature you'd really like.

Also frustrating when you see all these other media server type devices that support all the things you'd like as a geek, but suck in terms of the user interface and style.

That's when you attempt to create your own, and have a 1 in 100 chance of succeeding. I tried to make my own operating system once (back when the only operating system I knew existed was Windows), and I actually did make something which booted up and showed something on the screen, and took keyboard and mouse input, and (almost) read from a floppy... this was four years ago, perhaps. But, as it became too difficult to create a working memory manager, and virtual memory, and figure out how to read properly from the floppy, I kind of gave up.

But, when it comes to other things, I've fared better. And, due to my experience, I know a TON more about computers, operating systems, and programming in general than I once did - something which made my skill increase greatly.

mickhyperion
Mar 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
I must say, I've never considered showing porn to my guests when they visit. I've never quite considered porn to be "romantic" either. :) :)
To each his own...

My suggestion would be to get better porn (or wilder guests). Haha.

mixel
Mar 21, 2007, 10:47 PM
The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.
Because many dvd players support it.. So it makes sense to encode to it.. Most dvd players don't support h264.. if they did I'm sure people would've been encoding to that instead. :/


What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..
Napster tried that argument. The court didn't buy it.
My "argument" ... Currently i have 200GB of legit eyeTV stuff recorded.. as i run out of space i burn them to CDs in xvid/divX, so they'll play in the DVD player and won't hog my hd space. ... did you quote the wrong bit of my text? (im not sure what napster has to do with that)

I agree completely about apple trying to keep the studios on side.. If it wasn't for that reason I'd think this was a much worse deal. As it is it makes reasonable business sense.. I think.

FJ218700
Mar 21, 2007, 10:56 PM
IMO, Apple has way more potential money to make by being able to offer DVDs from all of the major studios to the average American that doesn't know what a codec is (but knows how to download from iTunes) than they stand to loose from geeks like us that have already encoded everything we own in something other than what the AppleTV plays.

-exactly, thank you

>80% of the orders will likely be placed by those who didn't even realize that Apple had survived the 80's until shortly after thread 500, and who have been on the iTunes bandwagon for the last two years purchasing legal content with no format issues and could care less about codecs. Many of the rest of us have arlready created appleTV's out of G4's and 3rd party hardware and thus format is not that big of an issue.

qubex
Mar 21, 2007, 11:21 PM
Does the AppleTV support WPA2-Enterprise (RADIUS etc.) or is it limited to pre-shared passwords?

I'm paranoid. My network is locked down to within an inch of death. If I need to undermine my wireless security to use this, I'm not going to even bother.

Can someone who already has one give me an answer? Most appreciated.

humara
Mar 21, 2007, 11:37 PM
Does the AppleTV support WPA2-Enterprise (RADIUS etc.) or is it limited to pre-shared passwords?

I'm paranoid. My network is locked down to within an inch of death. If I need to undermine my wireless security to use this, I'm not going to even bother.

Can someone who already has one give me an answer? Most appreciated.

nope. only wep.

chasemac
Mar 21, 2007, 11:39 PM
So far this doesn't seem worth the price tag to me yet I have been converting all of my DVD's to H.264 with Handbrake. Can anyone confirm what the USB port is going to be used for? I would think maybe firmware updates right now but could there be something up the sleeve with Apple?

curmi
Mar 21, 2007, 11:45 PM
nope. only wep.

This is surely wrong!

All Apple's current machines, and their Airport Extreme, support WPA. I can not believe they would only support WEP on the Apple TV!

Even Nintendo support WPA on the Wii.

localoid
Mar 22, 2007, 12:27 AM
OK! So when do we get to see pictures of the insides, looking for some true geek porn.

It'll be very interesting to see whats on the HDD itself, when it is removed and connected to a Mac.

B

If you're looking for the operating system the box is using, you'd probably need to look in firmware rather than on its disk drive. :)

marktesssing
Mar 22, 2007, 12:31 AM
No, the AppleTV is most likely NOT running Leopard. It COULD be running a very stripped-down OSX that includes Leopard components. But, not likely that it is running Leopard itself. Most likely, it includes basic input/output components (for remote), ethernet components, bonjour frameworks, graphics frameworks, and CoreAnimation.



I agree entirely.

true.

Also, just to clear things up (I see ppl using it interchangeably) mac os x and os x are "different" os. mac os x is for computers and os x (according to SJ keynote) is for iphone and maybe atv.

i'm hoping to see os x on the mac slate in 2008. iphone is the sandbox for multi-touch and atv is the sandbox for testing streaming media (apple-ip-tv)

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 22, 2007, 12:33 AM
I'm so sick of complaints about the lack of cables. My modems, my routers and other assorted doodads that I've purchased came with cables, only to become pointless electrospaghetti shoved in a drawer or shelf because they were just too short.

Just imagine:

"I got my :apple: TV today, but it only came with an HDMI cable :( freaking Apple, my TV is only component!"

As mentioned before, these unsupported codecs are getting similar treatment from the studios. Xvid and the like are poorer quality. Boohoo torrentites.

LagunaSol
Mar 22, 2007, 12:38 AM
No, Apple would probably still need to pay that $30. Maybe not quite so much, maybe only $20, or even $15.

WRONG. Apparently someone isn't familiar with the outrageous markup on cables. Cable prices are one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on consumers. Long ago when I worked at CompUSA, I'd feel like a jerk telling a customer they needed a $30 cable to go with their new printer, when the computer told me our cost on the cable was $2. Shameful. Electronics retail profits are driven by cable sales and extended warrantees.

Apple could easily have thrown in a component and an HDMI cable, kept the price at $299, and still made plenty of money. Trust me.

Philberttheduck
Mar 22, 2007, 12:39 AM
Um, so where can i find a "xvid/divx to mp4" converter?

if there aren't any, how would i use quicktime to convert to h.264

thx much (already purchased :apple: tv so i gotta deal with this.)

chasemac
Mar 22, 2007, 12:44 AM
I'm so sick of complaints about the lack of cables. My modems, my routers and other assorted doodads that I've purchased came with cables, only to become pointless electrospaghetti shoved in a drawer or shelf because they were just too short.

Just imagine:

"I got my :apple: TV today, but it only came with an HDMI cable :( freaking Apple, my TV is only component!"

As mentioned before, these unsupported codecs are getting similar treatment from the studios. Xvid and the like are poorer quality. Boohoo torrentites.

They are not smart buyers anyway. They are Apple's guinea pigs.

NicP
Mar 22, 2007, 12:51 AM
Um, so where can i find a "xvid/divx to mp4" converter?

if there aren't any, how would i use quicktime to convert to h.264

thx much (already purchased :apple: tv so i gotta deal with this.)

isquint :)

localoid
Mar 22, 2007, 12:55 AM
true.

Also, just to clear things up (I see ppl using it interchangeably) mac os x and os x are "different" os. mac os x is for computers and os x (according to SJ keynote) is for iphone and maybe atv. ...

Even the cheapest iPod needs an OS to be able to do anyone. A collection of hardware components doesn't just simply "doing things" by magic. :) The Airport Extreme Basestation is another example of a device that would (also) need an OS...

It's a safe bet that Apple didn't reinvent the wheel when developing such systems. It would only be logical for them to develop (small) systems based on OS X, in much the same fashion that many hardware manufacturers of various devices have used Linux as a starting point. For example, most/many of the inexpensive routers these days are actually running a flavor of Linux.

Mike67
Mar 22, 2007, 01:05 AM
Am I seeing an available resolution of 480i in the Gizmodo video? Isn't this contrary to Apple's posted specs? Am I missing something? They say it only works with HD TVs, but it looks like it says 480i ...

marktesssing
Mar 22, 2007, 01:15 AM
Even the cheapest iPod needs an OS to be able to do anyone. A collection of hardware components doesn't just simply "doing things" by magic. :) The Airport Extreme Basestation is another example of a device that would (also) need an OS...

It's a safe bet that Apple didn't reinvent the wheel when developing such systems. It would only be logical for them to develop (small) systems based on OS X, in much the same fashion that many hardware manufacturers of various devices have used Linux as a starting point. For example, most/many of the inexpensive routers these days are actually running a flavor of Linux.

...based on Mac OS X. OS X is the lite version of Mac OS X. that was my point

mistafro
Mar 22, 2007, 01:17 AM
So how long before we can expect a hack or add-on that will allow Xvid, Divx type formats?

I have experimented with XBMC (Xbox Media Center) and am amazed how advanced it is, Apple is making the right moves to provide a legal way to get that type of experience and it's great, but they have a ways to go yet before they can surpass XBMC's abilities.

jackbee
Mar 22, 2007, 01:36 AM
As for me, I don't care about divx or any other codec. I just want to rip my dvd collection into itunes as easy as i can with cds. I am tired of my dvds being scratched by my kids. Why can't apple make some kind of arrangement with movie companies as they did with record companies? I know there are many other softwares that does this already, but they are not as user friendly. Also, not that many average people know about Handbrake or iSquint. I just want to pop in the dvd to my mac and let itunes figure out the codec that works with apple tv for me and rip it into my computer. Also, let me choose the quality of the rip like we do with cds. If this becomes possible, definitely appletv will be on my buy list.

lamina
Mar 22, 2007, 01:46 AM
WRONG. Apparently someone isn't familiar with the outrageous markup on cables. Cable prices are one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on consumers. Long ago when I worked at CompUSA, I'd feel like a jerk telling a customer they needed a $30 cable to go with their new printer, when the computer told me our cost on the cable was $2. Shameful. Electronics retail profits are driven by cable sales and extended warrantees.

Apple could easily have thrown in a component and an HDMI cable, kept the price at $299, and still made plenty of money. Trust me.

Good call. Worked at Best Buy for 2 years. I'd usually send the customers I liked to the dollar store for their USB cables.

Even with Apple's fancy looking cables, it wouldn't cost them much more to include a cable...

Do you think they should have included component AND HDMI?

ppnkg
Mar 22, 2007, 01:51 AM
Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!

We all have it (those of us who will admit it) and we'd all like to watch it somewhere more comfortable and romantic than the desk chair. Sometimes I have a guest or two over and I'd like to be able to throw some PORN on my TV. (Don't you have any new videos, they ask? Why yes, but they're all on my computer these days cause I got tired of paying $80 for a dvd.) I'd like to be able to play all of my PORN videos on AppleTV, just like Steve does when he's alone, and that includes the zillions of wacky codecs these things seem to be encoded with. This isn't an unreasonable request. I've been playing them for years on my computer just fine. These are as legally obtained as jpg's.

Is it too much to ask it to just handle the codecs Quicktime seems to handle on the regular OS? Sure, I can sit and export all of these (hundreds of) videos to another codec, but that would be an event.

I say, this guy deserves a honorary badge or medal of some sort for making this point.

balamw
Mar 22, 2007, 02:19 AM
If you're looking for the operating system the box is using, you'd probably need to look in firmware rather than on its disk drive. :)

My guess is it's on both. The core OS is probably in Flash, but why use any more flash than absolutely necessary if you already have a 40GB drive there. (Unlike the iPod, I doubt 512K or 1M of flash would be sufficient for the whole OS).

I'm also more interested in the file system (is it just HFS+) and how the database is structured (similar to iPod?).

B

donlphi
Mar 22, 2007, 03:00 AM
What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..

Also there's the matter of the truckloads of movies you can't get on DVD and are very infrequently (if ever) transmitted, some foreign films, etc etc.. The piracy issue isn't so simple.

The whole "haha, the pirates will have to convert all their movies!" thing is judgemental and bad.

Are you mental? What does that even mean? Seem pretty defensive to me...

Guilty??? Enjoy your converting. I'm sure Automator could run em all for you.

:confused:

Jim Campbell
Mar 22, 2007, 03:43 AM
Um, so where can i find a "xvid/divx to mp4" converter?

if there aren't any, how would i use quicktime to convert to h.264

thx much (already purchased :apple: tv so i gotta deal with this.)

iSquint ... free from Versiontracker. Drag and drop. Works without any sort of hiccup, offering several perfectly acceptable default settings, including standard .mp4 or H.264 if you'd prefer and will even add the converted files to iTunes for you. There are more in-depth options if you prefer to roll your sleeves up.

It's not given me a problem yet ...

Cheers!

Jim

Jim Campbell
Mar 22, 2007, 03:57 AM
Currently i have 200GB of legit eyeTV stuff recorded.. as i run out of space i burn them to CDs in xvid/divX, so they'll play in the DVD player and won't hog my hd space.

EyeTV doesn't have to use DivX ... I've got mine running in straight MPEG-4 with no problems at all.

As for converting them back into .mp4/H264 ... iSquint has come up several times on here already. It's drag-and-drop, so you could drop a whole batch of files onto it, specify the save path, set it going, and head off down the pub, which doesn't strike me as a massive hardship. As I mentioned, it will even add them to iTunes when it's done.

FWIW, once I've converted say, a 350Mb .avi to .mp4, there seems to be no appreciable difference in file size and on a faster machine than my Mini, I imagine you'd probably be able to convert 1Gb every 15 minutes or so.*

That means your entire 200Gb library could be reconverted inside a week in 30(ish)Gb batches running overnight.

Yeah ... I'll grant you that it's more of a pain in the arse than not having to do anything at all, but certainly no more of a pain than getting all your CDs/tapes/vinyl into iTunes in the first place.

Just a thought.

Cheers!

Jim

*I'm sure someone with a faster machine will be along shortly with a set of timings to demonstrate that I'm talking utter rubbish.

b0ned0me
Mar 22, 2007, 04:40 AM
Apple could easily have thrown in a component and an HDMI cable, kept the price at $299, and still made plenty of money. Trust me.
OK, fine, it's agreed. Apple could have included a set of HDMI and component cables, in lengths of .5m, 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 3m, 5m, 10m and 15m, in black, blue, purple and pale grey, both copper-core and silver-core cable, all without incurring any significant cost. So we could have had a $299 :apple:TV (with an additional free crate of cable) that would have satisfied the cabling requirement of all customers apart from the really picky ones, who would still bitch.

But they didn't, which sucks. Can we all get over that now?

koobcamuk
Mar 22, 2007, 05:00 AM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.

I'd prefer a black mamba to jump out and start biting me in the face.

markfc
Mar 22, 2007, 05:11 AM
I have one on order and think I will use it enough to justify purchasing it as is, but I bet there will be software hacks soon that will let you play anything on your Apple TV. Then it will be really cool.

Also, I hope the rumor that Leopard will display your desktop to the Apple TV comes true.

Ummm I do that now with the tv out adapter which cost £15.....

Passante
Mar 22, 2007, 05:26 AM
What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..

snip

Eyetv converts to MPEG 4 or H264. It takes a while.

Passante
Mar 22, 2007, 05:30 AM
Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!

We all have it (those of us who will admit it) and we'd all like to watch it somewhere more comfortable and romantic than the desk chair. Sometimes I have a guest or two over and I'd like to be able to throw some PORN on my TV. (Don't you have any new videos, they ask? Why yes, but they're all on my computer these days cause I got tired of paying $80 for a dvd.) I'd like to be able to play all of my PORN videos on AppleTV, just like Steve does when he's alone, and that includes the zillions of wacky codecs these things seem to be encoded with. This isn't an unreasonable request. I've been playing them for years on my computer just fine. These are as legally obtained as jpg's.

Is it too much to ask it to just handle the codecs Quicktime seems to handle on the regular OS? Sure, I can sit and export all of these (hundreds of) videos to another codec, but that would be an event.

That would be a BLUE elephant

matticus008
Mar 22, 2007, 05:35 AM
i'm surprised the Apple Remote still uses IR... an Apple Remote that finally uses Bluetooth would have been an interesting addition to the Apple TV...
If it ain't broke...
Bluetooth is a battery hog and the whole pairing process is tedious, especially with something that has to have a fixed pairing code, like a remote.

no video cables..lame.
Why? Nothing else in the living room comes with high-end cables. DVD players don't come with optical cables, nor do surround receivers. High-end cables have always been purchased separately, and no self-respecting home theater builder would use some random cable he knew nothing about.

Cable prices are one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on consumers.
And you know what else? Sodas in restaurants don't cost anywhere NEAR $3! zomg. Of course cables are marked up into oblivion. If you want to keep up competitive pricing, though, something's gotta give. It would have been more expensive (or lower quality) had they included the cable. They *could* sell them at a dollar above cost, but they won't. All costs are passed on to consumers.
Apple could easily have thrown in a component and an HDMI cable, kept the price at $299, and still made plenty of money. Trust me.
So people could throw them out and buy their own from known and trusted brands, or to get the appropriate length, or to match their color-coding scheme, or all the other possible options? It's like lamps and light bulbs. There are too many options to suit everyone, so you're just on your own.

mixel
Mar 22, 2007, 06:07 AM
EyeTV doesn't have to use DivX ... I've got mine running in straight MPEG-4 with no problems at all.
Eyetv converts to MPEG 4 or H264. It takes a while.

Err.. Did you guys not read the (bold)

Currently i have 200GB of legit eyeTV stuff recorded.. as i run out of space i burn them to CDs in xvid/divX, so they'll play in the DVD player and won't hog my hd space.
I'm well aware EyeTV/quicktime etc can encode to MPEG/h264 - a lot of people encode to other formats so their copies will play on a DVD player they already own, while saving space. My 200GB library is a pretty small one - as I said, I have more than that in divX/xvid on discs already. Leaving my machine (which i need to be working on) converting all week+ *and* swapping discs constantly.. Yeah. That's super practical. (but yes, I realise it'd be necessary. I can see it being jolly inconvenient and a deal breaker for some people though. Hence some of the negative comments/votes I'd guess.)

This is a non-issue, I'm not planning on getting an :apple:TV, lol.

Are you mental? What does that even mean? Seem pretty defensive to me...

Guilty??? Enjoy your converting. I'm sure Automator could run em all for you.

:confused:

I don't think I'm mental? Are you?! I have no idea what point you're trying to make? There are legitimate uses for other codecs is all i was saying. Using divX doesn't make you a bad/amoral person. Bittorrent is similar.. You can have a perfectly clear concious and use it, and other p2p networks - depends what you do with them. I'm one of the most anti-piracy people I know.. :rolleyes: - So no, not "Guilty"

Hmm.. There'll be a hell of a lot more h264 torrents online if the :apple:TV takes off.. There are already a huge amount of ipod-ready video files.. :rolleyes:

odedia
Mar 22, 2007, 06:16 AM
Gizmodo calls the Apple TV "an iPod for your TV". It looks like that is what Apple is positioning Apple TV for. You still create/encode/download your content via iTunes on your PC or Mac. Then use Apple TV as the "conduit" to display your content on your widescreen HDTV. That about sums it up. Easy interface. Apple does it again - iPod for Video for your TV.

I just bought the 30$ iPod Universal Dock and connect my iPod to the tv when I want to watch something. The quality is perfect with the S-Video out connection on the dock.

There isn't any HD content to watch from your iTunes library anyway right now. I don't think this product will do half as good as the iPod did.

Stella
Mar 22, 2007, 06:28 AM
Yes -there's no real need for a BT controller - if your watching TV you'll always be in line of sight ( listening to music is different ).

A BT controller doesn't need to be paired with codes, it can auto paired much like the Controllers on the Wii.


Why? Apple is meant to be about simplicity - things just work out of the box. The aTV definitely does not, if it doesn't come with all the cables.



If it ain't broke...
Bluetooth is a battery hog and the whole pairing process is tedious, especially with something that has to have a fixed pairing code, like a remote.


Why? Nothing else in the living room comes with high-end cables.

Avatar74
Mar 22, 2007, 07:27 AM
Not sure if anyone's already mentioned...

The AppleTV static ad has moved to the main page at apple.com, and the order page now states "Shipping: 1-2 business days" in place of "3-5 business days".

Scarpad
Mar 22, 2007, 07:47 AM
I user Divx and Xvid because I trade off a little bit of Quality over H264 for Time, on the Mini it takes about 5 Hours to convert one 50 min show, can you imagine doing a box set of episodes, or 10 hours to do one movie. My PC is still only a AMD 3800 and thou a bit faster it still takes about 90 min per 50 min show. Using Clone Mobile I can go to Generic Divx or MP4 in about 20 min for an hour show, the quality is still pretty decent, but I have to encode at a higher bitrate to get a result closer to H264, around 2 mipps which means larger file sizes.

Gasu E.
Mar 22, 2007, 07:48 AM
I'm so tired of all of the PC switchers bitching that all of these lame ass codecs aren't supported.


Right, PC switchers go home! We Mac lifers don't need you; we were so happy with our .001% market share. :rolleyes:

pizzach
Mar 22, 2007, 07:52 AM
Umm, avi, divx, ogg - not standards of any sort. DivX is a bastardized codec if ever I saw one, yuk, and doesn't hold a patch on H264. Avi - an early attempt to beat Quicktime, that has become dated and abandoned by Microsoft.

What is supported is MPEG4, which is great. H264 is playable on all sorts of systems and devices, probably being the only real standard (alongside other MPEG codecs) there is. Get a grip.


Avi with dixv/xvid encoded video today is a lot like mp3s in popularity and mobility. Quicktime a can play avi files natively. It can also hold H264 formatted video. And last of all, it's one of the most compatible formats between players. I wouldn't compare it to mov or wmv.

The mp4 format doesn't look that bad. I was a bit surprised to see that it supported text subtitles. That gives no excuse for apple not supporting closed captioning etc on the iTunes store.

Egomaniac
Mar 22, 2007, 08:10 AM
Just got mine! Haven't even opened it yet. The FedEx guy that brought it said that it was the sixth Apple TV he had delivered so far this morning, and it's only 9AM and I don't live in a big city. Methinks Apple may have a brisk seller on its hands.

williedigital
Mar 22, 2007, 08:19 AM
The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.

You don't buy a Delorean and walk around town going "DUDE WHAT THE HELL WHY ARE THERE NOT MORE SHOPS FOR DELOREANS!? THIS TOWN SUCKS."

But I will agree, they are just codecs, and it's not like it would take 10 years of R&D to put a few more measly codecs in there (even if they do suck).

Divx and Xvid aren't these radically weird formats. They meet the mpeg-4 standard. The difference between Divx and Apple's Mpeg-4 is much closer to the difference between the itunes mp3 encoder and lame mp3 encoder than the difference between h.264 and mpeg-4. All mpeg-4 compliant codecs, including Xvid and Divx (version 4.0 and forward) are compatible with the .mp4 container.

On the other hand, Apple's codecs, like .mov and .m4a for example, are completely non-standard.

Frisco
Mar 22, 2007, 08:30 AM
Just got mine! Haven't even opened it yet. The FedEx guy that brought it said that it was the sixth Apple TV he had delivered so far this morning, and it's only 9AM and I don't live in a big city. Methinks Apple may have a brisk seller on its hands.

You just got it and are still posting here :eek: :confused:

Get that thing open and post some picts!!!......please

Passante
Mar 22, 2007, 08:34 AM
:apple:TV was waiting for me at work today. Plan to install tonight!

koobcamuk
Mar 22, 2007, 08:53 AM
Are you mental? What does that even mean? Seem pretty defensive to me...

Guilty??? Enjoy your converting. I'm sure Automator could run em all for you.

:confused:

Weirdo... :rolleyes:

Anyway, we don't need the :apple: TV at all. It really isn't necessary at all. Even if I did have an HD TV I wouldn't use this. I would have a HD DVD or BLuray player.

Furthermore, I would have, in my ideal world, a mac mini as my media centre. A lot more useful than this thing.

louden
Mar 22, 2007, 09:04 AM
It seems to be too "single function" of a device for something I'd buy. I can already watch downloaded content using things like a Media Center PC, or XBox 360, or an Mac Mini attached to the TV. You can get a Mac Mini for cheap off of Apple's red tag clearance - not 299 but you can for 479

The need to sync and store content yet again - If I have the content at my home on some server, why do I need to move it to my iTV? I sync with my iPod because I take it with me. The iTV won't move.

Why didn't they also build in Sling functionality on the iTV?

I want to see a future where cable gets replaced by something like iTV which is more like TV over the Internet, and where everything is on demand. I think we'l be there in 5 years with iTV's third iteration.

Then I'll buy one.

CoreWeb
Mar 22, 2007, 09:07 AM
Weirdo... :rolleyes:

Anyway, we don't need the :apple: TV at all. It really isn't necessary at all. Even if I did have an HD TV I wouldn't use this. I would have a HD DVD or BLuray player.

Furthermore, I would have, in my ideal world, a mac mini as my media centre. A lot more useful than this thing.

An excellent notion, to be sure. I would much prefer a Mac Mini to an AppleTV, as I can easily handle all of the extra difficulties that arise from using a real computer instead of something specialized for the task at hand. Though, I would much prefer a Mac Pro to my iMac G5, and that hasn't happened yet... I think I will eventually, in the next few months, be getting a Mac Mini or AppleTV in my house - the question really is, which can I afford?

tny
Mar 22, 2007, 09:09 AM
What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..

Also there's the matter of the truckloads of movies you can't get on DVD and are very infrequently (if ever) transmitted, some foreign films, etc etc.. The piracy issue isn't so simple.

The whole "haha, the pirates will have to convert all their movies!" thing is judgemental and bad.

Well, my eyeTV stuff is all in MP4. As for the stuff you can't get on DVD and is infrequently transmitted - well, you just won't watch that stuff on the Apple TV. It's not going to kill you.

Passante
Mar 22, 2007, 09:12 AM
It seems to be too "single function" of a device for something I'd buy. I can already watch downloaded content using things like a Media Center PC, or XBox 360, or an Mac Mini attached to the TV. You can get a Mac Mini for cheap off of Apple's red tag clearance - not 299 but you can for 479

The need to sync and store content yet again - If I have the content at my home on some server, why do I need to move it to my iTV? I sync with my iPod because I take it with me. The iTV won't move.

Why didn't they also build in Sling functionality on the iTV?

I want to see a future where cable gets replaced by something like iTV which is more like TV over the Internet, and where everything is on demand. I think we'l be there in 5 years with iTV's third iteration.

Then I'll buy one.

I would agree with you if the core duo Mini was $479, but its not. So in an effort to save $399 I bought an Apple TV to play iTunes, TV shows I record on my EyeTV and the occasional iTunes TV content I buy. I'll let you know how it works after tonight

Jimmdean
Mar 22, 2007, 09:23 AM
The mac mini is really only an option for htpc as long as you have DVI - even then there may be some tweaking necessary and some text versus graphics discrepancies. If your tv only has component or vga, you're in a real pickle. Either way, it is most certainly not plug & play for 75% of those out there, especially the hdtv early adopters...

MacBoobsPro
Mar 22, 2007, 09:24 AM
Gizmodo site is a load of crap. Ive spent 30 minutes trying to reply to the AppleTV unboxing blog but there is no way to 'log in' or register.

Anyhoo I wanted to say this in reply to that blog:

This product is somewhat of an enigma. Although nothing about it is earth shatteringly new it does allow for some cool stuff.

It works like this:

I have a computer with iTunes on it. The iTunes library contains movies and TV shows I have downloaded from Apples iTunes Store as well as my entire DVD collection which I have ripped into MP4 format. Along with my entire music collection.

So I have around 120GBs worth of video content on my computer that would be best viewed on a 42" TV instead of a 20" monitor. And loads of music I can now play through my 'home theatre setup' speakers.

However the computer is upstairs and the TV is downstairs. AppleTV will wirelessly pull all that content from the computer upstairs to the TV downstairs. So you have access to 100s of movies, TV shows and music etc with the click of a button.

It has a 40GB hard drive to store stuff on as well as being able to stream movies and music etc directly from the computer. So the 40GB limit is not as limited as its sounds because being able to stream content means that you have access to the computers storage capacity as well.

My computer has a 160GB internal drive, which also has a 250GB external drive attached and will soon be complimented by 40GBs worth of AppleTV storage capacity. That is a hell of a lot of space to store video content and access all of it within seconds.

~

Most of us know that but it took me ages to write and thought I needed to post it and not waste it. :D

rockstarjoe
Mar 22, 2007, 09:53 AM
I believe all Gawker sites require your comments to be approved before they will appear when you post them. Technically only "invited" people can post on sites like Gizmodo. Correct me if I'm wrong.

localoid
Mar 22, 2007, 09:53 AM
My guess is it's on both. The core OS is probably in Flash, but why use any more flash than absolutely necessary if you already have a 40GB drive there. (Unlike the iPod, I doubt 512K or 1M of flash would be sufficient for the whole OS).

I'm also more interested in the file system (is it just HFS+) and how the database is structured (similar to iPod?).

B

Don't think many manufacturers would have a reason to use only 1M these days... The new cheap Linksys routers, relatively simple devices, use 2M worth of flash, for example. The price difference between 1M and 512MB isn't great. :)

Re: file system -- iTunes has basically become a "platform" for Apple, so I doubt they've implemented any radically new methods of dealing with io, the database, etc. from what's currently used.

HobeSoundDarryl
Mar 22, 2007, 10:13 AM
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/AppleTV_UserGuide.pdf

Maybe it will have some of the answers to seemingly endless speculation

sishaw
Mar 22, 2007, 10:23 AM
i think one of the most beautiful things about the mac (and appletv) (and ipod) are their limitations. they have a focus and clarity to their use and design that is in clear and relieving in contrast to the scattergun approach of competitors.
the ability to play every bastardised video codec out there would not be a benefit to me, or 95% of the people out here in the real world, whereas the limitting of the codecs allows apple to provide a consistent, trouble free environment to enjoy my movies/music/tv shows. and i think, that is the aim of apple with this product.

(and you can of course, transcode any dodgey divx/avi material easily and for free with a product like iSquint)

That's all well and good, but Apple TV is too expensive for its beautifully limited use. It's more than the much more versatile Slingbox. Still, if I watched a lot of iTunes movies and TV shows, I'd probably get one--I'm sure it will sell well.

williedigital
Mar 22, 2007, 10:24 AM
I would agree with you if the core duo Mini was $479, but its not. So in an effort to save $399 I bought an Apple TV to play iTunes, TV shows I record on my EyeTV and the occasional iTunes TV content I buy. I'll let you know how it works after tonight

a refurbished core solo mini is $479.You can get core solo mini's cheaper than that on ebay (paid about $430 for mine).

Of course, core solo mini's don't have built in component output ($10 adapter), rca outputs ($2 adapter), or 802.11n ($75 upgrade). In pretty much every other way it's an upgrade.

kirk26
Mar 22, 2007, 10:27 AM
no support for avi, divx, mpeg2, ogg vorbis, etc. etc. jobs is determined to lock us all into his own little codec kingdom. plus, getting stingy on cables now too? this is exactly the attitude that made me switch from ms to apple. maybe its time to move on again... (ubuntu, hello?)...

You've already downgraded to Mac OS, why go even worse with Linux?

Jim Campbell
Mar 22, 2007, 10:28 AM
I user Divx and Xvid because I trade off a little bit of Quality over H264 for Time, on the Mini it takes about 5 Hours to convert one 50 min show.

Genuine curiosity, not having a go, but from what source to what format is taking 5 hours for 50 minutes?

Handbrake gets DVDs from source in about 0.5 - 0.75 of running time dependent upon bitrate. TV content in uncompressed MPEG-4 comes in in real-time via the TV tuner. I can re-encode DivX/Xvid into H264 via iSquint at about 10 minutes per 40-50 minute show.

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 10:29 AM
Let the hacking begin.

Wake me up when it can run Linux.

-Clive

csimmons
Mar 22, 2007, 10:35 AM
OK! all apple lemings now stand in a row and march off the cliff! we lame pc switchers (we must be real stupid) will stand by and watch!

You use (still, I presume) an OS used by 95% of the computing world (Windows), yet you call Mac users lemmings? THAT makes sense...:rolleyes:

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 10:40 AM
I'm well aware EyeTV/quicktime etc can encode to MPEG/h264 - a lot of people encode to other formats so their copies will play on a DVD player they already own, while saving space. My 200GB library is a pretty small one - as I said, I have more than that in divX/xvid on discs already.

Are we still talking about the DivX/XviD Shiite?

Okay let me ask you eyeTV users and pirates something:

Why would Apple support a codec that would encourage using a system that isn't the iTS for video content?

Exactly.

Now shut up.

DivX/XviD support will come once the unit is hacked and is running Linux, which is inevitable. So just be patient and soon enough you'll be able to watch your recorded/stolen content.

-Clive

HobeSoundDarryl
Mar 22, 2007, 10:41 AM
Lots of answers to some popular questions appear to be in (new content?) now posted here...

http://search.info.apple.com/?q=katv&search=Search&lr=lang_en&search=Go&type=ktech+OR+klearn

Unfortunately I'm not finding a single reference to 5.1 surround (pro or con), but I'm still hoping for a "it just works" experience through the optical audio cable. It is hard for me to picture Apple leaving that feature out of this "DVD killer" product at launch.

I didn't see any mention of 5.1 in the newly-posted manual either.

whatever
Mar 22, 2007, 10:51 AM
What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..

Also there's the matter of the truckloads of movies you can't get on DVD and are very infrequently (if ever) transmitted, some foreign films, etc etc.. The piracy issue isn't so simple.

The whole "haha, the pirates will have to convert all their movies!" thing is judgemental and bad.

Expecting Apple to come up with solutions for other products like eyeTV is like asking them to provide a solution for people still using VCRs. It's not their responsibility. However, if eyeTV was to come up with a solution, then that would set them apart in the market place. So it's actually more in there best interest to figure this out.

Imagine the complaints if Apple had built in to Apple TV an eyeTV like device. People would claim that they're trying to put the little guy out of business (which is what would happen almost over night and then all of the eyeTV folks would be totality screwed).

oogje
Mar 22, 2007, 10:58 AM
It's here...

http://berdom.net/photos/_D203674.jpg

esaleris
Mar 22, 2007, 10:58 AM
The mac mini is really only an option for htpc as long as you have DVI - even then there may be some tweaking necessary and some text versus graphics discrepancies. If your tv only has component or vga, you're in a real pickle. Either way, it is most certainly not plug & play for 75% of those out there, especially the hdtv early adopters...

DVI = HDMI except plug form-factor and the HDCP requirements on HD material. Just get a converter. VGA can be outputted via the adapter that comes with the Mac mini.

reubs
Mar 22, 2007, 11:00 AM
I'm still kind of confused, or maybe I refuse to understand what is happening with this.

With Windows MC you just set it up to record shows and stuff with no subscription, correct? But with this you're paying for a box that will record shows you've already paid for, but I can't set it up to record The Office or Earl because I haven't paid for it?

Lame.

williedigital
Mar 22, 2007, 11:02 AM
Why would Apple support a codec that would encourage using a system that isn't the iTS for video content?

-Clive

They want to make the device useful to consumers? They can do what they want, but it makes the device a lot more marketable when you open up to other formats. The Chinese promote their own video disc formats, and they have every right to do so, but you wouldn't expect a player that played only that format to take off very quickly.

Think about Sony and Atrac. You guys insult them for not supporting mp3 right away like the ipod did, but are giving apple a pass for doing the same thing with iTV. There is absolutely nothing illicit or illegal about including support for xvid/divx.

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 11:04 AM
I'm still kind of confused, or maybe I refuse to understand what is happening with this.

With Windows MC you just set it up to record shows and stuff with no subscription, correct? But with this you're paying for a box that will record shows you've already paid for, but I can't set it up to record The Office or Earl because I haven't paid for it?

Lame.

Note that WMC is going to cost you much more than :apple:tv. Paying an extra $2/show is hardly anything.

If you want a DVR, buy a DVR and stop complaining.

-Clive

morespce54
Mar 22, 2007, 11:05 AM
Just like any other iProduct. The unboxing is getting old, Apple needs to spice things up. Maybe they could throw a ferret in there and when you prep for the unboxing sequence the ferret jumps out and latches itself to your face and you're freaking out screaming, omg omg, there's a ferret on my face.

LOL... :D

Now, THAT would be someting new... ;)

reubs
Mar 22, 2007, 11:11 AM
Note that WMC is going to cost you much more than :apple:tv. Paying an extra $2/show is hardly anything.

If you want a DVR, buy a DVR and stop complaining.

-Clive


And this is the problem with lots of Apple folks...everyone thinks that everything Apple does OMG!!!11!!! aw3some. when in reality I'm sure they could put together a software package that would integrate SEAMLESSLY into the Macmini that would do the same job. Or am I just way off base with this? And does ANYONE out there think this is possible?

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 11:12 AM
Think about Sony and Atrac. You guys insult them for not supporting mp3 right away like the ipod did, but are giving apple a pass for doing the same thing with iTV. There is absolutely nothing illicit or illegal about including support for xvid/divx.

Sony not offering MP3 would be like Apple not offering MPEG or h.264. Atrac, by no means, is a standard format. As for XviD/DivX, they're like AIFF or WAV... not the standard for audio files. I'm not going to say they don't have their advantages because they do. I have a slew of XviD content on my computer. I am planning on using eyeTV in the near future. That doesn't change the story. XviD is an anti-priority for Apple. It promotes other sources of media retrieval.

BTW, I never implied that supporting XviD/DivX was illegal or even shady. I just said that it doesn't promote the iTS, which is what Apple obviously wants.

There are other boxes and other methods out there to play these formats as well as those supported by iTunes. If that's your goal, use one of them.

-Clive

silverboy31
Mar 22, 2007, 11:13 AM
Just got my apple tv hooked it up and set up is a breeze. I love this thing it will change the way i watch tv, movies and listen to music...have everything streaming over g network, works flawlessly, plus i have it hooked up to a sony wega crt non widescreen at 480i ,(componet cables )looks great so i guess you really don't need a widescreen tv.. yet..... since i ordered it last month i have been converting my entire dvd collection using handbrake, its cool to have it all at the touch of a button...
Well done Apple....

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 11:17 AM
And this is the problem with lots of Apple folks...everyone thinks that everything Apple does OMG!!!11!!! aw3some. when in reality I'm sure they could put together a software package that would integrate SEAMLESSLY into the Macmini that would do the same job. Or am I just way off base with this? And does ANYONE out there think this is possible?

No, I agree with you. That's what I plan to do (Mac Mini Media Center) because I want a single unit that will play DVDs, be a DVR and play other content from my computer. I also plan to use Darwiin Remote so I can navigate the mac from my couch with my Wii-mote. It will be totally awesome.

I would never buy an :apple:tv with its current specs. Too little bang for my buck. I just want others to stop complaining about what it isn't. If you want a unit to do something, buy a unit that does it. It doesn't require an Apple Logo.

-Clive

Mike67
Mar 22, 2007, 11:26 AM
480i !!!! Hello ??!!!

It works fine with standard - def 480i TVs

Isn't this big news?

People have been bitching for months about the lack of support for the huge market of standard-def tv owners,. Now it's been confirmed that it works fine with standard- def TVs,.... and nobody's talking about it.... we just wanna bitch about having to buy a cable?...

wtf ?

Jimmdean
Mar 22, 2007, 11:28 AM
DVI = HDMI except plug form-factor and the HDCP requirements on HD material. Just get a converter. VGA can be outputted via the adapter that comes with the Mac mini.

I could have been more clear. People have issues with connecting the mac mini to their tvs (primarily those without DVI/HDMI). it usually requires the use of displayconfigX or SwitchresX. It can be a real pain, and the older your hdtv is the more trouble you will have. It's also tough to get it where both text and video look good. It really all depends on which tv you have, and there isn't exactly a database out there with custom settings for each tv - each person has to tweak it manually...

Gee4orce
Mar 22, 2007, 11:43 AM
480i !!!! Hello ??!!!

It works fine with standard - def 480i TVs

Isn't this big news?

People have been bitching for months about the lack of support for the huge market of standard-def tv owners,. Now it's been confirmed that it works fine with standard- def TVs,.... and nobody's talking about it.... we just wanna bitch about having to buy a cable?...

wtf ?

I'd like confirmation of this too ! In the UK many people have widescreen Standard Def CRT TVs (including me) - widescreen caught on way before HD over here, so this could be big news for Brits.

Whoa - VisualHub (http://www.techspansion.com/visualhub/) has just been updated with AppleTV support. For those of you who don't know, this is a great video conversion app that allows you to queue up all your conversions tasks, and also supports XGrid if you have multiple Macs to share the work.

johnee
Mar 22, 2007, 12:05 PM
Really, is an "unboxing" this interesting? :confused:

it's not like this is the golden briefcase in pulp fiction...

williedigital
Mar 22, 2007, 12:24 PM
Sony not offering MP3 would be like Apple not offering MPEG or h.264. Atrac, by no means, is a standard format. As for XviD/DivX, they're like AIFF or WAV... not the standard for audio files. I'm not going to say they don't have their advantages because they do. I have a slew of XviD content on my computer. I am planning on using eyeTV in the near future. That doesn't change the story. XviD is an anti-priority for Apple. It promotes other sources of media retrieval.

BTW, I never implied that supporting XviD/DivX was illegal or even shady. I just said that it doesn't promote the iTS, which is what Apple obviously wants.

There are other boxes and other methods out there to play these formats as well as those supported by iTunes. If that's your goal, use one of them.

-Clive

See, that's just it. Xvid and DivX are MPEG (assuming you mean mpeg-4 standard). There is absolutely nothing more or less compliant about these implementations than the one used by apple in quicktime. Lacking any argument about one being more "legitimate" than another, I think the argument can be made that apple should support the most popular/common implementation, which I would argue is Xvid/Divx. I wouldn't have a problem with Itv only accepting mpeg-4 compliant videos, since then they would be appealing to a standard, but by only allowing quicktime's mpeg-4 implementation, it's like only allowing quicktime encoded .mp3 files instead of ones that have been encoded by lame, xing, blade, etc encoders--all of which produce files that meet the specs of the mp3 standard.

As for not implying illicit/shady, you mentioned several times in your post "stolen" content in reference to files that are encoded with xvid/divx.

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 12:54 PM
As for not implying illicit/shady, you mentioned several times in your post "stolen" content in reference to files that are encoded with xvid/divx.

List for me a source of XviD or DivX videos which is not recorded and converted by a user or downloaded from P2P sites or Bittorrent. Can you find a legitimate website where you can buy movies in XviD/DivX format?

Look, I'm not trying to call you a theif or anything. I use XviD too. I just don't think it's a priority for Apple to support it. It doesn't benefit them to do so.

-Clive

williedigital
Mar 22, 2007, 01:06 PM
List for me a source of XviD or DivX videos which is not recorded and converted by a user or downloaded from P2P sites or Bittorrent. Can you find a legitimate website where you can buy movies in XviD/DivX format?

Look, I'm not trying to call you a theif or anything. I use XviD too. I just don't think it's a priority for Apple to support it. It doesn't benefit them to do so.

-Clive

It's not the point that no sites sell movies in that format. No sites sold music in .mp3 when the ipod came out. The point is that it's a standard and I wish apple would stick to standards instead of making up their own (.mov and .m4a)

http://www.divx.com/company/press/press_detail.php?pr_id=168
50 million units of HARDWARE shipped as of early 06 and google backing isn't anything to scoff at.

Clive At Five
Mar 22, 2007, 01:31 PM
No sites sold music in .mp3 when the ipod came out.

Totally different situation. Online music retail was a fetus when the iPod came out. Apple HAD to make it have broad appeal. No one would've bought it if it only supported .aac.

Online media distribution is much more advanced today than it was when the iPod was new. It's much more established. The iTS has a dedicated following of people who downloaded movies. Remember, the iPod PREceded the ITS. :apple:tv follows adoption of movie downloads from the iTS. If there was no iTS, I would say apple was crazy for not supporting XviD/DivX, but that's not the case.

Apple has a strong following of people who download movies from the iTS. Not allowing this or that format is only going to alienate a few people, mostly prosumers like you and me. For Jane and John Smith, :apple:TV is going to be exactly what people need to bring the content from their Mac to their TV. You and I are smart enough to devise solutions that more adequately meet our needs.

-Clive

Skrilla™
Mar 22, 2007, 01:40 PM
its stinking packaging, throw it in the attic or trash it and stop making a big deal out of it :rolleyes:

nswint
Mar 22, 2007, 02:19 PM
I betcha that this AppleTV has no closed caption capabilities. If it does not, WAY TO GO, APPLE. Thank you, Steve, for thinking about us, hearing impaired. When you download TV programs and Movies. AppleTV and iTunes does NOT support closed captions. You can not find anywhere on AppleTV and iTunes specs that it supports closed captions. I understand that the videos must have symbol "cc" next to download page of each program or movie to tell you that it has closed caption capability. I have yet not been able to get"cc" to work in which way possible. If there is anyone out there in AppleLand that can tell me how to get closed caption to work or will there be any support in the near future, please tell me. Thank you. :-(

I never thought about this. That's very sad... I'm surprised the ADA team isn't all over this. More power to cc. It helps my nephews with their reading and me to become more fluent in foreign languages.

nodedawg
Mar 22, 2007, 02:20 PM
They already cracked one open over at future shock
http://www.techrestore.com/2007/03/apple-tv-dissection.shtml

Looks like a Mac Mini on the inside

psingh01
Mar 22, 2007, 03:40 PM
hmm, I record a lot of stuff on my ati tv tuner in MPEG2 format. most notably sporting events with my favorite teams. i would surely get an appletv if only i could watch these videos on my tv, otherwise i have no need for it.

Cult Follower
Mar 22, 2007, 05:39 PM
video was not very good, but at least we have one to watch.

mixel
Mar 22, 2007, 05:57 PM
Damn (some of) you guys and your selective reading. All I said was :apple:TV is an inconvenience to me, and its limitations make the device less useful to me, and no doubt many others. I didn't say it was a bad device. I don't expect people to care what I think or would prefer from a gadget.. Just posted opinions.

I never asked, demanded or expected Apple to support anything, so don't get your knickers in a twist. My DivX "crap" is not pirated. - Lots of peoples isn't.. I could happily have been burning home movies to xvid/divX because it means they play on most devices... Just.. Not the :apple:TV ! There are so many scenarios other than the "worthless pirate scum" one, so people have no right to get on their high horses about.. File formats. (ugh)

Questioning things is good. (even Apple's choices!) Not liking something, or finding it imperfect is fine too. :rolleyes:

Are we still talking about the DivX/XviD Shiite?

Okay let me ask you eyeTV users and pirates something:

Why would Apple support a codec that would encourage using a system that isn't the iTS for video content?

Exactly.

Now shut up.
Brilliant playground style there, well done.

They evidently wouldn't. For financial reasons. Personally I'd rather have some "geeky" potentially useful features which make it better than competing products than someone telling me "It's so much easier this way!!!" whilst leaving useful - potentially menial to include - stuff out.

I'm excited about the product, despite not really wanting one.. (yet?) I think it's good for Apple, but I also think it could have been a considerably better device, even as a Mk1.

Back on topic though, that sure is one purdy box.

SeaFox
Mar 23, 2007, 02:52 AM
Why would people care about these codecs if they can just rip their legally purchased material into a supported codec? Oh that's right, because they want to be able to play all of their torrent files.

Because ripping a movie into a quality encoding can take hours. Remember Apple includes a WMA->AAC transcoder in iTunes because they realize that people's time is money, and some would rather look at other devices than have to reencode entire libraries to suit a certain one.

Actually, that's my exact problem. Apple TV wont play back any of my foreign dvd backups since it can't play either standard subtitle format. That's a pretty big feature to lack in my eyes.

It's Apple encouraging continuing education! You're supposed to learn a foreign language. [ducking]

Supporting codecs that have no legal content available for them violates the KISS principle as well has putting them in hot water with the MPAA. AVI is a dead legacy format.

How many people really mean "I can't play my pirate movie bittorrent files" when you complain about a lack of XVid and DivX? Where can I buy legal movies in those formats?

Just because the codec is used for pirating doesn't make it illegal. Just like Bittorrent is not illegal just because its used for pirating. God, you're just like Ballmer claiming "the most common type of music on an iPod is stolen."

Who encodes their home videos with codecs?

I find it funny you don't see the parallel between this and buying movies off the iTMS. Why pay $9.95 for a 640x480 movie, when you can hop over to Wal-Mart and buy the DVD for the same price, getting get better resolution and all the DVD extras, and be back home watching it before your iTMS movie is half finished downloading.

Buying music through iTunes has the perks of instant gratification and the ability to buy single songs if you want. Where's the advantage for movies verses existing retail channels? If Apple was able to secure the rights to foreign movies not available in Region 1 on DVD, then we might have something.

The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.

H264 has much higher processing requirements. I'm looking to upgrade my video card right now because I have issues playing back high action scenes in some H264 files I encoded recently. Meanwhile, I can watch an AVI file containing XviD fairly smoothly while I'm running an H264 encode at the same time.

askthedust
Mar 23, 2007, 07:56 AM
It arrived a day early.

Setting up the apple Tv was very easy. Plug in the power cable. Plug in the video and audio cables and turn the tv to the right channel. I only have an Airport extreme network so that is an 802.11 g connection which is much slower than the new N draft that Apple has adopted. Syncing with iTunes was very easy but painfully slow with my connection. I decided to minimize the amount of content being transferred over to Apple TV so I could start using it quickly. 2 Itunes movie purchases 5 Tv shows and 100 Songs. About 5 GB of space. What on an ipod would be lightening fast was arduously slow. But, one could argue that I wasn't using a wired connection et etc. I read reviews that said you can't manually manage your content. This isn't entirely true. You can, it's just done in a different way from an iPod. My only other fault with the device is that you cannot purchase content from the iTunes store with just Apple TV. After thinking about this for a while I came up with some of my own ideas on that.

1. People are used to using an ipod so it works in exactly the same fashion
2. There is some kind of security risk of it being hacked and your CC info being stolen
3. They would have had to create login in's and PW which makes the device less user friendly.

Once set-up and content transferred over It was a self-explanatory process to navigate through the menus to find what I was looking for. I discovered that my iTunes movies had chapter titles and markers (missing from manually ripped dvd's from my collection.) which I liked. Scrolling through ablum art images was smooth and the better image you had the better it looked on screen. My podcasts (KEXP song of the Day) didn't have art but had plenty of info about it that popped up on the screen.

Also thanks to engadget I discovered www.firefold.com . Best Buy wanted 65 bucks for an HDMI cable. Firefold sold it to me for 5.71 and 3 bucks shipping. Screw You Best Buy! You are supposed to use your purchasing power to drive prices lower!

Could the device have been less expensive and are there other options out there with more features? Yes. Would I have been up in running and waiting for my content to move? I doubt it. Everything is done through the Front Row interface instead of the remote. Overall I would give this an 8 out of 10 rating.

Passante
Mar 23, 2007, 08:10 AM
Set up was simple. I have an airport extreme G network running WPA personal encryption with access control limited to MAC address. No problems what so ever getting appletv to connect with my wireless network.

All my music and movies synced up without issue. I was watching tv shows and listening to music almost immediately. I did not notice any delays because the system was syncing. The syncing interface is very similar to the iPod sync interface.
[B]Edit Picture quality has improved. While I tried a couple of things I believe my comcast analog cable signal was temporarily degraded and it was enough to cause the eyetv programs to look bad. I placed an amplifier to boost the signal and picture quality of my eyetv recordings has improved. [B]
I am disappointed with the quality of Eyetv recorded TV shows encoded to H.264. I'm going to start recording shows at the highest quality setting (90 minutes of content per DVD vs 120 per DVD) and see if that improves the picture quality. I expect that Eyetv will issue a software update to improve compatibility with appletv.

iTunes media (videos and tv shows) look great. Not HD obvious but far better than analog cable and close to what I remember digital cable looked like.

So is appletv better than buying a mini and using it as a media center. Not sure about the answer yet. It is however much cheaper.

Ease of set up 10 (10 best 1 worst)
Ease of use 10
Features 8.5

Jim Campbell
Mar 23, 2007, 09:04 AM
I am disappointed with the quality of Eyetv recorded TV shows encoded to H.264. I'm going to start recording shows at the highest quality setting (90 minutes of content per DVD vs 120 per DVD) and see if that improves the picture quality.

I found that this made a massive difference to picture quality. It's well worth having an extensive fiddle with the EyeTV preferences, since the picture quality improved no end after a very few minutes adjustment ...

Cheers!

Jim

Passante
Mar 23, 2007, 09:13 AM
I found that this made a massive difference to picture quality. It's well worth having an extensive fiddle with the EyeTV preferences, since the picture quality improved no end after a very few minutes adjustment ...

Cheers!

Jim

I changed the setting this morning. We'll see shortly. What is interesting is that I have been burning some of these eyetv programs to DVD and watching them and they look fine. Going to do some direct comparisons this weekend.

Jim Campbell
Mar 23, 2007, 11:35 AM
I changed the setting this morning. We'll see shortly. What is interesting is that I have been burning some of these eyetv programs to DVD and watching them and they look fine. Going to do some direct comparisons this weekend.

This is interesting. That suggests it's the playback settings rather than the quality of the original data that's the problem. Try fiddling with some of those!

Cheers

Jim

slffl
Mar 23, 2007, 12:30 PM
I just used VisualHubs' AppleTV default settings to convert a 720p Matrix Reloaded x264 .mkv sample from 131MB to 25MB. I would say the original looks maybe 10% better than the converted, but for a ~75% space savings, it looks incredible.

I can't wait for 720p movies to be offered on iTMS. I'm hoping they offer it on more than just movies that have already been released on HDDVD and BR.

Jimmdean
Mar 23, 2007, 04:00 PM
Does the AppleTV support WPA2-Enterprise (RADIUS etc.) or is it limited to pre-shared passwords?

I'm paranoid. My network is locked down to within an inch of death. If I need to undermine my wireless security to use this, I'm not going to even bother.

Can someone who already has one give me an answer? Most appreciated.


All 802.11n devices are supposed to have WPA2 security. So it does support WPA2, just not WPA itself. Apple's own documents have a Q&A that goes something like "My Apple TV doesn't see my WPA network". The response is "switch your network to either WEP or WPA2".

Jim Campbell
Mar 23, 2007, 06:36 PM
What is interesting is that I have been burning some of these eyetv programs to DVD and watching them and they look fine. Going to do some direct comparisons this weekend.

Minor follow-up because I was away from home for the previous post ... It's the de-interlace settings that are probably giving you the quality problems if the raw data is playing back fine elsewhere. I genuinely can't advise which setting will work best for you cause it's so subjective, but I really think that this is where you'll find the biggest improvement.

Cheers!

Jim

Stella
Mar 23, 2007, 09:18 PM
They have the aTV in the Toronto eaton centre apple store.

I was quite surprised in how hot they were.

aristobrat
Mar 23, 2007, 11:13 PM
Yeah, mines pretty hot. But unlike my TiVo, the Apple TV's pretty much dead silent.

puckhead193
Mar 24, 2007, 06:36 PM
i saw the :apple: tv at the store today. I wasn't impressed with the image quality.

Westside guy
Mar 24, 2007, 08:34 PM
Okay, I'm a bit disappointed. Sure we have seen unboxing photos; you might even say to ad nauseum. But that's not enough granularity - no one has posted a 30-40 photo series of themselves just pushing the "on" button. C'mon people! A good digital camera is capable of 2-3 frames per second!

:eek:

Passante
Mar 25, 2007, 05:21 AM
After changing eyetv to record in highest quality mode, playing with the de-interlacing setting, and putting a cable signal amplifier just before eyetv my recordings are much improved and very watchable.

Now I can go back to just enjoying my Apple tv. Thanks to Jim and others who commented.