Apple Selling Apple TV Near Cost?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Computerworld's Seth Weintraub first speculated (http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple_is_subsidizing_the_cost_of_appletv) that Apple is subsidizing the cost of Apple TV with their new movie rental sales. Indeed, Apple dropped the price for the Apple TV ($299-$399 -> $229-$329) at Macworld 2008 -- but this discount was only reflected in the U.S. and Canadian markets. To be fair, Apple's international pricing has always been higher than the U.S. counterparts, but this discrepant price drop did raise some eyebrows.

To followup, Gizmodo asked iSuppli (http://gizmodo.com/349882/first-proof-apple-making-near-zero-on-appletv-and-big-bucks-on-itunes) for the current materials costs for building the Apple TV. According to their numbers, the $229 40GB Apple TV costs $208.20 to build while the $329 160GB Apple TV costs $235.70 to build. This includes raw component costs alone without taking into account assembly, packaging, shipping, and development costs.

These 10-30% margins are significantly lower margins than Apple typically enjoys on their hardware products, suggesting that they are indeed aggressively pricing the units to drive more sales. The Apple TV was originally launched at Macworld 2007 but was reportedly met with modest sales. Apple revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/15/apple-announces-appletv-take-2-price-drop/) the Apple TV at this year's Macworld with the inclusion of direct-to-tv movie rentals. This revamped software will be available as a free software update to all Apple TV owners.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/28/apple-selling-apple-tv-near-cost/)

[jciapara]

I think $ 229.00 is just about a right price. I will definitely buy one in the near future.

[eddx]

I think this is the right price for this device and I think we can all understand why Apple can justify selling this device with such low profits. Respect to Apple for putting technological progression above profits for once (although in the long run, with the movie rentals etc it probably helps the companies overall profit).

[thesdx]

I think $ 229.00 is just about a right price. I will definitely buy one in the near future.

Me too, as soon as I get my HDTV.

[retroneo]

It's approaching 1 year old. Surely it's cheaper to make it now, considering there are no hardware changes????

[Demon]

All the news about Apple TV is great, but when is the damn update? I've actually gone and rented some movies only to find out i can't stream them to my Apple TV.
But i'm still really excited about the idea that i can now get my TV shows and Movies via the internet even when i'm no longer in the US.:)

[caliguy]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

[Callaway]

All the news about Apple TV is great, but when is the damn update? I've actually gone and rented some movies only to find out i can't stream them to my Apple TV.
But i'm still really excited about the idea that i can now get my TV shows and Movies via the internet even when i'm no longer in the US.:)

According to this site, February 1st.

http://appletvsource.com/content/view/538/1/

[swingerofbirch]

Interesting...seems like a market Apple knows it has to be in even though it doesn't have a revolutionary vision (or is limited by the media companies to the extent it can't have a revolutionary vision).

I'm not terribly interested in this product, but I think if HD rentals are to remain competitive with Blu-Ray, which has far higher quality and bit-rate (I think the maximum on the Apple TV is only 5 mbps), Apple needs to up its offerings.

Apple TV has always seemed like Apple putting some electronics in a box and somewhat embarrassingly putting it on the shelf and saying, "Does someone want one of these?"

"No you don't?"

"What if we add pay per view movies, do you want it now?"

It's the complete opposite of the iPod which had a clear simple vision and the message, "You want one of these."

[GeekLawyer]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

If your TV has component inputs as well, the AppleTV will work for you. I've used it with component and HDMI and I can't discern a difference at 720p or 1080i. Just send your sound to the TV or home theater system through optical sound output or RCA jacks from the AppleTV.

[bacaramac]

It's approaching 1 year old. Surely it's cheaper to make it now, considering there are no hardware changes????

Based on an old thread about ATV costs, it was projected at $235 a while back. It appears if these numbers are accurate, that it has indeed become cheaper to build.

[Stella]

AppleTV was a bit of a flop. Perhaps they want it as cheap as possible.

Although, if Apple can take the digital movie market like they've done with digital music then the benefits will out weight this.

Despite the original AppleTV looking like a complete dud, the new firmware looks as though AppleTV will do better this time round.

[ChrisA]

I think $ 229.00 is just about a right price. I will definitely buy one in the near future.

Even at $230 Apple will have an up hill battle with this. Most consumers are used to getting their set top boxes for free when they sign up for some new service. With ATV Apple is asking you to pay $230 up front just so you can rent their movies. They would have done better to give the ATV away with a movie download subscription service. The price could have been the same in the end.

[GeekLawyer]

I know I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with for this platform. I'm so ready to ditch Comcast and Netflix over the next few years just like I banished Sam Goody and Tower Records over the past few.

[flopticalcube]

Considering that its a "hobby", it doesn't really need to be a money maker, yet.

[nerdbert]

I think $ 229.00 is just about a right price. I will definitely buy one in the near future.

I would think so too if it wasn't for all the reencoding I'd have to perform in order to watch all the stuff I've legally purchased. If it was around a hundred bucks I would really consider it, but 229 seems to be a lot for a device which isn't even the center of a TV setup - I still need a DVD player and some devices to receive cable and terrestrial broadcasts. Compared to what is thinkable this box really goes a long way.

[scrambledwonder]

The Apple TV is great. Now all I need is a regular TV . . . Why not an Apple TV with a screen? How sexy would that be, a 42-inch aluminum HDTV with all the guts of the Apple TV in it?

[solipsism]

To be fair, Apple's international pricing has always been higher than the U.S. counterparts, but this discrepant price drop did raise some eyebrows.

Apple lowered the price because it will make a fair amount of money on each rental.

Sicne these rentals have only been worked out for the US market there is no reason for lower the price overseas. As for Canada also getting the lowered device it may to its proximity to the US as it's not uncommon for Canadians to have easy access to US iTS gift cards and have US Credit Cards.

[ChrisA]

...these boxes would make a great platform on which to hack. ..

Yes, people have already put Mac OS X on them. It's Apples lowest priced Mac. Would be nice if there was a why to add more RAM.

Lots of people have put Linux on the ATVs. and they make nice front ends for Myth TV. "Myth" is a bit better firmware than what Apple sells.

[Derbus]

My girlfriend got me one as a late xmas present and I can't wait to set it up, I hate driving out for rentals, cuz, well... im lazy :o

[tothelimit]

According to this site, February 1st.

http://appletvsource.com/content/view/538/1/

Someone responded to claim in your link saying that they were told by an apple employee the update would come tomorrow (Jan 29) ... I certainly hope that is the case. I'm itching to rent my first HD movie on it :D

[quantumbits]

The Computerworld article (http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple_is_subsidizing_the_cost_of_appletv) doesn't go into detail but these boxes would make a great platform on which to hack. With margins so low and the Apple TV being such a good piece of hardware, there are lots of interesting opportunities!

My thoughts exactly. My only concern is that Apple likely adjusted the firmware to disable all of the published hacks thus far. Its a shame because AppleTV + Time Capsule = a potentially uber cool and reasonably-priced home server package (especially when you consider that Time Capsule comes with an enterprise-level hard drive).

[NewSc2]

As someone who's been interested in a set top box... I'm still leaning towards a Mac Mini. It's quite a bit more expensive but can do so much more, without the need to encode all my videos to the same format.

[solipsism]

The Apple TV is great. Now all I need is a regular TV . . . Why not an Apple TV with a screen? How sexy would that be, a 42-inch aluminum HDTV with all the guts of the Apple TV in it?

And how many different TVs would they have to make. Rear-projection, tube, Plasma, and LCD sets. Then there is HDTVs of varying quality, EDTVs and SDTV that have Component. There are too many possibilities for Apple to be able to cater to a majority with just a couple sets.

Now, if Apple could get with Sony or LG or HP or whomever to create a special holder in the back of most sets for the AppleTV and a passthrough—with the USB cable—to control the IR sensor with one remote.

[Porco]

Having just bought a PS3, I have to say I feel even less inclined than I was to buy an Apple TV. I seriously believe that Apple should team up with Sony on movie rentals and downloads and make iTunes for the PS3, it'd be a winner for all concerned IMHO.

[AppleMojo]

Interesting...seems like a market Apple knows it has to be in even though it doesn't have a revolutionary vision (or is limited by the media companies to the extent it can't have a revolutionary vision).

I'm not terribly interested in this product, but I think if HD rentals are to remain competitive with Blu-Ray, which has far higher quality and bit-rate (I think the maximum on the Apple TV is only 5 mbps), Apple needs to up its offerings.

Apple TV has always seemed like Apple putting some electronics in a box and somewhat embarrassingly putting it on the shelf and saying, "Does someone want one of these?"

"No you don't?"

"What if we add pay per view movies, do you want it now?"

It's the complete opposite of the iPod which had a clear simple vision and the message, "You want one of these."

You've obviously not used one or any competitors devices to compare.

The AppleTV is actually pretty nice, there are a few drawbacks but those are easily remedied with software as Apple is doing so now.

My wife and son use the Apple TV several times a day, to listen to Music and watch iTunes purchased Movies and TV shows.

Compared to other solutions out there, the AppleTV is far more turn-key and easier for the general user to find useful.

[soosy]

Interesting...seems like a market Apple knows it has to be in even though it doesn't have a revolutionary vision (or is limited by the media companies to the extent it can't have a revolutionary vision).

I'm not terribly interested in this product, but I think if HD rentals are to remain competitive with Blu-Ray, which has far higher quality and bit-rate (I think the maximum on the Apple TV is only 5 mbps), Apple needs to up its offerings.

Apple TV has always seemed like Apple putting some electronics in a box and somewhat embarrassingly putting it on the shelf and saying, "Does someone want one of these?"

"No you don't?"

"What if we add pay per view movies, do you want it now?"

It's the complete opposite of the iPod which had a clear simple vision and the message, "You want one of these."

Agreed. The iPod has a clear benefit—portability (even if it has become a replacement for stationary home stereos as well).

Apple TV has always irked me because it's doing something my home computer should already be able to do. Just slap some HDMI on the graphics card and we're good to go (Although many flat panels will accept standard DVI/VGA).

Relatedly, I'm irked that rentals via computer aren't available in HD... so I can't hook up my laptop to my TV for HD rentals. I know the reason is probably from the studios relating to copyright concerns... but it is irksome regardless.

I can already get movie rentals on my xbox and cable box. The one saving grace for Apple could be selection and quality. Let's hope their rental library grows fast.

[sananda]

It's approaching 1 year old. Surely it's cheaper to make it now, considering there are no hardware changes????

Based on an old thread about ATV costs, it was projected at $235 a while back. It appears if these numbers are accurate, that it has indeed become cheaper to build.

there are charts in both the articles you are posting about showing the reduction in build cost.

[gugy]

The Apple TV is great. Now all I need is a regular TV . . . Why not an Apple TV with a screen? How sexy would that be, a 42-inch aluminum HDTV with all the guts of the Apple TV in it?

Not going t happen. Very unlikely.

TV's are a though market with very low profit margins and fierce competition. Plus so many cool HDTVs out there. What benefit would Apple bring in making a television?
Seriously not much.
I rather they improve AppleTV and make it a sensational product and just plug it to my cool HDTV.

[John-S]

I have a love-hate relationship with my Apple TV. I like the idea of it but it always comes up just a tad short...

Movie Rentals in HD> I don't want to "rent" a movie for that high price... every movie rental place is cheaper! I want to be able to "buy" transformers in hi-def from my apple tv and have it include additional features like a dvd. Forget my blu-ray (no transformers anyway) and let me download the stupid thing. I really don't need streaming speeds... I can wait a bit for it to download. Its still quicker then driving to the store and buying a movie if I had the quick urge.

Also, lack of NBC is pissing me off. I want "Heroes" season 2 on my Apple TV! That kind of stuff is why I bought the Apple TV. NBC and Apple would both be winning right now... instead of me watching it for free on tv and not buying the dvd set they could be making $1.99 on me now an episode! I also hate the lack of WB content like Smallville and ER off whatever station that is (nbc probley)

Pictures on the tv... not a grand slam. Not by a long shot. Its cool when you first get your apple tv but then later.... I mainly want the Apple tv for Movies, TV and now youtube. Thats it!

The Apple remote and menu's are slow and OVERLY easy. I don't want a big remote like MS's or anything like that but that little tiny piece of crap is annoying and unresponsive. The apple tv takes too long to navigate through because its... so simple!


Otherwise, I know I made it sound like I hate the Apple tv but I really don't. I'm a big fan of mine and think its cool.... Just its sitting there not getting used these days because the lack of tv content and hd movies (hd tv content too).

Plus, they really need to get those in the UK (friends) some additional video content in the itunes store...

[autoy]

Let's put things this way:

The Apple TV will never succeed (don't know about the USA) in Europe because we need boxes that offer, beyond of a legal alternative way of online purchasing, a way to coexist with our exisiting video libraries (pirated, ripped or otherwise) which happen to be in Xvid/DivX formats 95% of the time (the rest is mkv). Microsoft and Sony have finally undeerstood this getting some codec support in their latest firmwares. The iPod/iTunes woud have never been anything without mp3 support.

If I have to pay for a box that sells me stuff over the net I would rather spend my money on an xBox or PS3 than on another one that offers me just the "privilege" of continuing to pay though rented movies.

Apple can choose: let the codecs in, give away the box for free (like all of the other cable providers here) or enjoy the slow death of the Apple TV.

[twoodcc]

yeah, that isn't very apple-like. but i guess it's better for consumers. hopefully they will sell more at these prices

[minik]

I look forward to purchase an Apple TV next month.

[Dorfdad]

Apple will have a hard time with this venture. They got LUCKY on the IPOD as they were the first out the door and grabbed alot of the market.

Secondly Unlike the IPOD where you can buy it once for 300.00 you now can add FREE content podcasts, your music etc to the IPOD. The Eye TV will make you pay for the system and than cost you every time you use it.

With stiff competition from Netfix, Cable Providers, and others Apple is not going to recreate the IPOD success unless they SHAKE the foundations on price and quality..

[thejadedmonkey]

ok. I'll get one. Soon as I get a HDTV... Right now it's useless to me though:mad:

[eXan]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Computerworld's Seth Weintraub first speculated (http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple_is_subsidizing_the_cost_of_appletv) that Apple is subsidizing the cost of Apple TV with their new movie rental sales. Indeed, Apple dropped the price for the Apple TV ($299-$399 -> $229-$329) at Macworld 2008 -- but this discount was only reflected in the U.S. and Canadian markets. To be fair, Apple's international pricing has always been higher than the U.S. counterparts, but this discrepant price drop did raise some eyebrows.

To followup, Gizmodo asked iSuppli (http://gizmodo.com/349882/first-proof-apple-making-near-zero-on-appletv-and-big-bucks-on-itunes) for the current materials costs for building the Apple TV. According to their numbers, the $229 40GB Apple TV costs $208.20 to build while the $329 160GB Apple TV costs $235.70 to build. This includes raw component costs alone without taking into account assembly, packaging, shipping, and development costs.

These 10-30% margins are significantly lower margins than Apple typically enjoys on their hardware products, suggesting that they are indeed aggressively pricing the units to drive more sales. The Apple TV was originally launched at Macworld 2007 but was reportedly met with modest sales. Apple revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/15/apple-announces-appletv-take-2-price-drop/) the Apple TV at this year's Macworld with the inclusion of direct-to-tv movie rentals. This revamped software will be available as a free software update to all Apple TV owners.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/28/apple-selling-apple-tv-near-cost/)

Yea, yea. I still haven't found any use for ATV with it's current feature set. If it had a DVD player, then .... :D

[matticus008]

Apple TV has always irked me because it's doing something my home computer should already be able to do.
I think it suffers more from the fact that it lacks a clearly defined set of competitors, so no matter what you compare it to, it will be a poor fit, which pre-judges the outcome of the comparison.

Your home computer can do all of this. But it's not small, silent, and meant to be used without a keyboard all the time. The Mac mini certainly is an option for "HTPC" class devices (though it's a term that's difficult to lock down--does an HTPC need a tuner? I think not, since digital/HD cable has managed to make obsolete computer tuner devices at an astonishing rate, but others disagree). But at $229, it's more like a beefed-up iPod for your living room.
Even at $230 Apple will have an up hill battle with this. Most consumers are used to getting their set top boxes for free when they sign up for some new service.
They're used to having, but not owning those. When your service ends, that free equipment has to go back. When Netflix launches their STB, it'll be a simpler (i.e. cheaper) device and will have built-in subscription revenue involved.

Tivo owners are used to buying their hardware and don't have a huge problem with it. AppleTV definitely does need some sort of subscription plan (even if it's as simple as putting a Netflix plugin in, like the YouTube one).
With ATV Apple is asking you to pay $230 up front just so you can rent their movies.
Works for Tivo, and you're not even done when you sink $300 on the HD box, and all that does is record TV for $13/month. The AppleTV wouldn't ever be a freebie. It would box out all the people who want one and probably won't rent that many movies on it--lots of the existing customer base.

I certainly didn't buy it so it could be a double for video on demand. I'm happy that they've added the feature, but I'd have one anyway. It's priced less than every other component in my setup, but it's one of the most useful for me.

[inkswamp]

Apple really did improve the AppleTV with this latest revision but I still don't understand why they can't see their way clear to get a freakin' DVD slot on the front of the box. I'd consider the AppleTV as a replacement for my DVD player if they did that, but I don't have any need for an all-download video player, and I don't know a lot of people who do. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's improved but it still strikes me as a toy for people with nothing better to do with their money.

[sellitman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I know I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with for this platform. I'm so ready to ditch Comcast and Netflix over the next few years just like I banished Sam Goody and Tower Records over the past few.

I stopped Netflix when they bombarded web sites with pop-unders. I refuse to purchase from any company that employs obnoxius technologies

[inkswamp]

Apple will have a hard time with this venture. They got LUCKY on the IPOD as they were the first out the door and grabbed alot of the market.

Apple wasn't first with mp3 players. They weren't even second. I would doubt if they were even in the first 10 companies to make one. There literally was a slew of players prior to the iPod. If you're not certain of a specific claim like that it would be best to look it up before posting.

Secondly Unlike the IPOD where you can buy it once for 300.00 you now can add FREE content podcasts, your music etc to the IPOD. The Eye TV will make you pay for the system and than cost you every time you use it.

What?! I'm not sure what point you're making. What does Eye TV have to do with any of this?

With stiff competition from Netfix, Cable Providers, and others Apple is not going to recreate the IPOD success unless they SHAKE the foundations on price and quality..

First, it's written "iPod." It's not an acronym so the all-caps is not necessary.

Second, nobody has quite succeeded with this distribution method for movies yet. Apple stands just as good a chance as any, if not moreso as they have expertise in all areas needed--hardware, software, digital delivery, customer service, user interface/experience, DRM, format compatibility, etc. The companies you listed, as well as others like Amazon and Microsoft, are all severely lacking in one or more of those categories. And if you don't think that matters much, go talk to WalMart about their failures in music downloads. And when you think about the fact that the AppleTV is being tied in with the iPod, Apple stands the best chance out of all competitors in this field.

Seriously, what does (to pick one of your examples) Netflix have over Apple in this regard?

[Stella]

Downloading / streaming movies sounds good. However, be careful about whatever 'fair use' policy your ISP has. Download a few HD movies and you may blow your monthly limit and end up with a huge great bill data bill at the month's end.

[Alrescha]

The Apple TV will never succeed (don't know about the USA) in Europe because we need boxes that offer, beyond of a legal alternative way of online purchasing, a way to coexist with our exisiting video libraries (pirated, ripped or otherwise) which happen to be in Xvid/DivX formats 95% of the time (the rest is mkv).

Assuming that normal humans can encode in whatever format Apple is using for HD movies with 5.1 surround, I will being saying goodbye to Xvid/Divx as soon as possible (even sooner for mkv).

A.

[TheotherJoseph]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

Here (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=2777&seq=1&format=2) you go...

[GregA]

Even at $230 Apple will have an up hill battle with this. Most consumers are used to getting their set top boxes for free when they sign up for some new service. With ATV Apple is asking you to pay $230 up front just so you can rent their movies. They would have done better to give the ATV away with a movie download subscription service. The price could have been the same in the end.

Interesting idea. Force people to rent a minimum of 4 movies a month and give them the aTV? (and take the aTV back if they choose to stop renting?).

I guess they would have considered that? And even the opposite - keep the price at $299 but give buyers $6 credit each month for the first year?

I still don't understand why they can't see their way clear to get a freakin' DVD slot on the front of the box. I'd consider the AppleTV as a replacement for my DVD player if they did that, but I don't have any need for an all-download video player

For a long while, I've consistently flipped my thoughts on this :-)

(edit: pressed send to early!).

I'd like the DVD... something nice and easy, and I could throw out my DVD player. BUT I do already have a DVD player, so how much would I be willing to pay for integration? Would AppleTV be criticised if they offer a HD player which plays SD (DVD) content (much as they've been criticised for the lower iTunes movie quality).

[autoy]

Assuming that normal humans can encode in whatever format Apple is using for HD movies with 5.1 surround, I will being saying goodbye to Xvid/Divx as soon as possible (even sooner for mkv).

A.

It may be easy enough for you or me (but time consuming to say the least) but I guess my sister (or the average joe for that matter) wouldn't go transcoding everything she downloads or owns, not a chance.

[xenotaku]

I would love one, but I don't have an HD TV, so there is use wish for it. I don't plan on buying an new TV for a while. Apple has to know there a lot of people in my camp. Not EVERYONE has an HD tv yet.

[tirerim]

Seriously, what does (to pick one of your examples) Netflix have over Apple in this regard?

What Netflix has is market penetration. Anyone with a Netflix subscription can use their download service, and they have huge numbers of subscribers, vastly more than the number of people who own AppleTVs. Now, they haven't succeeded with this model yet, either, and there's no guarantee that they will, but having that existing customer base is a big boost, I think. That's why Apple is dropping the price -- the more people that buy the AppleTV, the more successful the movie rental service will be.

[matticus008]

Interesting idea. Force people to rent a minimum of 4 movies a month and give them the aTV? (and take the aTV back if they choose to stop renting?).
Apple is not in the business of renting hardware. If another company wanted to buy some inventory and lease them out for some scheme or another, that would be one thing. Motorola doesn't rent its set-top boxes, nor does Tivo, or anyone else. It doesn't make sense. Some cost recovery can offset lower prices on content, but iTunes has never been a cash cow and there's no indication that it's meant to be for Apple. Apple isn't a content company; iTunes is and always has been just a means to an end--hardware sales.
I guess they would have considered that? And even the opposite - keep the price at $299 but give buyers $6 credit each month for the first year?
What would that accomplish? Who honestly would prefer paying more up front? You can spend the $70 on rentals if you want...but why be forced to "earn" the price drop?

[caseyh]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

Were the first few generations of iPods subsidized?

[autoy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

Were the first few generations of iPods subsidized?

No need to, you could fill them up with your own content.

[glazmira]

Would like to see 1080p compatibility. Also, there are no options to download Blu-Ray movies.

Also want a much larger drive. You can only store 100+/- movies on the larger disk that is offered.

I would purchase an Apple TV with the idea that I could get rid of my physical library and have everything digital.

LC

[a1016neo]

Well at least Apple "take one for the team" :D

[DarkMCS]

The price drop got me... lol

And I am sure Apple will make a lot of $$$ from movie rentals, as soon as it is available, and especially HD movies! :)

[teleromeo]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

Were the first few generations of iPods subsidized?

If my memory is good, Apple started selling music way after the iPod was introduced. So that would have been a very bed idea.

[Xtremehkr]

In the long run, something like ATV is going to win out. I am on the verge of getting an ATV, maybe one more revision and I'll be ready to get one. I was considering Blu Ray, but then I heard Bill Gates (of all people) make a salient point about both Blu Ray and HDDVD eventually losing out to downloadable content because it is cheaper and more convenient. As usual, Apple beat MS to the punch by having both the product and the delivery system in place, it's just a little bit ahead of its time.

Now, instead of a shelf full of Blu Ray boxes I'm thinking it's worth waiting until ATV is just about perfected. At that point, I can see my entire collection in coverflow on the TV I'll watch it on, and not have all of that clutter.

Then again, it may take a while, because for the ATV to have all of that content available on demand, it would have to have a huge hard drive. Probably more of an issue for people who watch movies regularly.

I can see where ATV is going though, and I think that it is generally where things are going to go in this market.

I'm sure that some savvy individuals will hack the ATV so that it plays downloaded content. It's already been done, so there is no reason to think that it will not be an option in the future. It seems that any company that wants their product to succeed has to leave a backdoor in there somewhere.

[roland.g]

I bought one last March and was disappointed when the 160GB model was released only 2 months later. Now that same 160GB unit is only $30 more than I paid for mine, however my wife and I have enjoyed using ours - and to my surprise - a lot more than SHE expected we would. She can sit mesmorized by the screensaver of library photos as she listens to music. It's always a great background setting as well as a conversation piece at parties. We also find ourselves using the YouTube feature to watch videos on a big screen that might normally look crappy on a computer monitor.

[gr8tfly]

If your TV has component inputs as well, the AppleTV will work for you. I've used it with component and HDMI and I can't discern a difference at 720p or 1080i. Just send your sound to the TV or home theater system through optical sound output or RCA jacks from the AppleTV.

+1
I'm also out of HDMI ports, so I use the :apple:tv's component outputs. I have it set to 1080, and it looks great.

One of these days, I'll pickup a HDMI expansion box, but I'm also out of optical ports - need one reasonably priced that does both.

[inkswamp]

What Netflix has is market penetration. Anyone with a Netflix subscription can use their download service, and they have huge numbers of subscribers, vastly more than the number of people who own AppleTVs.

But, Apple just tied AppleTV more closely to the iPod (with the ability to move movies purchased on AppleTV to your computer and iPod, right? So, in some ways, Apple has made a serious move to neutralize any question of market penetration. Tell your average iPod owner that an AppleTV-purchased movie can be moved effortlessly to their iPod and Netflix downloads can't, what effect do you think that will have on buying decisions?

Okay, now let's go down the list of things I listed previously and see where Netflix equals or exceeds Apple.

hardware - not even close, Apple has this one in the bag.

software - not even close, Apple has this one too. In fact, wasn't Netflix still working on Mac compatibility?

digital delivery - As far as I know, Netflix does not have the infrastructure for this. That's a lot of time, money and effort. As their business grows, they will have to address this. Apple already has it done with iTunes.

customer service - Equal, I'd say.

user interface/experience - Not sure. Haven't used their download service, but is it as intuitive and easy-to-use and integrate with media players?

DRM - Although I loathe DRM, a site's ability to guarantee content owners some protection via DRM is critical. Netflix has no experience with this.

format compatibility - Apple allows a few formats to be used in their "environment" and allows users to shift movies to iPods and their computers. Does Netflix allow that kind of movement? I don't think they do.

[brad.c]

... Apple is subsidizing the cost of Apple TV with their new movie rental sales. Indeed, Apple dropped the price for the Apple TV ($299-$399 -> $229-$329) at Macworld 2008 -- but this discount was only reflected in the U.S. and Canadian markets.

I would like to thank our American friends down under (the 49th) for subsidizing our Canadian :apple:TVs with movie rentals we can't get ourselves.

In return, could I get you some oil, or fresh water maybe? ;)

[newtech]

I would like to thank our American friends down under (the 49th) for subsidizing our Canadian :apple:TVs with movie rentals we can't get ourselves.

In return, could I get you some oil, or fresh water maybe? ;)


"... Blame Canada ...":D

[ddrueckhammer]

Slowly I've been ripping my DVD library to H.264 MPEG4 with AAC audio. Just like music, I find it really nice not to have to have a huge set of shelves just to house all my media..

Its too bad that Hollywood paid off Congress with the DMCA so that there will never be an easy way for users to rip their movies directly into iTunes like music. This would ease the transition to all digital purchases for movies... The digital copies Fox launched is a good step but what about the huge number of DVDs people aready own. The studios are too greedy expecting everyone to repurchase that content as a digital file when we all have it sitting on our shelves anyway.

I think that it would be nice if they coupled the :apple:TV with Time Capsule to make a big home media server, but at the same time; I wonder what the point of buying any movie in digital format is, if you can rent the same content On-Demand for <$3.00... Of course the answer is if you intend to watch the movie more than 3 or 4 times... Still, even if you do, it still may be difficult to justify purchasing a movie, since you have to pay for the storage as well...

The digital rental model looks to be a slippery slope for the studios to me as they will eventually lose lots of money if everyone decided to do this. How many people buy movies now and watch them only 1 time... Plenty... If everyone only rented because a movie is always available, studios are potentially losing 3/4 of their revenues not including some gains from the decreased distribution costs...

This coupled with the fact that eventually the cable/DSL providers will get it together and compete here, make it hard for me to see Apple getting too far in digital rentals. Also, internet neutrality isn't totally a reality yet and certainly if the Cable/DSL providers wanted to get ugly they could throttle or ban incoming/outgoing traffic from iTMS... Certainly the FCC has some fair competition rules and measure but who knows under what guise the ISPs could justify doing it...

Finally, I do agree that a subscription model (especially for TV shows) could be a good idea. Especially if Apple can figure out how to give away their set-top box for free. The hardware is priced right but American's are used to paying nothing for their set-top boxes. I know some Tivo user's would beg to differ, but the vast majority just get the free one from their cable provider...

If digital content distribution for movies catches on, perhaps the market will grow due to impulse purchases and make up for lost revenues due to rentals...

[Jiddick ExRex]

What annoys me mostly is Apple's focus on the US market and not at all in Europe. Apple is just as popular in Europe as they are in the US, they simply just lack the lower pricing, same products. The new cheap AppleTV is nothing without rentals and we don't have that yet! (more a problem with EU but...) Only three countries have the iPhone and most people I know are actually planning to buy one when it comes out, and if it doesn't in the near future they will buy it and unlock it themselves.

My point is that Apple has so many cool features going but as a Danish customer I still haven't seen half of what Apple is capable of unfortunately... :(

I can't wait to a couple of years when these quirks have been ironed out.

[caliguy]

Here (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=2777&seq=1&format=2) you go...

Ooo la la. Thanks, I'll look into that.

[angelodmhl]

My point is that Apple has so many cool features going but as a Danish customer I still haven't seen half of what Apple is capable of unfortunately... :(

I can't wait to a couple of years when these quirks have been ironed out.

I feel your pain
http://www.wewantapplegreece.com/index.php/site/about

[bdkennedy1]

When you can buy an Xbox 360 with all of the functionality of the Apple TV and video games for the previous Apple TV price, it made sense for Apple to drop the cost. It also shows they're committed to the product, but they better not rest on their laurels. The cable and satellite companies already have boxes in most homes, with room to upgrade.

[kiang]

Near cost? Not in Europe anyway: we didn't get the frikkin price drop! We have to pay 299€ for god's sake! that's 442$: we have to pay twice as much! no wonder nobody buys it here...

[G4DP]

In Europe we are paying for that price drop, not the crap excuse that Apple or who ever it was actually gave.

Apple subsidise, when they know they can con you out of money, get real people!

[ltldrummerboy]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

Just use component.

[ltldrummerboy]

The Apple TV is great. Now all I need is a regular TV . . . Why not an Apple TV with a screen? How sexy would that be, a 42-inch aluminum HDTV with all the guts of the Apple TV in it?

Heck, why not a 42" iMac?

[heftylefty]

Heck, why not a 42" iMac?

i call first dibs!

[samh004]

All this says to me is they're not trying hard enough, they're desperate for it to succeed, but they've not made it popular enough on it's own yet. When they make the same margins on it that they do on their computers or iPod's, then it'll probably be a worthwhile device.

[Brianstorm91]

The article makes it sound like it's fair for prices to be greater in Europe in the first place, let alone extortionately as in this case :cool:

[prawnballs]

I use my Xbox already to download HD movies. In addition I can either stream downloaded TV shows, legal DVD rips etc from my Mac or put the files on to my USB drive and plug it in. The Apple TV doesn't bring anything new to the table for me as far as I can see. Add in the fact the ATV is more expensive than my Xbox too....

[Grasbak]

The article makes it sound like it's fair for prices to be greater in Europe in the first place, let alone extortionately as in this case :cool:

I think we can expect a price drop once the rentals come on stream here. They sell at about cost in the US and make money from rentals. No rentals here, no profit, no price drop.....

[Sceneshifter]

I wonder if they kept economies of scale in mind, probably not. AppleTV still overpriced in Europe! And everyone who has digital TV gets a thing like AppleTV for *free*

[John-S]

Also, there are no options to download Blu-Ray movies.
Blu-Ray is a disk. You can't download a disk... just an HD Movie ; )


For those comparing the Apple TV to an XBox. I own and XBox, PS3 and an Apple TV and there is no comparrison. The XBox alone is so stinkin loud you couldn't possibly bare to have it on unless your playing a loud video game. It freezes every hour. The market place sucks and has little content. The whole system is setup crappy for any of that stuff. Not to mention the POS doesn't ship every system with wifi. The PS3 is silent but has its own faults just the same.

I think that most people are missing the whole point of Apple and the Apple tv. Its to try and get everyone downloading movies and shows via itunes because right now its having a tough time. Unlike the music store... For Apple to continue to strong arm the movie industry and get more shows, they need more people downloading. They could care less about making money on the hardware ATM. By the time they want to do that they will be selling 1 TB touch-screen ipods that you drop in your HD Docking Station or something. There will never be a DVD player on the Apple tv because that would encourage something opposing to what the whole point of the Apple tv is. Although, I'm glad to see them offering a digital copy for itunes in some movies. I had to laugh at "Die Hard's" dvd because it contains a copy of Microsofts "Plays for sure" crap but then states that it won't play on MS's own Zune etc.

CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT!!!! Thats what this is all about!
(don't be an idiot and correct my capitalization or spelling either please)

[bilbo--baggins]

I guess the lack of price drop in the UK is a marketing move - they want the big announcement of movie rentals and price drop both together for biggest impact.

[Jiddick ExRex]

I feel your pain
http://www.wewantapplegreece.com/index.php/site/about

That is like Greek to me.




Zoom zoom zoom! :D


I understand your point but what is it based on? Does Apple not treat customers in Greece very well or do they simply not have any Apple Stores? Elaborate please.

[DukeofAnkh]

I think if Apple reduced the ATV price and brought rentals to Australia, I think they would do quite well. Only about half the people I know have cable TV, let alone any other kind of set-top box other than an HD decoder. There's a definite market here. Once rentals come out, it'll be mostly the price of the thing (currently A$449) that'll be off-putting.

[sunfast]

The price drop makes lots of sense of course - the more AppleTVs that get shipped, the greater the number of people who can use the rentals service.

Shame it's not the case outside the US however, maybe once we get rentals ourselves?

[iWizzard]

As long as apple TV can’t play the formats below via SAMBA it is fairly useless. I would take it if it was FREE*, sins the (almost) only thing it can do is rent and buy movies from apple.



Media files supported

* Video containers:
o MPEG1/2/4 Elementary (M1V, M2V, M4V)
o MPEG1/2 PS (M2P, MPG)
o MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS, TP, TRP, M2T, M2TS, MTS)
o VOB
o AVI, ASF, WMV
o Matroska (MKV)
o MOV (H.264), MP4, RMP4
* Video codecs:
o XVID SD/HD
o MPEG-1
o MPEG-2
+ MP@HL
o MPEG-4.2
+ ASP@L5, 720p, 1-point GMC
o WMV9
+ MP@HL
o H.264
+ BP@L3
+ MP@L4.0
+ HP@L4.0
+ HP@L4.1
o VC-1
+ MP@HL
+ AP@L3

* Audio containers:
o AAC, M4A
o MPEG audio (MP1, MP2, MP3, MPA)
o WAV
o WMA

* Audio codecs:
o WMA, WMA Pro
o AAC
o MP1, MP2, MP3
o LPCM
* Audio pass through : DTS, AC3
* Photo formats : JPEG, BMP, PNG, GIF
* Other formats: ISO, IFO
* Subtitle formats : SRT, SMI, SUB, SSA



*would certainly be some rules attached like you have to rent X movies per time period.

[rozwell]

I don't understand everyone want this thing for free... You don't ask for your iPod free because it has a store to go with it, why would you want this free? I understand many cable companies hand out hardware, but its usually crap. Mine charges a about $100/yr for an HD device I rent, not own, and it can only be used to stream and watch live TV. I cannot store anything, view photos, play music etc...

And all the comments about formats... never going to happen. The files are managed through iTunes, so expect it to handle what iTunes does not to mention, why would you want some terrible WMV/A, ASF, AVI, ISO? Half these formats are ridiculous. Convert your pirated material to QuickTime or huddle up with your computer when you are trying to watch 320x240 movie theater video rips because its not going to be watchable on your HD TV anyway, that not the point.

It seems like a lot of people are missing the idea of the AppleTV as a hub. I have all of my DVD in a box in the attic tucked away to never be seen again and the digital copies on my AppleTV. That alone is worth it to me, no getting up finding the DVD putting it in the player and so on and no huge wall of DVDs junking up the place. Its instant and always there with no disc to scratch or lose.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

You could always get a HDMI switch. They work well and you can find one that you can switch with a remote so you could program a universal remote to switch it automatically. All this if you decide that you really want an AppleTV.

[RichardI]

I'm not surprised that these devices are not selling well. Why would I want one at all? What do they do (for me), exactly? Sorry, but most people - myself included - don't even know what these things do. It seems that Apple has decided that if you don't know what these things are for, you don't need one. Very, very poor marketing.

[paulyras]

I think if Apple reduced the ATV price and brought rentals to Australia, I think they would do quite well. Only about half the people I know have cable TV, let alone any other kind of set-top box other than an HD decoder. There's a definite market here. Once rentals come out, it'll be mostly the price of the thing (currently A$449) that'll be off-putting.

It's hard enough to fit all of the internets through the tube to Australia. Just think for a second how much bigger they're going to have to make the tubes to fit movies without bogging down other people's internets...

-Senator Stevens' explanation for why no movies and why aTVs are more expensive in Australia

(for those unfamiliar w/ Senator Stevens, this about says it all...http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/02/sen-stevens-hilariou.html)

[paulyras]

I don't understand everyone want this thing for free...

I agree, but on the other hand, it never hurts to ask, lobby, threaten, etc... especially on the internet.

Heck, since people are asking Mr. Jobs for free things, I'd buy WAY more iTunes content, if only he gave me a MacBook Air. It's a no brainer for apple. Honest...

[princigalli]

Apple doesn't care about foreign markets. For Steve Jobs, Europeans are only a source of hard currency. Once they get the Euros the consumers are supposed to disappear and never show up unless they need to pay more money. Are prices too high? Are things not working? Tough... You should not have been in Europe

[TheSpaz]

If your TV has component inputs as well, the AppleTV will work for you. I've used it with component and HDMI and I can't discern a difference at 720p or 1080i. Just send your sound to the TV or home theater system through optical sound output or RCA jacks from the AppleTV.

I thought HDMI was the same quality as component except in a more easy to use connection?

[RumMunkey]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

Reading the "experts" here going on about "what the people want" ...

I think this is where someone links thread 500...

[BigHat]

Just bought my second one. Worth the money for music and blogs alone. The TV and movie piece is icing on the cake. Of course, the typical whiners are out in full-force focusing on what it CAN'T do vs. all that it provides.

My HT system is probably in the top 0.5% of those in the US and I have the full compliment of HD sources. I suspect I will not be a major renter of HD movies from Apple, but if on an impulse I want to see something different from what I own or is in my NetFlix pile it's nice to know it's available on line in a "watchable" form. Let's be honest, downloading 1080P content is not an Apple problem, it's a nearly universal problem with the current state of the internet. Even with the best FIOS connection it's still just too damn big an elephant to digest. 720P is fine with me for now.

I do have one complaint though. Apple should have watered down their claims regarding Apple TV until the damn software was released. I'm far from alone in downloading a movie to a Mac and thinking I could get it do the TV. That should be resolved soon though.

[gotohamish]

I'm not surprised that these devices are not selling well. Why would I want one at all? What do they do (for me), exactly? Sorry, but most people - myself included - don't even know what these things do. It seems that Apple has decided that if you don't know what these things are for, you don't need one. Very, very poor marketing.

They put up a web page at http://www.apple.com/appletv to explain to people what it does. It's very helpful if you read it.

[BigHat]

I'm not surprised that these devices are not selling well. Why would I want one at all? What do they do (for me), exactly? Sorry, but most people - myself included - don't even know what these things do. It seems that Apple has decided that if you don't know what these things are for, you don't need one. Very, very poor marketing.

Are you serious? Looks like you can write... and hopefully read. Why don't you go to the Apple website and try doing a little of the later.

[gotohamish]

As long as apple TV can’t play the formats below via SAMBA it is fairly useless. I would take it if it was FREE*, sins the (almost) only thing it can do is rent and buy movies from apple.

*would certainly be some rules attached like you have to rent X movies per time period.

It's not "useless" for me, since it does what I want. Sure, I would like it to do more, but if you color inside the lines, the picture stays pretty.

And... sins?

[gotohamish]

Are you serious? Looks like you can write... and hopefully read. Why don't you go to the Apple website and try doing a little of the later.

Indeed, well said. A little of the latter would go a long way in answering many of the questions here. Hell, they could even watch and listen to the keynote.

[guzhogi]

If I had an HDTV, I might consider getting one. Only thing better would be if it had built-in DVR, Blu-Ray/DVD player & displayed full 1080P HD content. I have a bunch of TV shows & movies from iTunes so I have the content.

As for the price, sounds great. Everyone knows Apple charges a premium for their components (especially RAM). I wonder how much assembly/ distribution, advertisement & R&D costs per ATV.

[diamond.g]

Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound is not available with all HD rentals.
Why? Found it at the bottom of this (http://www.apple.com/appletv/rentals.html) page.

[RichardI]

Are you serious? Looks like you can write... and hopefully read. Why don't you go to the Apple website and try doing a little of the later.

Are YOU serious? Why should I have to do anything? Does apple want to sell these or not???

I rest my case.

[macfan1138]

I have to question the numbers that all this is based on.

Example: As a consumer, I can buy a 60GB drive for $45 (newegg.com). I'm thinking Apple can get a better deal than $37.50 for a 40GB HD. Or is iSuppli saying that Apple doesn't even get a 20% discount from the consumer price for an oem drive ordered in the tens of thousands? Come on. That doesn't add up.

Is Apple taking a lower margin -- could be, but I'm not going to base that conclusion on iSuppli numbers, which don't seem very reliable. Even if they are taking lower margins, I doubt they are as low as iSuppli's numbers claim.

[gotohamish]

Are YOU serious? Why should I have to do anything? Does apple want to sell these or not???

I rest my case.

Rest indeed. That attitude will get you everywhere I'm sure.

[diamond.g]

I have to question the numbers that all this is based on.

Example: As a consumer, I can buy a 60GB drive for $45 (newegg.com). I'm thinking Apple can get a better deal than $37.50 for a 40GB HD. Or is iSuppli saying that Apple doesn't even get a 20% discount from the consumer price for an oem drive ordered in the tens of thousands? Come on. That doesn't add up.

Is Apple taking a lower margin -- could be, but I'm not going to base that conclusion on iSuppli numbers, which don't seem very reliable. Even if they are taking lower margins, I doubt they are as low as iSuppli's numbers claim.

My general understanding of hard drives is smaller capacity drives are more expensive. There is so much one can do to reduce the cost of such a small drive. After a while it is more cost effective to just increase the drive size (capacity).

[MarkMe]

I am considering an A TV purchase. How much storage space does an HD movie need? The real Q is 40Gig or 160? How hard is it to change a drive in the A TV?
Mark

[BaldiMac]

I have to question the numbers that all this is based on.

Example: As a consumer, I can buy a 60GB drive for $45 (newegg.com). I'm thinking Apple can get a better deal than $37.50 for a 40GB HD. Or is iSuppli saying that Apple doesn't even get a 20% discount from the consumer price for an oem drive ordered in the tens of thousands? Come on. That doesn't add up.

Is Apple taking a lower margin -- could be, but I'm not going to base that conclusion on iSuppli numbers, which don't seem very reliable. Even if they are taking lower margins, I doubt they are as low as iSuppli's numbers claim.

Actually, Apple's margins are even lower than iSuppli's numbers. iSuppli does not take into account "assembly, packaging, shipping, and development costs." Plus, iSuppli does claim to take into account bulk pricing.

[Mindflux]

I have to question the numbers that all this is based on.

Example: As a consumer, I can buy a 60GB drive for $45 (newegg.com). I'm thinking Apple can get a better deal than $37.50 for a 40GB HD. Or is iSuppli saying that Apple doesn't even get a 20% discount from the consumer price for an oem drive ordered in the tens of thousands? Come on. That doesn't add up.




Is that for a 2.5" drive? That's what the AppleTV has in it, a 2.5" hard disk, not a 3.5".

[tothelimit]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I'm not sure if this has been asked yet... But does anyone think the take 2 update will be released simultaneously with 10.5.2?

That would be like Xmas all over again.

[bommai]

Having just bought a PS3, I have to say I feel even less inclined than I was to buy an Apple TV. I seriously believe that Apple should team up with Sony on movie rentals and downloads and make iTunes for the PS3, it'd be a winner for all concerned IMHO.

I totally agree with you. The PS3 is a beauty. You cannot compare 50Mbps A/V bandwidth support with 1080p AVC High Profile support (PS3) to just 5Mbps 720p AVC Standard profile support (AppleTV) I have the AppleTV also and it has its advantages too. But, Apple should really have their interface come up on millions of households. I think other than the Playstation Network, and game playback, the interface should be taken up by Apple and merged in. That would be a cool concept.

However, these are just pipe dreams since Apple does not like to work with other companies so openly. The last time that happened was the Rokr and you know how that went.

[diamond.g]

How much storage space does an HD movie need?
Mark

Using XBL as a guide means you would be looking at 2.5-5GB files. Depends on length and max bitrate.

[Greydog]

I can say I wasn't all that surprised at the price drop at MacWorld for the AppleTV - my wife picked the 160 GB one up for me at Costco about 2 weeks before Christmas for $329. I was shocked because 1) it was being sold at Costco, and 2) it was $70 off Apple retail, which was lwer than even the Black Friday price and totally unknown for Apple products at a retailer. So was this a sign of things to come?

But I am very happy with my purchase, as it looks great on my 60" HDTV. And the update should be even better, not the least reason being that although I have a Blu-Ray player, I (hopefully) will now also have access to HD-DVD titles via download and can forgo buying a player for that format.

[Maccus Aurelius]

Why are people saying that this thing requires an HDTV? Doesn't this work with SD sets? When I checked the settings menu, I could've sworn I saw the option for lower res TV's.

[tothelimit]

I am considering an A TV purchase. How much storage space does an HD movie need? The real Q is 40Gig or 160? How hard is it to change a drive in the A TV?
Mark

I think the HD content is only for rental. Not purchase at this point. So the HD movies would only be on your :apple:tv for a limited time. And you can always stream content from your computer to the unit without actually syncing content onto it. So if you're really concerned about saving the money on the 40gb, you have options.

[mindcrash]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

Haven't you ever heard of an HDMI switch?

You can get one specifically made for the :apple:TV from Datavision here:

http://www.datavis.com/cgi-bin/product.exe?prrfnbr=471565&site=QIGO ($64.99, Apple sells them for $99.99)

Your :apple:TV sits on top of it and all you need to do is switch the input from the remote or a switch on the front. Easy peasy.

[carlgo]

The price drop got me... lol

And I am sure Apple will make a lot of $$$ from movie rentals, as soon as it is available, and especially HD movies! :)

These estimates about how much things cost to make... I dunno.

The ATV is just a huge thing if Job's vision plays out, that people want to leave their sat/cables and just watch selected downloaded shows.

A few people post that yeah tv is all a bunch of crap and they have indeed dumped their sat/cable and only watch this or that on their ATV.

But, there are a lot of posts from people who don't know whether to buy the ATV, a Blue ray player or both. They aren't giving up on their sat/cables.

So, can Apple find enough hobbyists and true tv program haters to make this work, or would they sell more of these if they were combo Blue-ray/ATV/control centers/home theater hubs that would appeal to a wider audience?

The big market is in covering all bases. Many people would like some sort of friendly interface on their home theaters ("my wife can't even turn the new tv on").

If Apple could get some sort of combo system in people's homes, then they would have a better chance of selling downloads.

Right now, people are being asked to make a decision and that is a tough thing even for enthusiast that post here. Imagine how perplexed the average semi-tech person is.

[tribulation]

i said it when it was announced and i will say it again. the :apple:TV is doomed to suffer a drawn out demise undoubtedly if they dont suck it up and put in a dvr.

sorry apple but the price of cable for mainstream shows will beat your per show fees hands down every time for anyone that watches more than 3 or 4 series. not to mention the fact that there is no 'channel surfing' and so on.

this has been discussed endlessly here and everywhere else. yes they want itunes money but they have to decide what this still-pointless little box is destined to do. while i hate the cable companies, a basic cable subscription & Tivo beat the appletv in every aspect that i would ever be interested in.

like i said before, i don't want to have to think about paying for each show one by one. if i had to do that, i wouldnt watch much of anything. cable & tivo take out the 'have to be home when its on' aspect and offer photo sharing, weather, traffic reports, podcasts, all of the live365 radio streaming stations, etc. in my opinion there is no room for apple's current and lackluster box

[macfan1138]

Is that for a 2.5" drive? That's what the AppleTV has in it, a 2.5" hard disk, not a 3.5".

My end-user price quote was for a 2.5" laptop drive.

[macfan1138]

Actually, Apple's margins are even lower than iSuppli's numbers. iSuppli does not take into account "assembly, packaging, shipping, and development costs." Plus, iSuppli does claim to take into account bulk pricing.

That's my point. If I can get a one-off 60GB 2.5" drive at $45 in the retail channel (which means the retailer is also taking a cut), I just don't see Apple paying $37.50 for bulk pricing for a 40GB 2.5" drive.

[macfan1138]

sorry apple but the price of cable for mainstream shows will beat your per show fees hands down every time for anyone that watches more than 3 or 4 series. not to mention the fact that there is no 'channel surfing' and so on.


I'd be interested to see if they Apple would start offering a subscription service on TV shows. I think it would represent a significant alternative to cable. I would definitely look at doing that.

With cable, I pay a minimum of $55/mo and am forced to deal with commercials and endless hours of infomercials (talk about a screw job, I'm paying to get 1/2 hour long commercials).

If the show comes on at an inconvenient time, I either have to get a Tivo or rent the cable co's horrible DVR box so I can watch it when I want.

With iTMS, when I buy a series, I get no commercials. That's an automatic win there. If they could provide it slightly cheaper on a rental-like behavior (something like 2 full viewings) -- I'd jump on it. Double bonus for letting me watch a show when *I* want to watch it.

As for movie rentals, they seem to be right in line with the Cable co's pricing.

Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it an interesting alternative? You bet, esp. with movie rentals. I'm planning to get one on my next visit to the Apple Store.

[diamond.g]

Why are people saying that this thing requires an HDTV? Doesn't this work with SD sets? When I checked the settings menu, I could've sworn I saw the option for lower res TV's.

480p is as low as it does. Supposedly that is EDTV not SDTV.

[Alrescha]

480p is as low as it does. Supposedly that is EDTV not SDTV.

480i for the original Apple TV. It will be interesting to see if V2 maintains that compatibility.

A.

[dogtanian]

i said it when it was announced and i will say it again. the :apple:TV is doomed to suffer a drawn out demise undoubtedly if they dont suck it up and put in a dvr.

sorry apple but the price of cable for mainstream shows will beat your per show fees hands down every time for anyone that watches more than 3 or 4 series. not to mention the fact that there is no 'channel surfing' and so on.

this has been discussed endlessly here and everywhere else. yes they want itunes money but they have to decide what this still-pointless little box is destined to do. while i hate the cable companies, a basic cable subscription & Tivo beat the appletv in every aspect that i would ever be interested in.

like i said before, i don't want to have to think about paying for each show one by one. if i had to do that, i wouldnt watch much of anything. cable & tivo take out the 'have to be home when its on' aspect and offer photo sharing, weather, traffic reports, podcasts, all of the live365 radio streaming stations, etc. in my opinion there is no room for apple's current and lackluster box

Here here.... although I'll still buy one for all the movies i've burnt onto my HD :D

[Mr. Mustard]

Getting back to the not having enough HDMI slots. Has any one had good/bad luck with a HDMI switcher. I've seen them on Gizmodo and from Cables to Go. Any buddy have any recommendations?

[liberty4all]

Apple TV is far too limited (no Safari, no integration w/iPhone, etc.), they need to update the Mac Mini -- there is still no 802.11N, + they should update Bluetooth to 2.1... Adding a Blu-Ray drive would be the bomb, and really escalate the relevance of the Mini... HDMI out, would also be a very smart addition, I guess HDCP is needed too -- I assume HDCP does not get sent over Mac Mini's DVI port?! Anyone know? Just a few minor tweaks to the Mac Mini, and it could be the Apple TV solution I have been looking for!

Also gotta wonder why it's a 5400 RPM drive in the Mini -- can it handle the heat of a 7200 RPM drive? Also wonder why they share graphics memory w/main memory -- seems like a bad idea. The Mini's FireWire port should be 1394b 800 or the new 3200 preferably.

Apple also should update Front Row on all Macs to replicate the non-redundant functionality of Apple TV...

Also, why the heck hasn't Apple enabled iPhone to work as a remote for Macs & Apple TV?! iPhone should have an IR port added as well...

[CWallace]

I did buy a "Take 2" Apple TV, but I do feel I will end up using a Mac Mini (preferably a refreshed one - even if it just has a GMA3x00 GPU) as my main HTPC because I imagine I will want more flexibility and will accept more complexity to get it.

On the plus side, the Apple TV can be used with another TV in the house.

[notjustjay]

I did buy a "Take 2" Apple TV, but I do feel I will end up using a Mac Mini (preferably a refreshed one - even if it just has a GMA3x00 GPU) as my main HTPC because I imagine I will want more flexibility and will accept more complexity to get it.

On the plus side, the Apple TV can be used with another TV in the house.

I've been debating, too, whether to put an Apple TV or a Mac Mini at the heart of a TV for my kitchen.

Advantages of Apple TV: slimmer (easier to hide), MUCH cheaper, seamless UI, handles iTunes rentals, no external power brick, no noisy fan, "n" wireless

Advantages of Mac Mini: can also play DVDs, display news/weather, surf the web, show recipes, internet radio, can set to auto-sleep after idle timeout. Does most of what the Apple TV can do but interface might not always be so seamless.

Would probably try a program like Media Central on the Mac Mini instead of just using Front Row.

The DVD playback is actually quite a big factor. If I buy an Apple TV, then I either need another DVD player (and a way to keep the clutter down in the kitchen) or pay a lot of money for a TV with built-in DVD playback.

So far I'm leaning toward the Mac Mini.

[Lord Sam]

I agree.

[Shagrat]

I don't understand everyone want this thing for free... You don't ask for your iPod free because it has a store to go with it, why would you want this free?

Point taken, BUT as ever...(ad nauseam, even)...price in US
$229...
price in UK WITHOUT SALES TAX ( I capitalise, 'cause everybody in the US always says..."What about taxes..."

169.36 British pounds sterling = 330.96 US dollars
Exchange rate: 1.954200
Rate valid as of: 29/1/2008

SO you pay $229, we pay $330.

Apple, you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Even if we HAD anything to rent, or buy...

[cyclotron451]

there was actually a "price drop" in the UK. A couple of days after the Steve Show, and the US price drop and mention of the Software Upgrade, I was looking to buy the reduced 40GB. It was still dear @ 199 pounds. I submitted a bug report on the Apple TV , mentioning the bug "that it was too expensive", hence no-one in the UK/EU would consider it. Co-incidentally , the next day the UK refurb Apple Store started selling 40GB Apple TV 1's. I missed them. At 7h30am the next day there was stock again, (BTW, the refurb store considers them an "iPod"!) Anyway I got my order in @ UK£135 , a whopping 33% discount. Nice.
As usual , when the box arrived there was no sign of it being returned stock, I'm just waiting for the firmware upgrade then will start playing.

________________________________________________
forgot to mention that I also use a Mac Mini 1.25GHz G4 on Tiger as a HTPC, excellent machine

[liberty4all]

ATSC (digital over-the-air antenna HD/SD broadcasts) is going MPEG-4/H.264 (current ATSC tuners are MPEG-2) -- this could be new life for a future revision of Apple TV?!

ATSC replice to my email:

"With regards to your questions on MPEG-4: because MPEG-4 standardization is currently being worked on in subcommittee groups and is not a finalized standard, we do not include information in our FAQs. ATSC typically does not include information on work-in-progress on the front page of our website.

However, you are welcome to refer to our Candidate Standards, which discuss MPEG-4 in length, online at http://www.atsc.org/standards/candidate_standards.html

MPEG-4 is discussed in Candidate Standard CS/TSG 659r4 and CS/TSG 658r3 on that website."

[rstansby]

I wonder if they kept economies of scale in mind, probably not. AppleTV still overpriced in Europe! And everyone who has digital TV gets a thing like AppleTV for *free*

Wow in America we have to pay a monthly fee for digital TV, plus an added fee for the DTR. It must be great living in europe where they give you that for free :p

[jettredmont]

I can say I wasn't all that surprised at the price drop at MacWorld for the AppleTV - my wife picked the 160 GB one up for me at Costco about 2 weeks before Christmas for $329. I was shocked because 1) it was being sold at Costco, and 2) it was $70 off Apple retail, which was lwer than even the Black Friday price and totally unknown for Apple products at a retailer. So was this a sign of things to come?


For what it's worth, my local Costco has them now for $299 (only the 160GB version is available; this is about a 10% discount).

Just picked one up :)

[jettredmont]

Wow in America we have to pay a monthly fee for digital TV, plus an added fee for the DTR. It must be great living in europe where they give you that for free :p

I live in America and I'd get my digital TV for free if I wanted. You just buy a cheap set-top box and position your antenna. Of course, I don't, because satellite gives me many more channels and significantly less antenna-fuss.

DVR's stand-alone aren't "free", but digital TV is definitely available without subscription (and will be the only over-the-air broadcast this time next year!)

[jettredmont]

Apple will have a hard time with this venture. They got LUCKY on the IPOD as they were the first out the door and grabbed alot of the market.


Yeah, except that the competition had been around for 2-3 years and was well established in their market.


Secondly Unlike the IPOD where you can buy it once for 300.00 you now can add FREE content podcasts, your music etc to the IPOD. The Eye TV will make you pay for the system and than cost you every time you use it.


Presumably you are talking about the :apple:TV, not the "Eye TV", which is a completely different product.

The :apple:TV will download free content from video podcasts and YouTube, and if you have the wherewithall to operate Handbrake (pop in a disk, hit the button) it will play any DVD you rip as well. The problem Apple faces here is that DVD ripping is seen as likely to be technically illegal (violates DMCA) and so Apple can't provide an end-to-end ripping solution as they had for CDs (ripping CD was not and is not seen as illegal by most people not acting as paid witnesses for the RIAA).

Personally, I just bought an :apple:TV, and really don't expect to be renting many movies on it. I'll give it a shot, and might turn to it in a "must watch that movie NOW" pinch, but I am far more than happy with my movies being delivered to my door via the mail.

[bommai]

Wow in America we have to pay a monthly fee for digital TV, plus an added fee for the DTR. It must be great living in europe where they give you that for free :p

The best kind of TV is free. Digital OTA has less compression than satellite and cable. I have both cable and OTA and can prove that digital compresses the signal more (file sizes are a little smaller with eyeTV).

I love OTA-HD.

[jettredmont]

And how many different TVs would they have to make. Rear-projection, tube, Plasma, and LCD sets. Then there is HDTVs of varying quality, EDTVs and SDTV that have Component. There are too many possibilities for Apple to be able to cater to a majority with just a couple sets.

Now, if Apple could get with Sony or LG or HP or whomever to create a special holder in the back of most sets for the AppleTV and a passthrough—with the USB cable—to control the IR sensor with one remote.

I second the motion!

Funny, I was dreaming of such a move pre-MacWorld ... seems like a "docking station" for the :apple:TV (or its successor) akin to the now-ubiquitous iPod docking stations on every conceivable audio output device would really make for a killer setup.

Of course, the first design consideration which comes to mind in heat output: I hear the :apple:TV gets rather hot, so putting it in a confined space behind the LCD wouldn't be something which could just be done as a second thought. They'd actually have to spend some time and money designing the enclosure to ensure proper ventilation in all living room conditions.

[matticus008]

I totally agree with you. The PS3 is a beauty. You cannot compare 50Mbps A/V bandwidth support with 1080p AVC High Profile support (PS3) to just 5Mbps 720p AVC Standard profile support (AppleTV) I have the AppleTV also and it has its advantages too.
Indeed there is. There is also a large difference between $229 and $499 and between subsidizing your own components for Blu-ray adoption and not.

The PS3 is a great hardware platform, and probably a fair model as an extremely low-margin hardware product intended to recover costs through content.
That's my point. If I can get a one-off 60GB 2.5" drive at $45 in the retail channel (which means the retailer is also taking a cut), I just don't see Apple paying $37.50 for bulk pricing for a 40GB 2.5" drive.
Newegg and OEM are both factors going against "retail" channel assessments. They are a wholesaler, with no retail presence (and therefore very low costs), and excellent supply chain management. They undercut retail prices, which are already low-margin on most computer hardware, and make it up through volume and cost-cutting.

Undercutting Newegg in a commercial transaction isn't going to be to the tune of 20%. Newegg, too, is a bulk buyer that negotiates aggressive discounts. Undercutting retail prices by 20% might be possible--but that involves a retail packaged drive and a retail establishment (of the traditional type, and not the Amazon-style model). That doesn't apply in your scenario.

[jragosta]

What annoys me mostly is Apple's focus on the US market and not at all in Europe. Apple is just as popular in Europe as they are in the US, they simply just lack the lower pricing, same products. The new cheap AppleTV is nothing without rentals and we don't have that yet! (more a problem with EU but...) Only three countries have the iPhone and most people I know are actually planning to buy one when it comes out, and if it doesn't in the near future they will buy it and unlock it themselves.

My point is that Apple has so many cool features going but as a Danish customer I still haven't seen half of what Apple is capable of unfortunately... :(

I can't wait to a couple of years when these quirks have been ironed out.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that much of the difficulty in Europe is the complex laws - different in every country, and many of them antithetical to copyright owners.

Just as with iTunes music store (where Apple got burned, anyway), Apple is going to have to move slowly.

[RRutter]

These 10-30% margins are significantly lower margins than Apple typically enjoys on their hardware products, suggesting that they are indeed aggressively pricing the units to drive more sales. The Apple TV was originally launched at Macworld 2007 but was reportedly met with modest sales. Apple revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/15/apple-announces-appletv-take-2-price-drop/) the Apple TV at this year's Macworld with the inclusion of direct-to-tv movie rentals. This revamped software will be available as a free software update to all Apple TV owners.


The TV's costs to manufacture are lower than the actual cost to buy them, are because: look at the above quote. That's amazing you can rent movies with that mini controller the Mac comes with.

No one should whine or complain about costs being different and higher than the manufacturing costs - the Apple TV has revolutionized the regular TV, just like Apple has done with MANY other products, and you can even rent stunning HD quality movies.

:apple:

[AidenShaw]

...the Apple TV has revolutionized the regular TV, just like Apple has done with MANY other products

The only truly notable thing about the Apple TV is that it reminds us again that there are some turkeys that not even the Lord God Jobs' RDF can keep alive.


...and you can even rent stunning HD quality movies.

So I assume that you weren't at MacWorld to see the fuzzy, artifact-laden over-compressed 720p downloads that they were showing? Except that at MacWorld they weren't actually showing any downloads - even at MacWorld the bandwidth wasn't high enough to support video on demand. All of the demos were showing pre-cached movies.

Perhaps you should check out Here’s what fake HD video looks like (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962) to get an idea of what happens when you try to pump 4 times the pixels of DVD at one half the bandwidth.

Here's a hint http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/direct-tv-hdlite.png... Although this is actually pumping 4 times the pixels at the same bandwidth, not at half the bandwidth like Apple's TV.

There's a good reason that Apple didn't announce anything about Blu-ray at MacWorld. If they had, everyone would have realized how craptacular the "HD" downloads from Itunes actually are.

[archer75]

If it only just supported more video formats...

I'd like vc-1, .mkv/x264, .ts, .avi, .xvid, .dvix

It would then be a device I could use. As it stands now it's useless to me.

[jettredmont]

Perhaps you should check out Here’s what fake HD video looks like (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962) to get an idea of what happens when you try to pump 4 times the pixels of DVD at one half the bandwidth.

Here's a hint http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/direct-tv-hdlite.png... Although this is actually pumping 4 times the pixels at the same bandwidth, not at half the bandwidth like Apple's TV.


H.264 does wonders here. Comparing my own videos (ie, encoding home videos), I often find that I can have 5x (or better) smaller H.264 video than MPEG-2 video for the same quality. There is simply much less of a tendency to macro-block at lower bit rates with H.264. Ou in your above link says that H.264 is (obviously) not being brought into play here, and will change the comparison, although as a historically mindless pundit he hand-waves that away. I am sorry, but I believe my own eyes over Ou's hand-waving!

That being said, I wouldn't assume that the videos being downloaded here are "DVD-quality" pixel-for-pixel. It's just not going to look like the VHS-quality crap Ou captured from DirecTV's much-maligned HD-lite channels. They will definitely pale in comparison to Bluray or HD disks; in that case you are seeing the exact same codec (H.264), identical encoders, with much more bit-bandwidth to play with; they will get better quality from it.

[AidenShaw]

H.264 does wonders here. Comparing my own videos (ie, encoding home videos), I often find that I can have 5x (or better) smaller H.264 video than MPEG-2 video for the same quality.

Two to one is more commonly quoted as the H.264 advantage, few people claim five to one.

Note that I did say "fuzzy", not "macro-blocked".

H.264 does help, but it's not a magic bullet that makes low-bandwidth feeds really high quality.


They will definitely pale in comparison to Bluray or HD disks; in that case you are seeing the exact same codec (H.264), identical encoders, with much more bit-bandwidth to play with; they will get better quality from it.

Blu-ray (HD-DVD is dead, put it to rest¹) is also pumping more pixels, usually at a lower frame rate.

The difference in quality between True HD and Apple HD is pretty substantial.


¹ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35749/118/

Chicago (IL) – Recent HD player sales data provided by market research firm NPD point to bad month for the HD DVD camp: Blu-ray extended its market share to 93%...

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35808/118/

Chicago (IL) – Gartner analyst Hiroyuki Shimizu believes that the recent price cuts of the HD DVD camp are a desperate move to compete against Blu-ray and will end up to be “useless resistance”. By the end of 2008, Shimizu wrote in a research note today, Blu-ray will have won the format war.

[uscmatt]

I think I'm gonna be picking one up soon.

[EricBrian]

I think I would buy the new ATV if it were not more than $99.

No ability to attach my external hards drive holding TONS of TV shows and songs purchased from iTMS is one reason why I won't buy it.

The movie rental is far too expensive. Any movie rental should not be more than 99 cents and show be viewable over a period of at least 7 days. I pay about 99 cents per movie that I currently rent from Netflix... not counting the online viewing of movies.

Even if I were ok with the 24 hour viewing mandate, I could go with a Red Box movie rental for $1/day.

So, ATV still NOT an option for me.

[bommai]

I think I would buy the new ATV if it were not more than $99.

No ability to attach my external hards drive holding TONS of TV shows and songs purchased from iTMS is one reason why I won't buy it.

The movie rental is far too expensive. Any movie rental should not be more than 99 cents and show be viewable over a period of at least 7 days. I pay about 99 cents per movie that I currently rent from Netflix... not counting the online viewing of movies.

Even if I were ok with the 24 hour viewing mandate, I could go with a Red Box movie rental for $1/day.

So, ATV still NOT an option for me.

You do know that ATV seamlessly streams content stored elsewhere (on another pc or mac) right. So, you can have all your purchased content stored elsewhere and not at your AppleTV. To me this is an advantage.

[EricBrian]

You do know that ATV seamlessly streams content stored elsewhere (on another pc or mac) right. So, you can have all your purchased content stored elsewhere and not at your AppleTV. To me this is an advantage.

Yep, but there is not always another machine around.

[7on]

Yep, but there is not always another machine around.

I'm hoping take 2 solves that... Hopefully

[rstansby]

I live in America and I'd get my digital TV for free if I wanted. You just buy a cheap set-top box and position your antenna. Of course, I don't, because satellite gives me many more channels and significantly less antenna-fuss.

DVR's stand-alone aren't "free", but digital TV is definitely available without subscription (and will be the only over-the-air broadcast this time next year!)

I was responding to a post that said people in europe get something like AppleTV for free and I was only trying to point out that you only get those boxes (and DVR) by paying for a subscription to so some service. Which is not free.