Apple TV's Future? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 10:08 AM

If you're in Apple position - you're Steve Jobs - explain why you would put a DVR and a Blu ray player in the Apple TV.

Because I (if I'm Steve Jobs) am in the business of selling hardware, and the market wants to buy a BD player anyway. So if I build a next-gen :apple:TV platform with an OPTION for a BD player, all those people that are going to buy a BD player anyway can instead opt for ONE box from Apple that will cover both bases. Sure, (being Steve Jobs) I want the world to want to buy discless content via iTunes, but trying to force that part of my will on the world is not getting a lot of :apple:TVs into the marketplace. So, much like "my" original iPods could work with mp3 and CDs (not making people buy the music they already owned on CDs again) which helped me eventually dominate the music player space and move much of that following to routinely buy subsequent content from iTunes (as I want them to do), the more :apple:TVs I can inject into the market, the faster those people can discover that instead of having to go to the store to buy a BD disc to watch that latest movie, they can just download it (right now) from iTunes, eventually making the BD OPTION fade to obscurity. Plus, if I can inject an :apple:TV into every home much like an ipod in every pocket, the MOVIE & TV studios will be under increasing pressure to sell their content through iTunes at full 1080 HD resolutions.

I offer a DVR OPTION for the very same reason- to entrench more :apple:TVs for those who want their :apple:TV to also offer DVR functionality. Sure, I would rather they buy ALL of the same content they are getting from their cable or satt subscription from iTunes, but I can sell more :apple:TV hardware by giving the market what it wants- NOT trying to force the market to want it the way "I" want them to want it. Again, an entrenched :apple:TV in every home would give "me" more bargaining power with the studios, so that I could eventually make the iTunes video side ever more appealing, probably making the DVR functionality practically obsolete over time. But since my market pretty much already pays for cable/satt and are unlikely to buy (again) some of that content they are already getting from those sources, if I give them a DVR option now, I can sell them my :apple:TV now, then leverage its connection to iTunes to phase out the use of that DVR over time. That way, I still get the market to the ultimate destination, only faster than waiting for the world to somehow magically come around to that model on its own.

Being "Steve Jobs", my business is not about selling iTunes content: iTunes exists to help me sell more HARDWARE. So, if I offer hardware features that the market SAYS IT WANTS TO BUY, I can create those as options for those who want them (much like "my" Macs have options for expanding their functionality beyond the stock units I sell) and thus, SELL MORE HARDWARE.

Or, I can stubbornly stick to this idea of wanting the market to want it the way I want them to want it, NOT entrench :apple:TVs into every home and thus NOT sell a lot of :apple:TV hardware. In the meantime, my Consumer Electronics competitors will be happy to keep taking all that money buying BD players and DVRs while I choose to NOT compete with them because "my" way is THE way of the future.

The solution is simple:

build a next-gen :apple:TV with a basic, futureproof hardware platform capable of playing back "full" 1080p HD video (we know from other products in the marketplace that that can be done at prices well below the current price of the :apple:TV "as is" now). :apple:TV is long past due for a hardware update anyway, and the lack of capability above "handicapped" 720 is what is holding back a number of buyers now
Make it have "open" options if Apple doesn't want to offer BD or DVR options in the stock unit themselves, leaving such solutions for other companies (like Elgato). That way those people that won't buy an :apple:TV until they can get those features will have a way to get what they want, and those people who don't want to pay for features that fall outside of the iTunes ecosystem won't have to pay more for features they don't want. Win:win.

If I'm Steve Jobs, I look at the massive success of the "open" iPhone/iPod Touch, App Store, etc and apply the same solution to my "hobby"... the :apple:TV, with an update to the base platform to make it so that it is perceived to be as 1080p capable as many other (some cheaper) players on the market. Then, I can market it- and it's own app store- much like I market the iPhone/iPod Touch now, and take big bites out of the sales of stand alone BD and DVR players by showing that it has OPTIONS so it can be "one box to rule them all". Innovative developers will extend such an :apple:TV beyond what even "I" can imagine it to be, keeping it in the news and making it an ever more compelling proposition for everyone to add it to their AV stack. I'll sell a lot more :apple:TV hardware that way. And then my "hobby" will finally become a major (fourth) leg supporting the Apple table.

I have an :apple:TV and it is great. But the above next-gen should have been released about 12-18 months ago, yet its almost never too late to get this (finally) right.

Lastly, if I was Steve Jobs, I would take this next-gen :apple:TV to CES and steal that show like some January MacWorlds used to steal some of the thunder- and press- from CES in years past. A 1080p capable, open, next-gen Apple TV with app store would dominate the CE space like the iPhone is building domination of the smart phone space. This is well within Apple's grasp. It's only a matter of summoning up the will to deliver what the market wants, rather than trying to make the market want it the way "we" want them to want it.

SwiftLives

Dec 9, 2009, 10:36 AM

I'm thinking the direction Apple wants to take with the ATV is not one of physical media but rather streaming and downloadable media. For that reason alone, I don't think we're going to see a DVR or Blu-Ray on the device.

Why allow you to play a movie you rented elsewhere when Apple gives you the option to rent it? Why would you need a DVR when you can just purchase a TV show and watch it whenever you want?

The idea I'm most intrigued by is the rumored subscription service that would allow you a la carte television downloads for $XX/month. That could almost replace cable. The only other thing they'd need to provide would be some sort of option for live streaming TV networks (i.e. news networks, local TV, and sports events).

I'm guessing if Apple can't work out a subscription deal with content providers, that they will quietly pull an Old Yeller on the device.

balamw

Dec 9, 2009, 10:36 AM

If I were to put a new ATV Out I would of course put a new processor in it, make it 1080p capable. Take out the Hard Drive all together, would would eliminate alot of the Heat.
Don't forget to remove the internal power supply and use an external power brick, Airport Extreme style. Give the Time Capsule an iTunes compatible media server/collector (like the HP Mediasmart Home Servers) and we're in business.

My biggest problem with the :apple:TV is that it is not designed to sleep unlike every other Home Theater device (with the notable exception of PVRs). If I had a Mac mini hooked up to my TV 90% of the time it would be in sleep mode just waiting to be awakened. As it stands today, all the :apple:TV does 90% of the time is dissipate heat.

Heat is the main reason my :apple:TV is not currently hooked up. If I keep in in the closed cabinet where it belongs, it generates so much heat along with the always on TiVo HD XL that the :apple:TV overheats and locks up. I have no open shelf space for it, but I guess I could probably mount it to the wall with one of these: http://h-sq.com/products/tvtray/index.html

B

rayward

Dec 9, 2009, 11:18 AM

I'm thinking the direction Apple wants to take with the ATV is not one of physical media but rather streaming and downloadable media. For that reason alone, I don't think we're going to see a DVR or Blu-Ray on the device.

Exactly. The fight over the HD disk format was ridiculous on many levels, but mostly because hard media is a dying format. Eventually, most people will view most of their media from "on demand" streaming services, or buy it as a soft copy. Some people will still buy disks only, and some people will have a mixture of hard and soft media but, as the dominant medium, disks are a short term proposition.

To be honest, I see no reason for Apple TV to have a big hard drive. It streams so effortlessly from a Mac or PC now, even when watching a rented HD movie (which is downloading as it's streaming), that an on board drive is only really necessary for buffering. I'd like to see the HDD nixed for a flash drive of circa 40GB, which eliminates a lot of the heat and power usage issues, and is plenty for buffering a streamed movie. With wake on network capability now built into Macs, this should be a no-brainer. It also would go some way to reducing the unit's cost

However, they need to up its capability to 1080p. I realise that it's not practical to download a 1080p movie currently, but there's no reason for Apple TV not to be able to play it, if it's streamed from a Mac or PC. That way, even if you have a movie in disk format only, you would be able to stream it from your Blu Ray-equipped Mac or PC. Further, any hard copies can be ripped in native 1080p format for viewing via Apple TV. I realise that this goes a little against my assertion above, but such capability would be valuable during the transition from hard to soft media, giving Apple TV a foot planted firmly in both camps.

ddh716

Dec 9, 2009, 12:03 PM

If you're Steve Jobs, you are in the hardware AND content business. AppleTV is about selling content (which may explain why there is no apparent rush to upgrade the hardware). I agree with Daryl that Apple is in the hardware business - but not with this product. No reason to encourage AppleTV users to buy BluRay discs instead of buying content from the iTunes store. Apple TV is a "sell it cheap - make your money on the content" product.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 12:37 PM

Apple TV is a "sell it cheap - make your money on the content" product.

Can't make much money in this model unless you have a ton of :apple:TVs in homes. Can't get the mass market interested in buying an :apple:TV if it doesn't have the features that make them open their wallets.

What is going to sell more units this (and next) Christmas: :apple:TVs or BD players and/or TIVO/DVRs? If hardware BUYERS are going to spend money anyway...

Apple can make a ton of money by building the next-gen :apple:TV we all know they can build, sticking with their (we're a hardware company) model, and taking 30% of app store sales. They'll get the content sales anyway- only more content revenue because more people will own an :apple:TV and thus buy more itunes content.

Even if Apple is seeing :apple:TV as a "sell it cheap - make your money on the content" product, that doesn't seem to be working very well, so maybe they should try something else (more familiar to their normal drive (to sell hardware))?

mstrze

Dec 9, 2009, 12:43 PM

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 12:45 PM

...If I were to put a new ATV Out I would of course put a new processor in it, make it 1080p capable. Take out the Hard Drive all together, would would eliminate alot of the Heat...
If you remove the hard drive how is it going to support standalone operation with your own content (purchased movies/TV shows, CD rips, home video, pictures, etc.). Yes, they could use flash memory but that would be more expensive and/or severely limit the amount of content you could store on the device. Then again, they could just stream everything from your PC/Mac, but that would be a definite step-back in the quality of the product (IMO).

In any case, if you're going to have local storage for your purchased content then it almost has to be internal to the device since the media companies want a completely closed device to try and prevent piracy of their HD content. In fact, this may be the reason why the Apple TV's USB port has never been enabled for external storage.

balamw

Dec 9, 2009, 01:04 PM

If you remove the hard drive how is it going to support standalone operation with your own content (purchased movies/TV shows, CD rips, home video, pictures, etc.). Yes, they could use flash memory but that would be more expensive and/or severely limit the amount of content you could store on the device. Then again, they could just stream everything from your PC/Mac, but that would be a definite step-back in the quality of the product (IMO).

In any case, if you're going to have local storage for your purchased content then it almost has to be internal to the device since the media companies want a completely closed device to try and prevent piracy of their HD content. In fact, this may be the reason why the Apple TV's USB port has never been enabled for external storage.

But that's one of the problems with the current :apple:TV. It's just not all that compelling for standalone use for video when limited to a 40 or 160 GB PATA HDD with no expansion capabilities. 160 GB of video is only 20 full length DVDs assuming no further compression. Maybe if you could use it as a sync point/dock with your iPod/iPhone, but you can't.

You may be right about the USB port, but there are inactive USB and/or firewire ports on lots of AV equipment, which are there either by legal mandate or for other "diagnostic/future use" reasons.

Also, the media companies don't seem to be trying to shut down HP/Microsoft and their line of Mediasmart Windows Home Servers which are perfectly capable of streaming tons of HD video to any client (Mac/PC, Xbox 360/PS3, TiVo or WDTV/Patriot Box Office, iPhone/iPod touch) in your house. http://www.shopping.hp.com/store/product/product_detail/FL704AA%2523AB

B

GermanSuplex

Dec 9, 2009, 01:10 PM

The Apple TV's job is to stream and sync content from an iTunes library to your HDTV. It's not meant to be a standalone set top box, or to be a Blu-Ray player or DVR. It's meant to be an extension of your PC running iTunes. More features would be nice, but they aren't necessary, since the ATV does what its supposed to pretty well.

But that's one of the problems with the current :apple:TV. It's just not all that compelling for standalone use for video when limited to a 40 or 160 GB PATA HDD with no expansion capabilities. 160 GB of video is only 20 full length DVDs assuming no further compression.

But Apple isn't expecting people to rip DVD VOB files to place them on the device. A movie with H.264 compression is only 1 - 2 gigs, roughly. So you're looking at 80 - 100 or even more movies on a device.

And because its integrated with iTunes, its not meant to house your entire digital collection (though with many homes, I'm sure it can). It's meant to sync material and stream material from your main library.

I'm probably in the minority, but I sync nothing to my ATV. I just stream. And as long as my PC is on, my entire iTunes library is on my HDTV at any given time.

Tilpots

Dec 9, 2009, 01:23 PM

The Apple TV's job is to stream and sync content from an iTunes library to your HDTV. It's not meant to be a standalone set top box, or to be a Blu-Ray player or DVR. It's meant to be an extension of your PC running iTunes.

You've hit the nail on the head. It's an iTunes storefront and it's flawed. Most people don't want this. It's a failure for the mainstream consumer and even for many Apple fanboys.

HobeSoundDarryl is correct on almost every point.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 01:26 PM

Darryl:

Steve Jobs really didn't care that 'everybody' needed a physical floppy disc drive in their computers when he created the first iMac without one...turns out he was right and that technology was out the door....even though no one seemed to realize it yet. ;)

Let me reframe my point. I agree that digital downloads are the future. If Steve thinks so (too), I think he is absolutely right. However, in the present people who are getting HDTVs this year (and last and next) want to put the highest quality HD picture on those TVs. iTunes currently has NOTHING available in full 1080i or 1080p that can get pumped to their HDTV's via :apple:TV (the :apple:TV "as is" can't even do it if such content was available via iTunes store).

So, people are going to buy the ONLY source that will let them max out the showing of movies & TV shows on their 1080p TVs. That money is going to be spent anyway. It sounds like NOT by you and NOT by me, but they're going to spend it. If a next-gen :apple:TV offers it as an OPTIONal add-on, those who are interested in an :apple:TV ("but not until it has a BD drive") can then choose to spend their money on an :apple:TV instead of a dedicated BD player. Similarly those interested in buying a DVR could buy an :apple:TV plus OPTIONal DVR add-on for those that "won't buy one until it has DVR functionality."

It just doesn't work very well to decide to try to force the market down the discless and DVR-less path unless that path has options that are at least as good as what it is trying to replace. I am a HUGE :apple:TV fan, but I won't buy another myself until it is 1080p capable, ideally with some "open" platform options.

There's all kinds of changes coming in the future, but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice the present- or more applicably take quality steps backwards- to get there. In this case, I genuinely believe that Apple could get us all to the discless/DVR-less vision MUCH FASTER by offering those as add-on options to a next-gen :apple:TV now, dominating the lock on the home theater equipment stack (heavily entrenched like iPod entrenchment), then leveraging that "hold" on the masses to negotiate ever better deals with the studios to make it more desirable for most to download from iTunes rather than buy/rent a disc. The convenience of iTunes on demand will trump the physical media "wait", and the low-cost availability of all kinds of programming also on demand can trump the DVR functionality. Apple will still sell just as much iTunes content (because there will be a higher volume of :apple:TV owners); so it's not like a DVR option is going to kill the demand for iTunes content.

This other way of just locking into the future and expecting the mass market to come around just doesn't work that well, as evidenced by :apple:TV being labeled a "hobby" when it could be Apple's "next big thing" (certainly bigger than the rumored tablet). Sales/attention/promotion show that it's not selling that well, so the mass market isn't embracing the vision in big quantities, opening the door for someone else to replicate the great UI experience in next-gen hardware and take this market from Apple. This begins showing itself in add-on functionality (like Netflix streams in BD players, hard drive and network streaming in TVs, even hard drive companies making set-top boxes, etc), but it's only a matter of time until someone- hopefully Apple- will pull the "best of" pieces together in one unified solution.

We might even see a related surprise at this year's CES.

rayward

Dec 9, 2009, 01:36 PM

I'm probably in the minority, but I sync nothing to my ATV. I just stream. And as long as my PC is on, my entire iTunes library is on my HDTV at any given time.

I have 2 160GB units, one connected via ethernet and one wireless, and I let those auto sync with iTunes. I have more than 160GB of media on my iMac, so it's not all synced and I never know if I'm watching locally stored or streamed content on either unit.

I also have 2 40GB units, also one ethernet and one wireless, and I sync only photos to those. All other media is streamed, and it's impossible to tell the difference.

I can see the point about direct rental/purchase of content on the device but, in actuality, who has an Apple TV but no Mac/PC that could be used as a proxy for such downloads? In fact, as Apple TVs main function is to project your iTunes library onto your regular TV, I would posit that every single owner of an Apple TV has a computer too!

I wish Apple would come out with a media server, which would then solve a number of issues. That server could be the anchor for your Apple TVs, acting as a proxy for online rentals/purchases, and negating the need for a big HDD in the Apple TV unit. If iTunes could then be adapted to reverse stream media from the server, then that would free up your hard drive space for other things. All this seems like it would be very simple to implement, but Apple have a history of doing what they do without regard for what is simple and desirable to their customers.

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 02:40 PM

You've hit the nail on the head. It's an iTunes storefront and it's flawed. Most people don't want this. It's a failure for the mainstream consumer and even for many Apple fanboys.

HobeSoundDarryl is correct on almost every point.
HobeSoundDarryl is incorrect on almost every point. YMMV. ;)

Also, the Apple TV hasn't been a failure. It's just not been as big of a hit as the iPod or iPhone. It is, however, still one of the best pure digital media players on the market (IMO, and I also own a PS3 and WD TV Live). In fact, on a unit-sales basis it may be one of the most widely used media players. Exact sales numbers are unknown but I've seen consistent estimates in the 6 to 7.5 million range which isn't too bad after just over two and a half years (that's in excess of 1.5 billion dollars in sales). Let's remember that during that same time Apple sold just about 25 million Macs so if you ignore the iPhone and iPod this means that the Apple TV accounted for just about 20% of Apple's CPU-unit sales over that period of time.

Of course, given the Apple TV's price and low margins it isn't making much money from hardware sales alone and this is probably the reason why Apple isn't giving it much attention. In any case, given competition and other factors I'd say that if they don't produce at least a modest improvement in the hardware within the next year then you can basically stick a fork in it and call it dead. That's why I'm expecting (or hoping for) new Apple TV hardware in the next several months.

My guess is that we won't see any radical changes in the hardware (costs being the limiting factor). I'd expect a modestly faster CPU/GPU and larger hard drive options (change to SATA). Other than this, anything else can be done with software and improvements in the licensing with the content providers (the latter may be the most important factor in making products like the Apple TV a success).

balamw

Dec 9, 2009, 03:18 PM

A movie with H.264 compression is only 1 - 2 gigs, roughly. So you're looking at 80 - 100 or even more movies on a device.
Sorry for not being explicit about it I was using a DVD as a yardstick for future 1080p content. For reference the 720p HD movies on iTunes run closer to 3-4 GB/movie and I was assuming that going to 1080p would add 1.5-2X that, making one H.264 1080p movie roughly equivalent to a 6-8 GB 480i MPEG-2 DVD.

Storing 1000 songs (~100+ CDs) in a portable device the size of a deck of cards is compelling, a game changer. The :apple:TV still has nothing like that, as everything it does can be done better with other devices. Including Apple's own Mac Mini and Macbooks.

B

troyn123

Dec 9, 2009, 03:23 PM

Personally I would like my iTunes library (just the links to the content) included on my mobileme account.
So then I could upload/download a song or movie onto different computers at home and have the iTunes library synced automatically on each computer and apple TV.
iTunes could have an option to view the whole library, or just the content thats stored on that particular computer or laptop for when your away from your home network.

For me it means I don't need multiple libraries and the need to update each library.
For apple they could sell more mobileme accounts.

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 03:33 PM

...I can see the point about direct rental/purchase of content on the device but, in actuality, who has an Apple TV but no Mac/PC that could be used as a proxy for such downloads? In fact, as Apple TVs main function is to project your iTunes library onto your regular TV, I would posit that every single owner of an Apple TV has a computer too!..
I think the problem isn't whether or not the user has a computer, it's whether or not they want it turned on all of the time and whether they want to have iTunes running and accessible 24/7 on that same computer.

Let's consider the case where you have a notebook computer. Do you really want the Apple TV to become disabled (mostly) whenever that notebook leaves the house?

The major advantages I see to synching the Apple TV to a computer are backup, organization, and browsing (using iTunes). Then you have the issue of sharing content with other systems and the iPhone/iPod.
...I wish Apple would come out with a media server, which would then solve a number of issues..
The idea of a media server that runs 24/7 has merit. But even then you'd probably want a computer to manage everything so I'm not sure that really solves the standalone issue for the Apple TV. It would be nice, however, if Apple put an iTunes server in the Airport Extreme and/or Time Capsule. What they really need is an Airport Extreme that can use that unit's USB-connected storage for automated backups and as an iTunes server that every connected device could access. Such a device, however, might be fairly expensive when you consider that it would have to be fast enough to serve multiple clients and pretty soon you might be back to needing a system that is basically a full-blown computer. Maybe that's what Apple wants people to do with the Mac mini and isn't the new iTunes Home Sharing feature pretty much a step in that direction?

BoulderBum

Dec 9, 2009, 03:41 PM

I share the point of view of others by saying DVR capabilities for Apple TV is like putting a tape deck in an iPod: DVR is an old, outdated way of doing things when you have on-demand digital media available at your fingertips. You have all the shows you want at the push of a button with no cable TV required, and no having to schedule shows (or worry that something malfunctions when it's time to record).

As for Blu Ray capabilities, I'd say putting a Blu Ray player in an Apple TV is unlikely unless/until they all have "managed copies" which can be ripped to iTunes. If and when that happens, you'll see a Blu Ray player in an Apple TV, and you'll see 1080p support.

Otherwise, including a Blu Ray player would be encouraging a competing business model.

In the meantime, Apple has a few areas they might improve Apple TV. Ideally, I think it should have an App Store that might provide for different streaming services (Pandora, CollegeHumor.com, etc.) and casual gaming using iPod Touches/iPhones as controllers.

There has been rumor of getting TV studios to sign up for subscription based TV service, so Apple TV may end up being sort of an on-demand cable box, which would be cool and there was an old rumor of some sort of Apple device allowing the streaming of your iTunes content to your iPhone over the internet, though I think that wouldn't sit well with studios.

To conclude, I think the direction of Apple TV, as others have suggested, has a lot to do with what kind of arrangements they make with producers of content.

rayward

Dec 9, 2009, 03:57 PM

I think the problem isn't whether or not the user has a computer, it's whether or not they want it turned on all of the time and whether they want to have iTunes running and accessible 24/7 on that same computer.

Let's consider the case where you have a notebook computer. Do you really want the Apple TV to become disabled (mostly) whenever that notebook leaves the house?

The major advantages I see to synching the Apple TV to a computer are backup, organization, and browsing (using iTunes). Then you have the issue of sharing content with other systems and the iPhone/iPod.

With the wake on network capability of (newer) Macs and Snow Leopard, the "always on" issue goes away. Agree your comment regarding the missing notebook situation, I can see how that would be an issue. I don't know why Apple abandoned the 40gig Apple TV unit, because there are people - like me - who just want a box for streaming, and other people who like/need the standalone storage. They still sell the 8gig iPhone 3G, so why not the old 40gig ATV?

The idea of a media server that runs 24/7 has merit. But even then you'd probably want a computer to manage everything so I'm not sure that really solves the standalone issue for the Apple TV. It would be nice, however, if Apple put an iTunes server in the Airport Extreme and/or Time Capsule. What they really need is an Airport Extreme that can use that unit's USB-connected storage for automated backups and as an iTunes server that every connected device could access. Such a device, however, might be fairly expensive when you consider that it would have to be fast enough to serve multiple clients and pretty soon you might be back to needing a system that is basically a full-blown computer. Maybe that's what Apple wants people to do with the Mac mini and isn't the new iTunes Home Sharing feature pretty much a step in that direction?

Right. I use my iMac as my media server currently, but would prefer to have that stuff stored elsewhere. Home Sharing, however, simply allows you to deposit copies of your media in more places, rather than providing a media server solution.

Also, it's a usage thing. Even though most of my hardware is connected via ethernet, it seems that the ATVs all decide to sync when Time Machine is doing a backup and I'm downloading a large file off the 'net. The crunch slows everything down. And I'll soon be ripping Blu Ray disks and creating much larger movie files, so that's going to start to choke my hard drive. I'd much prefer to dump the media off to a single location from where it can be accessed by multiple users.

GermanSuplex

Dec 9, 2009, 04:29 PM

Benicio10

Dec 9, 2009, 05:48 PM

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 05:49 PM

...Home Sharing, however, simply allows you to deposit copies of your media in more places, rather than providing a media server solution..
Actually, Home Sharing also allows you to stream content from another copy of iTunes (on a different computer that has items that are not present on the local iTunes). So, it's nearly the same as a media server if you are running iTunes on both systems.

For example, I have an old G4 Mac mini that is connected via ethernet to my Apple TV and the iTunes content that is on the Mac mini can be accessed from my main desktop system over a WiFi bridge. I use the new iTunes Home Sharing feature to automatically backup the purchased content between my main desktop and the Mac mini but anything that is synced from the Apple TV to the Mac mini can also be accessed from the copy of iTunes that is running on my main system. Thus, if I download a podcast with my Apple TV that will get synched back to the Mac mini and can then be streamed wirelessly from the Mac mini to my main system that is located in another room. What I mean is that you do not need to make a physical copy of every media file that is shared between the two computers -- iTunes Home Sharing also allows you to stream content between the two systems. One drawback, however, is that if the content hasn't been prepared for streaming then nearly the entire file will need to be buffered before playback will begin. That's not a problem for music or short video files, but I don't think it would be practical for high resolution movies that were not optimized (or created) with streaming enabled.

Note in the above I'm specifically talking about the new iTunes Home Sharing feature that was introduced in iTunes 9. With the Apple TV you have been able to access iTunes libraries on a second computer using the Apple TV's "Settings > Computers > Add iTunes Shared Library" feature for quite some time now.

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 06:02 PM

...Apple will sell a ton of Apple TVs when they can create a way for users to easily and quickly rip BluRay discs within iTunes and store them... the same way they did with CD's and MP3's.
That's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is the inclusion of more of the so-called digital copies that are present on some special edition DVDs and multi-disc Blu-ray offerings. That's how I got the iTunes/Apple TV versions of the new Star Trek and 70th anniversary Wizard of Oz movies. Sure, these digital copies aren't HD but they play on my iPhone and the Apple TV and don't even look that bad on my HDTV (in any case, for the latter, I'll use the Blu-ray disc).

GermanSuplex

Dec 9, 2009, 06:34 PM

Let's face it ... iPod sales were helped by people's music libraries growing exponentially due to the ease of pirating MP3's.

The Apple TV is a niche product because the process of downloading or ripping, converting, and storing HD movies is too difficult and slow... So instead of buying HD movies on iTunes for $20, i'd rather get the bluray disc which looks better and sounds better for $30 ... And, instead of renting a movie for $4 each, i'd rather do netflix for $9 a month and watch as many bluray movies as i want... and oh yea I can now stream a ton from my xbox or ps3.

You are certainly not alone. However, I also think there is a technical hurdle. I doubt a busy man/woman/family person with a 720p (or even 1080p) TV sees a vast difference in quality from iTunes HD movies and Blu-Ray. I think it is a matter of ease of use: with a Blu-ray player, you pop the disc in and that's that. With iTunes, there's a setup process and learning curve that may be daunting for a first time buyer who is only a casual user of iTunes. Many people I know with iPods or an iPhone only have a few dozen/hundred songs on iTunes, they are tagged incorrectly.... and they don't care. It's not an issue.

With Netflix, personally I've never cared for subscription services, I'm more of an on-demand guy myself. I could go with netflix, but I don't like waiting and sending stuff in and the like. If they had new releases and HD downloads with Watch-Now features, that would be cool. But as it is, I prefer just paying three to five dollars for a rental and never having to wait, send anything in, etc. And since I only rent 2 or 3 movies a month, its no detriment to me.

I think the only thing I'd like to see added to Apple TV are how it implements what is already in the iTunes store. Subscription services I feel are going to be more valuable than adding a DVR or Blu-Ray player. Adding a DVR or Blu-Ray player gains nothing for Apple or its content providers, outside of maybe the sales of Blu-Ray. With a subscription service, people get paid. I would even pay a premium for unlimited iTunes streaming. Say, $10 for unlimited music streaming, $20 for unlimited TV/movie streaming, or $25 for both. Just exclude new releases and the most recent season of TV shows. Then Apple would get paid, content providers get paid, and it would likely increase sales. If you can stream the first few seasons of a TV show and the most recent isn't available, maybe you'll plunk down the money to watch it.

There is certainly room for hardware and software improvements, I just don't think Blu-Ray and DVR fit in with the Apple TV/iTunes environment. Afterall, over the last two or three years, iTunes has continued its growth despite Blu-Ray and DVR's being around.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 07:09 PM

HobeSoundDarryl is incorrect on almost every point. YMMV. ;)

Well thanks fpnc (or perhaps the geniuses at Apple should be thanking you?). Apple must be right in deciding how things shall be, sticking with that view in spite of very vocal BUYERS asking for relatively modest enhancements to a 3-year old device (predicating their move to actually BUY that product from Apple), and bringing the whole mass market around by doing so. Because BUYERS can't possibly be right, when what they say they want differs from what Apple wants them to want.

Apple must be right by deciding how the market shall like to get its content and in spite of that way being several quality notches below how else such content can be readily had from other sources, it is somehow better because Apple says it is so. So, for example, even though I can use a Netflix or a satt or cable VOD feature, or buy a BD disc so that I can watch a favorite movie or TV show at 1080i or 1080p maxing out what my TV can actually display, apparently I am wrong for wanting that because Apple says I should be happy with handicapped 720p- at best- via iTunes.

Apple must be right by deciding that the market wants to pay a good amount (again) for shows that we already get via our cable or satt subscriptions because the iTunes model is right that everyone shall want to just buy their programming (again) rather than mix & match their sources of content in whatever ways works best for each individual. So sayeth the Apple.

Apple must be right that a show should cost $1.99 per episode, even when I can get that same episode for "free" over the air and capture it with a DVR using Apple's own computers plus a little add-on from Elgato. Why capture something at higher quality at at no cost vs the version available via iTunes, when I should happily pay Apple to get the same program at or below handicapped 720p resolution?

And Apple said, all TV shows are equally priced because all TV shows are equally valuable, and it was right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, all movies are $9.99 or $14.99 because they are all equally valued and thus equally priced, and it was right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, our (limited) mix of currently-available movies and shows are all the movies & shows ye shall want to watch. And though many other movies and shows are available from other sources- often at lower costs- we should like it only as Apple serves it, and that is right... because Apple said so.

And Apple said, 720p with minimal bandwith is "good enough" HD for the masses, so ye shall be happy with 720p as we serve it, and not covet 1080i or 1080p even though such content will be readily available- often cheaper than iTunes pricing- from many other sources.

And even though your HDTV might be native 1080i or 1080p, ye shall like upscaling from our handicapped 720p or less rather than getting the same content in 1080i or 1080p, because Apple says so, and thus it is right.

And Apple said, even though we give ye iMovie, which can render your HD camcorder videos at 1080i or 1080p, and we allow ye to import them into iTunes and play them there at 1080i or 1080p native, ye shall be happy with an :apple:TV platform that won't be able to push them on to your HDTV because it is so underpowered in (nearly 2010). But that is how we choose for you to like it, and so ye shall... because we said so.

And though ye shall witness many other little boxes demonstrating the capabilities to offer 1080i and 1080p playback hardware, and BD playback hardware, and so on at retail prices BELOW :apple:TV pricing, ye shall still be happy with :apple:TV and iTunes content as we wish ye to have it, not as ye know it could- and should- be.

For as Apple says it shall be, (select) Apple fans always happily agree. And even when the market of BUYERS are clear that they want modest enhancements, that market can't possibly know what it wants to buy, unless what it wants to buy is an exact match for what Apple sells. For though ye travel through the shadow of Microsoft, the ONE light that is Apple is the ONLY way to the right way for all things Apple does, touches, etc.

Until of course Apple decides it shall be different, and then THAT way is THE one and only way for things to be.

Now I've had a little fun above, and I'm as big an Apple fan as anyone. But in this case, I argue that Apple is wrong to try to force the mass market to come around to their way of thinking. The most basic marketing tenet is "know thy customer" and what an awful lot of BUYERS say- and show that- they want seems to be a bit different than what Apple is delivering with :apple:TV "as is". I love my own :apple:TV, but it is easy to imagine simple ways Apple could make it a lot more appealing for the masses, so that they can sell a whole lot more of them, dominate that space, win better content deals, and thus deliver a better experience for all involved.

Or, they can stubbornly stick to their guns and risk someone else ripping off their great UI (relative to the current crowd) on better hardware and potentially taking this market from them. I don't want that to happen, but I am frustrated in knowing that Apple could own this space if they only would summon up the will to actually take it. Why they choose NOT to (yesterday) is something we mere mortals (with money) cannot and shall not understand, until the Apple reveals it unto us.

Tilpots

Dec 9, 2009, 07:09 PM

EDIT: ^^^HA HA! Told ya he was right!

If it's not Apple, whomever decides to combine a internet connected media player with a DVR and a Blu-Ray player will dominate the living room. If the Mini had a Blu-Ray option, it would fit the bill perfectly.

It's a simple solution consumers would jump on... One box connected to your TV and able to interact with (and not depend on) your computer. More functionality, less equipment to buy, and a unified interface.

balamw

Dec 9, 2009, 07:33 PM

With the wake on network capability of (newer) Macs and Snow Leopard, the "always on" issue goes away.
And yet, the :apple:TV is always on. For absolutely no reason at all.

But in this case, I argue that Apple is wrong to try to force the mass market to come around to their way of thinking. The most basic marketing tenet is "know thy customer" and what an awful lot of BUYERS say- and show that- they want seems to be a bit different than what Apple is delivering with :apple:TV "as is".

....

Why they choose NOT to (yesterday) is something we mere mortals (with money) cannot and shall not understand, until the Apple reveals it unto us.

I don't think Apple is trying to force anyone into anything with :apple:TV. It's very clear that they have not figured out the details of the business model, which is why they call it a hobby and it just doesn't get much attention. As I said before, there are plenty of other devices that compete in this space including Apple's far more capable $599 Mac mini and $999 MacBook, so what makes the :apple:TV compelling?

B

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 08:07 PM

If I were to redesign the Apple TV the new system would be based upon NVIDIA's Ion platform (combines an Intel Atom processor with the NVIDIA 9400M graphics/system controller). The only roadblock to a system like that would be the cost, I don't know whether Apple could market a system like that for less than $300 (which I would call the drop-dead price point). The Acer AspireRevo runs between $200 and $350 retail depending upon configuration so Apple might be able to hit the under $300 price point. In any case, I'd also add Bluetooth since that would make a better remote-control interface than today's IR and WiFi.

As a comparison, here is a link to the dual-core, 1.6GHz Acer AspireRevo 3610 at $330. This would actually be a little overkill for a system to replace the current Apple TV, but it would make a truly magnificent, high-end media player.

http://gizmodo.com/5383094/acer-aspirerevo-upgraded-windows-7-ion-graphics-dual+core-atom-cpu

Of course, one additional problem with a device like that is that it would be immediately hacked to produce a low-cost, nettop-like Mac which would compete with the Mac mini.

Well thanks fpnc (or perhaps the geniuses at Apple should be thanking you?). Apple must be right in deciding how things shall be, sticking with that view in spite of very vocal BUYERS asking for relatively modest enhancements to a 3-year old device...
Actually, I was referring to your suggestions on adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV which seemed to be the primary focus in your previous posts. I would not call those "modest enhancements."

I'm all in favor of getting better terms on the iTunes content, but that doesn't require a redesign of the Apple TV. I'm also in favor of improving the performance of the unit with an updated hardware design (who wouldn't want that as long as they can hold the line on prices?). However, I think that only requires a modest update to the CPU/GPU and wouldn't even require going to the lengths that I discussed in my post about the NVIDIA Ion platform.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 08:17 PM

As I said before, there are plenty of other devices that compete in this space including Apple's far more capable $599 Mac mini and $999 MacBook, so what makes the :apple:TV compelling?

Well since you ask, and I've been negative on it "as is" from the perspective of addressing the thread topic, let me take the other side...

For the mass market, price is about right in that sub $250 level
The UI is excellent relative to much of what else is out there
The central link to iTunes for management of various types of media is also excellent
(Even the) existing featureset is excellent. I would likely pay about as much for the device for any one of several individual benefits it has now

The Mac Mini could be the "pro" version if the :apple:TV interface could be run on that hardware, and it it had the HDMI and component ports native "for dummies". But the price at that level is going to cut a lot of buyers out.

A laptop seems overkill, like the tablet rumor that it might be the next-gen replacement for :apple:TV seems overkill.

Basically, the :apple:TV is elegant, easy to use (grandma proof), relatively well priced, and loaded with a lot of very nice software features. If it had a 1080p hardware upgrade and was "opened up" for others to extend it with apps and add-on hardware, it seems like it could quickly become an "all things to all people" proposition. Want BD? Add the BD option. Want a DVR? Add the DVR option from Elgato. Want more local storage? Add hard drives. Want network storage? Configure it in the networking menu. And so on.

The guy who wants it to be an everything box can buy the add-ons to make it an everything box. The guy who wants it to be pretty much as is, can still enjoy it exactly as it is. If you only want to buy video content at up to handicapped 720p from iTunes, you would still be able to do that. But if you want to buy 1080i or 1080p content, or buy this one box instead of it plus a DVD or BD player to play a 1080p BD disc, or buy this one box instead of it plus a DVR box for DVR functionality, etc, it could be what each person most wants from it.

And an open platform would make it a "sky's the limit" type product, with 3rd party developers thinking up all kinds of possibilities for it. Such a relatively simple evolution for Apple would make it a much more compelling proposition for the masses. My money is ready to buy this next-gen :apple:TV. Apparently, I'm not alone. Now if Apple would just read- and heed- this thread (and not strike me down for the sacrilege in my prior post;))

I'm also in favor of improving the performance of the unit with an updated hardware design (who wouldn't want that as long as they can hold the line on prices?). However, I think that only requires a modest update to the CPU/GPU and wouldn't even require going to the lengths that I discussed in my post about the NVIDIA Ion platform.

In this we agree. From Apple, it could be as simple as delivering a 1080p full bandwith hardware upgrade. To make all the other BUYER wants have the potential to come true, they could also open it up to 3rd party add-ons, which would put next to no price or hardware engineering heat on Apple, yet making it possible for those wanting it to also be a BD player, or those wanting it to also be a DVR, or those wanting it to also be a _____________, to have a shot at getting their wants met too (by 3rd party players).

Then, you can have that next gen :apple:TV as you like it. And they can have it as they want it. Apple need not play God here in telling all of us how we should want it, but instead try to give us buyers as much of what we want as possible. If the did this, they could own the space (FAST!). If they don't do this, they need the mass market to (magically) decide that the future (vision) is THE ONE such that there is no need to enjoy 1080i or 1080p on their 1080i or 1080p TVs now, and so on. I just don't see the latter happening faster than the former. I can see Apple completely dominating the space by giving the mass market more of what it wants though- even if that means giving it at least some means to gain access to options (from 3rd parties) like BD and DVR functionality. Such "openness" seems to work so well for Macs, iphones and ipod sales, wouldn't you agree?

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 09:27 PM

...Such "openness" seems to work so well for Macs, iphones and ipod sales, wouldn't you agree?
Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers. My counter to your suggestions about adding support for DVR and Blu-ray is the following.

You want Blu-ray? Go out a buy a cheap Blu-ray player from Samsung or alike. The overall experience and quality will likely be better than anything that you could cobble together with an Apple TV.

You want a DVR? Get one from your cable or satellite TV company. TiVo is the only other major player in this field, yet according to Wikipedia as of a year ago they had only 3.5 million subscribers in the U.S and the year-over-year trend is down (even today, that's probably fewer than there are Apple TV users in the U.S.).

In any case, how is Apple (or anyone for that matter) going to support a DVR experience that can beat what can be had with a cable or satellite box? CableCARD seems to be dead --

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/fcc-admits-cablecard-a-failure-vows-to-try-something-else.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

-- so in the future the only premium or HD material that you'll be able to DVR is Clear QAM and unencrypted OTA broadcasts. Of course, you could always take a standard definition RF feed or analog output from a cable box but what would be the point of that (i.e. easier and better to just use the DVR in the cable or satellite box).

In any case, these are among my arguments against adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV. Apple should continue to concentrate on downloadable and streaming delivery over the internet, in another five to ten years that's all most people will be using whether it comes from Apple or someone else or even from the current cable companies.

balamw

Dec 9, 2009, 09:50 PM

Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers.

But wait. All of that content from iTunes is equally available on the wide open platforms of the Mac mini and/or Macbook via iTunes. Both of which are easily attached to most HDTVs.

What is exclusive to :apple:TV today again? (besides being the only Mac OS X 10.4 box available to buy new today. :p)

FWIW I have faith in TiVo. Their new deals with DirecTV (http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-partners/tivo-directv/index.html) and Comcast (http://www.comcast.com/Tivo/) will help them grow again in 2010. The UI and feature set of their DVRs is still far above the standard cable company PVR.

B

fpnc

Dec 9, 2009, 10:32 PM

But wait. All of that content from iTunes is equally available on the wide open platforms of the Mac mini and/or Macbook via iTunes. Both of which are easily attached to most HDTVs.

What is exclusive to :apple:TV today again? (besides being the only Mac OS X 10.4 box available to buy new today. :p)

FWIW I have faith in TiVo. Their new deals with DirecTV (http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-partners/tivo-directv/index.html) and Comcast (http://www.comcast.com/Tivo/) will help them grow again in 2010. The UI and feature set of their DVRs is still far above the standard cable company PVR.

B
You apparently don't own or use an Apple TV. The Apple TV has perhaps ten times as many HD shows and movies as does the Mac/PC-based iTunes Store. The reason this happens is that the content providers don't want to make the HD content available on an open system like a PC or Mac. This may also be why you can't use the Apple TV's USB port to add additional storage -- the content providers don't want an external disk to be transferred to the Mac/PC for hacking and/or piracy concerns.

The same is true on some other devices. Take the TiVo HD DVRs. You can't attach just any hard drive to a TiVo HD DVR, it has to be a special, certified drive that is manufactured by Western Digital exclusively for the TiVo DVR. Furthermore, you can't use this drive to transfer content to a PC or even another TiVo because the content is stored in manner that can't be accessed from another device.

Of course, the content providers may eventual drop these requirements. We can only hope that this will happen in a timely manner, but I wouldn't design a new system with only the wish that these types of restrictions will eventually be eliminated.

In any case, transparent "openness" for DVR and Blu-ray support goes a lot further than just making the ports available for expansion. There would be all types of user interface issues, concerns about running 3rd-party software on the Apple TV, and issues with the protection of the licensed content, etc.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 9, 2009, 11:19 PM

Openness adds costs to the development and support and it could potentially wreak havoc on the licenses and agreements that Apple has with the current content providers.

So Apple can somehow resolve that havoc with that same itunes content flowing to Macs and iphones and ipods, but they just can't make it work with :apple:TV???

My counter to your suggestions about adding support for DVR and Blu-ray is the following.

You want Blu-ray? Go out a buy a cheap Blu-ray player from Samsung or alike.

You want a DVR? Get one from your cable or satellite TV company. TiVo is the only other major player in this field...

Exactly, so I'm a mass market buyer and I want to buy a bit of hardware to hook to my new HDTV this year. I can buy a BD player which will max out what my TV can show, or I can buy a Tivo which will give me an elegant, effortless way to record a bunch of "free" shows that I really like, or I can buy an :apple:TV which won't give me the 1080i or 1080p quality of that BD player (so it won't max out the quality of picture on my set) and I won't be able to do anything with the programming already flowing into my house via my cable or satt system, instead having to rebuy or re-rent that same content via iTunes if I want to approximate the experience of that Tivo. On which shall I spend that money this year?

Your recommendations are exactly what the mass market is doing. Only instead of adding a BD player or a DVR to an :apple:TV, they are choosing to just buy the BD player and/or the DVR, saving the :apple:TV as a possible future purchase. Apple gets to sell them NO :apple:TV itunes content if they don't get that :apple:TV into their hardware setup. And if enough people choose the BD and/or DVR box(es) instead of :apple:TV, it will take that much longer for Apple's discless/dvr-less vision to be realized. After all, once I have that BD player sitting there, there isn't a lot of motivation to go out and buy another little box from Apple that will only give me access to significantly downgraded (handicapped 720p at best) content. And once I have that DVR entrenched in my setup, I'm not going to be that hungry to pay Apple for a device that will then require me to keep paying for that same content I'm able to record now at little to no additional charge beyond my cable or satt bill (and at higher resolution by the way).

I don't blame the "dummies" in the mass market at all for choosing a soon-to-be obsolete disc-based and/or DVR model to pair with their 1080i or 1080p HDTV. THEY get to enjoy highest quality video NOW, and for however long it takes for those of us clinging to the Apple vision to finally be offered the upgrade we know Apple can deliver. While they are watching their favorite movies and shows in 1080p on their 1080p television, we "geniuses" can smugly enjoy our handicapped 720p at best quality that Apple chooses as our limit, knowing that eventually the world will come around to Apple's (and our) right way of consuming such content. Boy, I'm glad I'm in the smart crowd.

In any case, how is Apple (or anyone for that matter) going to support a DVR experience that can beat what can be had with a cable or satellite box? CableCARD seems to be dead --

Elgato has been in business for years selling DVR add-on products for Macs. If they can do it, Apple could too. Or, as I endorse, Apple could just open the next-gen :apple:TV up a bit so that Elgato-like companies could fill that need if they think there is a sufficient market of foolish people who would buy a DVR add-on for an :apple:TV instead of just paying more (via iTunes) for the same content they could record with that DVR add-on.

Besides, most of the highest-rated shows are still coming from the major networks, which are available to much of the masses for free over the air in HD at levels well beyond the finest of iTunes HD offerings. For those that want DVR capabilities who can receive the major networks, a lot of added value would come from just a DVR option for that handful of channels.

Furthermore, iTunes- even the one in that 5+/-year future- seems unlikely to resolve the live sports issue. But a tuner add-on option for an :apple:TV box (which is half of the step to a full DVR option) could bring live sports to that little box from the major local networks FOR FREE.

Such niceties would make that next-gen :apple:TV much more desirable to the masses, so Apple would sell many more of them. Personally, I don't care if they build in a DVR (or DVR open) option or not. But it is easy for me to see that they would likely sell a lot more :apple:TV's if they gave the BUYERS more of what they want, instead of trying to make the BUYERS come around to their vision of how things are going to be.

This thread was started by someone asking about the future of this product. And even that very first post shows a guy wanting a few features that it does not have now (nor can they be added by third parties to this closed system "as is"). Could it have those features? Sure. If it had them- Apple or third party- would Apple sell more :apple:TVs? Absolutely.

Don't add them, or don't make it possible for others to offer them as add ons, and don't sell more :apple:TV's to those willing buyers. It's as simple as that.

In any case, these are among my arguments against adding DVR and Blu-ray support to the Apple TV. Apple should continue to concentrate on downloadable and streaming delivery over the internet
I fully support that Apple doesn't need to build a BD option or DVR option into a next-gen :apple:TV- just build that next-gen open enough so that those people that want those options could buy them as add-on features (much like adding on hardware (like the Elgato DVR option) to the Mac Mini). That way, the price of the next-gen :apple:TV doesn't have to go up, yet it could be a much more compelling bit of AV equipment for the masses.

I also support that since there already is an iTunes, steaming models and so on, Apple should certainly keep focusing on making that as good as it can be. For example, they shouldn't allow Netflix and similar to have any more movies or shows available to stream to BD players with Netflix extensions than :apple:TV players with their iTunes connection.

The convenience of readily-available content via iTunes would always entice the guy who bought the stock :apple:TV and added on a BD and DVR option when getting to watch something he wants to watch via BD would require a trip to the store if he didn't already capture it via the DVR. If Apple poured it on with iTunes content diversity, and if they sold so many :apple:TVs that the studios would be fiercely competing with pricing (driving prices down), iTunes movies could be priced at less than BD movies, iTunes television could be priced at a level that makes cutting the cable or satt cord more acceptable, and so on. Thus, Apple gets to their vision anyway (QUICKER then waiting for the world to magically come around to this way of thinking).

In short, I agree that things seem to be headed where you think Apple is trying to take them. It does look like downloads and internet sourced content is where we are going. But there's a lot of ways to get there. The mass market is only going to buy so many little boxes to sit next to their TVs. Whoever puts the right combination of features in their box such that they entrench in the masses' living rooms will win the living room. Apple could/should be that company. But IMO, clinging to some of what they are clinging to is not going to make it (magically) happen.

Give the buyers more of what they want, and Apple can still get to their envisioned destination. Refuse the market wants, and they may or may not realize that vision. I'm absolutely convinced they could get there- and more quickly- with the former.

fpnc

Dec 10, 2009, 01:20 AM

So Apple can somehow resolve that havoc with that same itunes content flowing to Macs and iphones and ipods, but they just can't make it work with :apple:TV???......[too much additional to include].....
I don't mean to be flippant, but just show me any third-party hardware or software that runs on or with the iPhone/iPod that implements anything like an fully integrated DVR or DVD/Blu-ray player. An unfair challenge to be sure since neither of those devices would have any reason or benefit from such an integration but you can actually do very little with hardware add-ons to the iPhone/iPod. They allow you to have access to the analog audio and video over the dock connector but the Apple TV already does that with its standard outputs (and that's hardly anything like the integration you're talking about). Then there are about ten million iPhone and iPod cases (N/A, I think), some external batteries (N/A), some wireless transmitters (N/A) and a few enhanced docks but those transmitters and docks just use the standard analog outputs from the iPhone/iPod (not much different than attaching the Apple TV to your stereo receiver and TV).

About the only thing that would come close to the type of enhancements that you are suggesting would be one of the FM radio receivers that attaches to the iPods but those devices don't have to worry about content protection and they don't have to seamlessly integrate with the remainder of the iPhone/iPod experience (what I mean is that you're not going to be able to access the radio from within Apple's built-in media player). Besides that, the history of compatibility with the iPhone/iPod dock is littered with products that stopped working with the next device upgrade from Apple.

Interestingly enough, here is a article on how Apple may be bringing FM radio support to the current iPhone and iPod touch. After reading this article, it doesn't sound like the iPhone/iPod hardware is really that open to 3rd-party enhancements.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Apple-iPhone-iPod-FM-Receiver,news-4855.html

As for iTunes on the Mac, just look at all of the copy protection measures that are still in place for the HD video content that is available on that platform. With any of the current Macs you can't even output the HD content to an external display unless that display supports HDCP content protection. And as I noted in a previous post, there may be ten times as much HD content on the Apple TV as there is on the iTunes Store for the Mac/PC. In fact, until just recently that ratio may have been over 100 to 1 (maybe things are changing for the better).

Of course, none of the above necessarily excludes additional, 3rd-party hardware expansion for the Apple TV, but you can't really point to the iPhone/iPod as a prime example of so-called open hardware. Then you have the comparison to the openness of the Mac (computer). Well, why should the Apple TV become yet another Mac mini? If you want that cost and complexity (or flexibility) then just buy a Mac.

So that leaves the possibility of 3rd-party software on the Apple TV. That could happen, but it will undoubtedly run in a closed sandbox that will most likely prevent access to a lot of the hardware and software features on the Apple TV (just as there are limits with the current iPhone and iPod touch applications -- that's one of the reasons why jailbreaking is popular on those products).

In any case, I'll absolutely guarantee you that you'll never see an Apple TV that will support DVR functionality or Blu-ray discs (through 3rd-party enhancements or otherwise). We can probably leave it at that since neither one of us can be proven right or wrong until Apple goes through several iterations of new Apple TV hardware (if indeed that even happens).

Bye Bye Baby

Dec 10, 2009, 02:31 AM

I think we might see something interesting with the La La purchase. Apple TV could stream content quite easily without any need to upgrade the hardware. At the moment the ATV does everything I want. Namely, it gets all my content from where it is stored to where it needs to be played.

smurfUK

Dec 10, 2009, 03:41 AM

New hardware will be released 1st 1/4 2010- similar looking to existing model- 1 or 2tb option, same features plus App store- with BBC iplayer app etc... and movies will go from 720p to 1080p. UK pricing will be £249 for 1tb and £349 for the 2tb option.

Replicating the on demand services available by utilising an app. overcomes the DVR issues. :)

TheAshMan

Dec 10, 2009, 07:11 AM

My thoughts are that Sony and Toshiba's war for format was much money wasted. Whereas the DVD format was able to survive in the consumer market for 15+ years, today's options for media now has on-demand "soft" services that require (at the minimum) a home computer.

Other than the obvious audiophlies demands, 90% of the buying public can take advantage of on-demand services today without spending hundreds of dollars for another play device.

I submit that blu-ray will not have the staying power of it's predecessor. A similar situation is that of the CD.

I have a FIOS 25 Mbps connection and even with that speed and very few people doing it, I have had several bad experiences in the half dozen times we have watched (or attempted to watch) streaming movies from iTunes. It is a better experience with the Verizon OnDemand service, but that also leaves something to be desired. Delivering HD content over the wire is a challenge and when it does work, there is so much compression and blips that it damages the experience. Even watching an upscaled DVD is better than the online download experience. The only problem I have with DVD's is the scratched discs that ruin the movie for us about 1/5 the time. I don't have a Blu-Ray yet (a few more weeks I will) but if that special coating prevents the scratch damage to the movies I don't think I would bother with anything but NetFlix through the mail. I may still buy an :apple:TV or something equivalent to get content off my computer, but I bet Blu-Ray will be our #1 movie watching vehicle.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 07:13 AM

New hardware will be released 1st 1/4 2010- similar looking to existing model- 1 or 2tb option, same features plus App store- with BBC iplayer app etc... and movies will go from 720p to 1080p. UK pricing will be £249 for 1tb and £349 for the 2tb option.

SmurfUK, I hope your prediction pans out. I'll be first in line for that one.

fpnc, my arguments generally revolve around how Apple could sell a lot more :apple:TV units (by giving the market more of what it wants rather than trying to make the market want it as Apple wants to give it to them). You're coming back with "they can't do that because it's too hard", "they won't do that because it's not compatible with the iTunes vision", etc. type responses. How do they entrench this box in the mass market's living room with such logic?

:apple:TV is more like a little (albeit underpowered) Mac Mini. Out of the box- with hacks- it is capable of being extended by third parties with a few features the market wants (and is willing to pay more for). For example, some BUYERS want more storage on the box than 160gb. There's a hack for that, and some people pay upwards of $50 more for that hack. In turn, they get a variation of the :apple:TV that is more to their personal wants. Would it be too hard for Apple to build in that "hack" (that is normalize the USB port that is already there, and add a bit of code that will make a big hard drive attached to that USB port become much greater local storage for it)? Definitely not. It's obvious that even the current incarnation could have some coveted features to make it more appealing. Apple merely chooses NOT to incorporate such features.

Yes, there are not DVR dongles hooked to iPhones giving us full-fledged DVRs on that portable device. But there are Elgato USB sticks hooked to Macs that give a pretty nice incarnation of DVR functionality for that computer. It is EASY to imagine an Elgato linked to the USB port of an :apple:TV bringing that level of DVR functionality to the :apple:TV (except that the current gen lacks the hardware punch to be able to handle it, though a next-gen- well past due- could easily step up the processing punch without having to jack up the price). Would an Elgato option for the :apple:TV be enough for the "I won't buy one until is has DVR options" crowd? Maybe. But at least there would be something to move that crowd toward buying one.

It is NOT too hard for Apple to normalize USB expansion ports in a next-gen (if the hackers can do it, I'm sure Apple is smart enough to be able to do it too) and leave the rest to third parties. They simply choose to tightly close this piece of their product portfolio for some reason, ignoring the calls of BUYERS saying they would buy if only it had one or more features (or feature options) that cater to individual wants. I easily grasp that, and easily see that they would sell more units if they delivered on that. I also see that they don't sell those units by choosing to stick with things "as is".

In the meantime, the mass market is buying electronics to hook to their new HDTV's this Christmas. If they want to spend about the price of an :apple:TV on a new toy, what's it going to be:
1. A BD-player, perhaps with some extensions to link to the Netflix library, that can put 1080p quality on their 1080p set
2. An HD TIVO/DVR so that they can easily capture content they are already paying for, probably in 1080i or full 720p
3. An :apple:TV that will max out at a very limited incarnation of 720p, and involve them having to pay again if they want to somewhat replicate the programming availability of that DVR. What gets that money this year?

If Apple doesn't own the living room before someone else takes it, the guy with a dedicated BD player and TIVO/DVR will not be very motivated to go out an add yet another box- an :apple:TV- so that they can enjoy lower resolution programming than their BD player offers, and so that they can re-buy shows already flowing to their DVR at added cost, because that's the way Apple chooses to make such content available to them. The vision doesn't come to pass very quickly if this is how it plays out. A next-gen :apple:TV needs to have the features (or feature add-on options) to be so compelling it is the first choice of the next bit of AV equipment the mass market wants to buy. If it can be seen as potentially one box to rule them all, then it is a way for nearly every individual to meet their respective needs by buying it over a stand alone BD player or DVR. If the mass market sees it as a third, fourth or fifth option, it may never entrench, which means that the discless/DVR vision would likely be fulfilled by some company not named Apple for those people. If those people are the mass market- not us dedicated Apple lovers- that's an awful lot of business Apple is choosing NOT to take.

What is the most coveted smart phone on the mass market's wish list? That's easy. Now what is the most coveted set-top box that the mass market wants to hook to their HDTV? Not quite as obvious. Yet is could- and should- be... if only Apple would choose to make it so.

balamw

Dec 10, 2009, 08:07 AM

You apparently don't own or use an Apple TV.

I have a 40 GB unit (later upgraded to 160 GB) bought the day it was announced. I admit I don't use it very much.

I just don't rent digital content piecemeal, and that may be why I don't find the :apple:TV compelling.

I still buy BR/DVD discs of movies and I really like and get 1-2 NetFlix per month for movies that are not on the channels I get, but most of my TV time is spent watching what's already on the TiVo available for instant viewing.

Take the TiVo HD DVRs. You can't attach just any hard drive to a TiVo HD DVR, it has to be a special, certified drive that is manufactured by Western Digital exclusively for the TiVo DVR. Furthermore, you can't use this drive to transfer content to a PC or even another TiVo because the content is stored in manner that can't be accessed from another device.

And you apparently don't own or use a TiVo.

Just because only the WD "PVR Expander" drive is the only one supported out of the box, it doesn't mean that your expansion capabilities are limited. First off the TiVo HD XL's stock 1 TB drive is enormous. A wide variety of upgrade kits and paths are available from other sources (i.e. http://www.weaknees.com and http://www.dvrupgrade.com).

TiVo Desktop/TiVo2Go and the third party iTiVo/pyTiVo let you move content back and forth over the network to/from your PC/Mac, including most HD content. (You are limited on what you can do with some VoD content you rent, say from Amazon or Netflix, but that is to be expected).

After almost three years of owning one, I find the :apple:TV to be the least compelling of the many Apple devices I have owned. I use the rest of them daily, while the :apple:TV only gets dusted off once in a blue moon. And then, I could just as easily have connected by MacBook to the TV since I don't rent content on the :apple:TV.

I've already got a cable subscription+TiVo service that delivers most of the content I want when I want it, and even suggests other programs I might like included for a monthly fee.

Maybe this is the kind of think Apple is trying to get the content providers to sign up to. Some sort of subscription service. Get 2 movies and 3 TV shows for $20-30/month. Though with the recent acquisition of NBC/Universal by Comcast I would no hold my breath to see them help create even more competition against standard cable.

B

stonewall123

Dec 10, 2009, 08:39 AM

My biggest problem with the :apple:TV is that it is not designed to sleep unlike every other Home Theater device (with the notable exception of PVRs). If I had a Mac mini hooked up to my TV 90% of the time it would be in sleep mode just waiting to be awakened. As it stands today, all the :apple:TV does 90% of the time is dissipate heat.

B

That's exactly why I haven't gotten one yet. Apple has done a great job reducing power consumption on nearly all of their hardware EXCEPT the appleTV. There is no way I'm buying one of those until they have better power management...

smurff

Dec 10, 2009, 09:21 AM

I agree with pretty much everything HobeSoundDarryl says. It just makes sense to me to push the ATV that way by giving people options. Blu-ray players are everywhere this Christmas season; I want a second one for my second tv so I can watch the movie either place; actually I'd like one in my iMac also so I could watch the movie in the bedroom if I wanted too.

If there was an ATV with a blu-ray option that would be what I buy but there's not so I'm forced to buy a standalone player. And some of them even stream your audio/video from your computer. Once I have that am I going to then go buy another device? Maybe or maybe not but I'd rather have one device that does both than to have to have 2 separate devices. As Apple has said many times they are in the hardware business.

Also, I don't buy the argument that Apple doesn't want blu-ray because it competes with iTunes. If that is the case then they wouldn't put DVD drives in their computers either. There are way more DVD movies sold than blu-ray movies and DVD is a direct competitor to iTunes so why would they allow you to have a DVD player in your computer when you could just buy that from iTunes?

I've also heard the argument about a blu-ray being overkill for a laptop or computer because the screen is so small you don't get the benefit of the hi-def. My argument would be it's not about getting hi-def on your laptop or pc screen but about convenience. If I bought a blu-ray movie for my home theater then why would I want to buy the same movie as a DVD to watch on my computer? Shouldn't I be able to just put the blu-ray in the computer and watch it? Come on Apple, give your computers a blu-ray option also!

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I like the way you think HobeSoundDarryl and I hope Apple is listening!

mstrze

Dec 10, 2009, 10:20 AM

Also, I don't buy the argument that Apple doesn't want blu-ray because it competes with iTunes. If that is the case then they wouldn't put DVD drives in their computers either. There are way more DVD movies sold than blu-ray movies and DVD is a direct competitor to iTunes so why would they allow you to have a DVD player in your computer when you could just buy that from iTunes?

Because DVD is now the de-facto software delivery and burnable storage medium. It has nothing to do with movies.

If what you were saying was true, then Apple would have made it simple to rip DVDs into iTunes, which they have not without additional applications. Since a run-of-the-mill user can't just simply drop a DVD into their iMac and add it to iTunes without jumping through hoops I don't think this is a valid argument. It is MUCH easier to add a movie though the iTunes store then by ripping from a DVD.

Costlier, sure...but also a simpler process. I bought the HD version of Star Trek and was watching it on my AppleTV within maybe 2 minutes. Could you do that through any other means involving ripping and the like? (Handbrake, etc)

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 10:40 AM

If what you were saying was true, then Apple would have made it simple to rip DVDs into iTunes, which they have not without additional applications. Since a run-of-the-mill user can't just simply drop a DVD into their iMac and add it to iTunes without jumping through hoops I don't think this is a valid argument. It is MUCH easier to add a movie though the iTunes store then by ripping from a DVD. Costlier, sure...but also a simpler process. I bought the HD version of Star Trek and was watching it on my AppleTV within maybe 2 minutes. Could you do that through any other means involving ripping and the like? (Handbrake, etc)

You're making an apples & oranges argument. His point was that if a BD player or player option will somehow undercut the precious iTunes revenue flow to Apple, why should Apple include DVD (or even CD) options either, as both ALSO cut into that iTunes revenue model. Why not just reset iTunes in the next version so that all content NOT purchased from the iTunes store will no longer work with iPods, iPhones and :apple:TVs? That is the maximum implementation of the discless, buy everything from iTunes at qualities chosen for you by Apple, vision. But we all- even Apple fanbois- would not accept that variation of Apple is right because how they choose to serve it is how we shall like it. Imagine the backlash!

Apple iTunes doesn't have an easy DVD rip option because of legal limitations, which are much more onerous than those governing CD ripping. So, yes it is EASIER to buy it (again) from iTunes rather than jumping through the the ripping hoops. But the point is that if someone already has the content, why not give them a next-gen option to play it through that box, instead of pushing them toward buying some other box instead that is compatible with the content they are already getting or own? I might counter that it is easier AND CHEAPER for content captured via TIVO/DVRs (not to mention higher quality) than buying and downloading it (at lower quality) from iTunes, but its not solely about how easy things are, but about being able to make the most of whatever content sources each individual has available. Apple could own this space if it wanted to do so.

In his case, a BD player built in or or as an optional add-on product would yield a sale of an :apple:TV. Since no such option exists, he is instead buying a SECOND BD player. What a fool to want to be able to enjoy his 1080p content NOW throughout his home, rather than just waiting until Apple finally gets around to serving up a 1080p capable :apple:TV so that he can then buy that same content again through iTunes,:rolleyes: What dummies some of us are for desiring an option to play what we already own with that ONE box (to rule them all)- the one that Apple could easily build (and open up enough for third parties to fill in the pieces they don't want to offer themselves).

mstrze

Dec 10, 2009, 11:17 AM

I don't think it was an Apples and oranges argument from my point of view Darryl...

smurff said or at least implied that DVD drives are included in Macs only to allow movies to be played or stored and if they weren't, Apple would not include them.

I simply pointed out that nearly every piece of software you bring home in a box today comes on a DVD and the DVD burner allows you to store gigs of data for archiving purposes, burning movie projects...etc. DVD is the current 'floppy'.

Including one in a computer has nothing to do with an ability to view movies at its core...it's a happy option!

You make some good arguments, but I still feel a BluRay option probably won't be tried, if only because most folks shy away from all-in-one concepts fro home theatre. I'm sure a few people would like an all-in-one solution, but most like to hook up new items to a receiver as they show up on the horizon:

Let's say I had a reciever with a built-in LaserDisc (the BIG ones) player, tape deck and phonograph. In the early 90s, it was all you could want, in one package. BUT, LD goes the way of the Dodo...but the 'drive' still handles CDs so I would be OK...yet DVDs show up...I have to buy a new player for that.

I guess I am saying that the all-in-one concept has been eschewed by the buying public over the last 20-30 years or so. Stereos with tape/8-track/phono were all the rage in the 70s, but it's rare to find complete all-in-one system now, or when you do, it's very limited.

I may be wrong, but I think the plug-and-play aspect of a home theatre system almost demands the ability to add and remove one thing at a time. Multi-units tend to be ignored by most.

And to change the AppleTv design to incorporate a drive, a BluRay drive at that ...a format that many say is already waning...seems like an odd prospect.

Sure, some folks may want an all in one unit like that...heck if itwere no more expensive or included by default in a souped-up ATV I would buy, but at this point I have no BluRay player and currently do not see a need to migrate toward another 'hard-copy' format again thanks to iTunes/ATV and the like.

I suppose though, for people that already have BluRay and for some reason need a new unit, your idea has merit.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 11:47 AM

I am not arguing for an all in one product. I'm arguing for an open product that can have add-ons from Apple or third parties. That is very much analogous to the receiver example you included. Think of this imagined next-gen :apple:TV as the "receiver" to which you can mix & match present day 8 track, Laser Disc, and so on pieces to suit individual tastes. Then all these buyers that would buy it if it only had __________ would at least have a way to get what they want from it. And when we arrive at the discless/DVR vision that is apparently preventing this from happening, those add-ons would just get used less and less, until they are finally pulled off the "receiver" and packed away or sold (just like other obsolete AV gear hooked to regular receivers).

I DON'T WANT APPLE TO FORCE AN ALL-IN-ONE :apple:TV on us as a sole next-generation option. What I would like to see from Apple is a 1080p full bandwidth core platform (very similar to today's model with mostly better (modern) hardware inside) with some extra expansion ports for them- or third parties- to be able to extend this "receiver" with add-ons for those that want it to do more than it does now (+ 1080p). The "one more thing" is an app store to open up the software side to third party extensions, and wallah! THAT would be one HOT product. I'll take 2 or 3 of these on day one. This concept can keep the price about the same (accessible to the masses), give Apple the Apple margin it likes, and make this thing the CE AV equivalent of the iPhone to the smart phone world.

If someone chooses to build and market a BD player add on (like that mini-stack box for the Mac Mini) and there is NO market for such a thing, then Apple loses nothing. But if there is a market for it, then Apple sells more :apple:TVs to guys like Smurf who is instead going to buy a SECOND BD player because he has that kind of content but NO WAY to play it through an :apple:TV purchase. Apple can't sell him ANY content through iTunes if there is not an :apple:TV added into his AV stack. So sell him one for his BD needs now, and win his "easier" (to download it from) iTunes business when he can't run to the store, or can't wait for netflix to deliver the discs, etc.

If someone (like Elgato) chooses to build and market a DVR add on, and there is NO market for such a thing, then Apple loses nothing. But if there is a market for it, Apple sells more :apple:TVs.

See the pattern here? It doesn't sell many :apple:TVs by locking into the opposite view though.

I guess in very simple terms, I think EVERYONE would be better off if Apple let the market decide what it wants from a next-gen :apple:TV rather than arbitrarily deciding for us. Apple knows this works by relatively open(?) options with its computers, and with the massive success of the app store, etc. So why not?

From my own point of view, I could care less about BD or DVR options, but I can get behind an open system that would allow such options to be added on for those that want them. What irks me to no end is that I have all these precious home movies shot on a 1080p camcorder, rendered in 1080p by Apple's iMovie package, on Apple's machines, inserted into Apple's iTunes where it will playback just fine, but the one remaining link in the chain just can't pump that content to the HDTV that can otherwise display it (without a very noticeable downgrade in picture quality). For me, just a 1080p capable next-gen :apple:TV would be "enough", though I love the idea of what a more open platform could lead to in terms of add-ons and app store applications dreamed up by innovative third parties (just look at some of the cool stuff the hackers have done with the existing platform FOR FREE).

mstrze

Dec 10, 2009, 11:55 AM

Agreed Darryl....

I can't imagine that a 1080 option wouldn't be available IF there is a refresh of ATV. I also am in your camp that that would be 'enough' for me...yet I would gladly stick with my current unit as, unlike others here, I use it far more than anything else. We even dropped DirecTV for 6 months as a sort-of experiment to see if we could live without it. We can and do...watching HDTV live and seeing any shows we want on AppleTV. I'm sure we are missing some things, but the cost savings is awesome...even with purchasing shows through iTunes.

I guess we will see this coming spring? Maybe a true Apple Television is the way they are going? Or something completely different? It's happened before.

Since the screens are getting so huge...won't be long before the iMacs rival the HDTV on my wall...it's already as large as my family's old console TV from the 70s. LOL. Just set up your iMac in the TV room and attach it to the wall!

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 12:21 PM

Since the screens are getting so huge...won't be long before the iMacs rival the HDTV on my wall...it's already as large as my family's old console TV from the 70s. LOL. Just set up your iMac in the TV room and attach it to the wall!

Well just when I was about to buy the Quad 27" iMac, now I'll have to wait for the 65" version.;)

But more seriously, part of my business is about helping companies sell more of their products. And when I see an opportunity this big- and this obvious- it makes me a bit crazy to not see the company who could do it the best not pouncing all over it. I love my :apple:TV. Several features on their own easily justify what I paid for it. But it is obvious how much better it could be if Apple only summoned up the will to make it as described.

Getting entrenched in everyone's living room resolves a lot of related issues offered up as excuses (such as "there's no need for a 1080p :apple:TV until there is 1080p content available from iTunes"). Get entrenched in every living room... outsell the BD and DVR players and the Studios will make the deals to sell their content through the device that is dug in the deepest. Or, stick to the guns "as is", and watch those studios- and others- show more support for everything else to try to keep Apple from gaining dominance over the video industry (like they have with the music industry).

I fully believe this is Apple's to take... or lose. And I can't understand why they don't take it (yesterday). It is a massive business, probably many times bigger than the "tablet", bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the Mac side. And it's begging for someone like Apple to fill in the missing pieces and (again) WOW the public.

If this next-gen :apple:TV I've described in this thread was available now, how many do you think they would sell as gifts to non-Apple fanatics this Christmas?

fpnc

Dec 10, 2009, 01:39 PM

New hardware will be released 1st 1/4 2010- similar looking to existing model- 1 or 2tb option, same features plus App store- with BBC iplayer app etc... and movies will go from 720p to 1080p. UK pricing will be £249 for 1tb and £349 for the 2tb option...:)
I doubt that Apple will be transitioning to 1080p movies anytime soon. The infrastructure for quality, internet-based 1080p just isn't here yet. The only thing that might force this is a consumer stampede to competitive services that offer highly-over-compressed 1080p-like streams (such as the 2Mbps to 4Mbps streams being offered by YouTube and Microsoft). Frankly, I hope we don't see that happen. I'd rather have a mildly over-compressed 720p movie at 4Mbps (today's iTunes format) rather than some horribly over-compressed 1080p format that is HD quality in name only.

Furthermore, if they begin to offer 1080p movies what is going to happen to the existing Apple TV owners? Will Apple have to download three separate versions of the movie (iPod/iPhone, old Apple TV 720p, new Apple TV 1080p) each time someone buys an HD movie from the iTunes Store? For pure streaming (i.e. not purchased downloads) they could auto-detect the playback device but then we're back to the infrastructure question. You'd need about 2X the current data rate of 720p to support 1080p. Let's say 8Mbps which would probably exceed the available bandwidth for the majority of current users (in fact, it could be worse than that since you'd need some extra bandwidth to prevent hiccups in the system -- let's estimate at least 12Mbps).

You also then have the issue of on-demand 1080p going head-to-head against Blu-ray distribution. The content providers aren't going to jump on that bandwagon anytime soon (at least not at competitive prices and near-equal quality).

If I had to put a timeframe on wide adaption of internet-based 1080p content I'd say it will happen in another 5 years or so at which time Apple could just completely drop support for new 720p content. Of course, for this to happen Apple would have to have introduced an Apple TV capable of 1080p playback which will probably happen within the next year. This would give them several years of installed base with the new hardware before they basically end-of-life the original Apple TV.

As for drive capacity, the more the better (at reasonable costs). However, there aren't any 2TB drives in the 2.5" form factor and even 1TB drives in that format are rare (and somewhat costly at $200+ per device). Apple could switch to using full-size 3.5" drives in the Apple TV but that would make the device larger (obviously) and it might also increase the power draw and heat generated by the Apple TV (neither of which would be a good thing).

As far as storage capacity, what Apple needs to do is work out a deal where content can be stored on a externally attached drive so that users can easily upgrade their storage when needed or desired. This might require some new licensing terms with the content providers but I would think that Apple could work out some kind of deal where the content on the external drive would receive additional forms of copy protection (perhaps with encryption of the entire device).

fpnc

Dec 10, 2009, 02:24 PM

Take the TiVo HD DVRs. You can't attach just any hard drive to a TiVo HD DVR, it has to be a special, certified drive that is manufactured by Western Digital exclusively for the TiVo DVR. Furthermore, you can't use this drive to transfer content to a PC or even another TiVo because the content is stored in manner that can't be accessed from another device.
...And you apparently don't own or use a TiVo...
Why is that? Everything I said is true. Whereas you said in your original statement:
...What is exclusive to :apple:TV today again? (besides being the only Mac OS X 10.4 box available to buy new today. ) ...
Which is demonstrably incorrect and the reason I presumed you had little experience with the Apple TV.

As for the remainder of your comments about the TiVo, I never disputed or even touch upon those other topics. I was merely using the TiVo DVR hard drive situation as an example of the limits that are typically placed on the devices that are used with protected content.

Specifically (which is all that I said originally), you can't use one of the TiVo/WD DVR Expanders to physically transfer media between two systems (that is, you can't disconnect the drive from one system and attach it to another and still retain access to the media that was recorded/stored on the original device). Is that not true?

Frankly, however, I've owned two TiVo DVRs over the last several years but I stopped using them because it was actually cheaper to rent a digital DVR from the cable company. That and the fact that the hard drives in DVRs typically fail about every two years (and if you rent you just need to return the defective device, not repair and/or buy a new one). I base that failure rate upon the four or five DVRs that I've used over the last ten years.

JoEw

Dec 10, 2009, 02:52 PM

AppleTV needs to have more then just allowing users to stream music and video on there TV. They need to market it as the ultimate media device for there TV Entertainment Center. It needs to be able to play DVD/Blu-Ray, needs to have radio, and high end stereo receiver features. At the moment AppleTV's appeal is only for watching TV and Movies people purchase or rent on iTunes. And if they want AppleTV be successful it needs to do more then just that.

NightStorm

Dec 10, 2009, 02:59 PM

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 03:17 PM

All of that for $200? While I agree, the AppleTV needs to have an expanded feature set (although I don't see Bluray/DVR functionality), I think you are taking it to the far extreme.

Agreed. That's why I think the "open" platform with add-on options (for additional costs) is the way to go. Thus if he wants all that in one box, and (probably) third parties choose to actually make all that available as add-on options, he could spend that (probably) $700-1500 more to get that kind of ultimate box.

But these people that just want it to also be one more thing (a BD player, a DVR, a central iTunes content repository, etc) could spend just a little more for those add-ons to get what they want.

I really don't want Apple to (again) arbitrarily decide on closed features of a next-gen :apple:TV (such as building in BD as a fixed feature, thus forcing those of us who want a better :apple:TV- but not necessarily BD hardware in it- to have to accept Apple's new mandate of how we want to get it as they want to serve it to us.

But if Apple would develop an "open" platform for the next-gen, then they or third parties could offer additional options at additional cost so that all those more mainstream features it lacks now could at least have a way to get addressed for those who are willing to pay for them. Apple could keep the cost around the current level by just building in 1080p hardware (and we know they can do it because there are many other little boxes on the market retailing at less than :apple:TV pricing with 1080p hardware cores), with even a few open USB ports for third parties like Elgato to potentially fulfill these other wishes. That so much makes sense to me, and seems like it would be win:win for everyone involved.

JoEw

Dec 10, 2009, 03:23 PM

All of that for $200?

While I agree, the AppleTV needs to have an expanded feature set (although I don't see Bluray/DVR functionality), I think you are taking it to the far extreme.

obviously i think it would cost a lot more then $200 the point i am trying to make is that i would rather pay 500 or 600 for a full on media center then 200 hundred for something that plays my stuff i have purchased from itunes.

JoEw

Dec 10, 2009, 03:29 PM

Agreed. That's why I think the "open" platform with add-on options (for additional costs) is the way to go. Thus if he wants all that in one box, and (probably) third parties choose to actually make all that available as add-on options, he could spend that (probably) $700-1500 more to get that kind of ultimate box.

But these people that just want it to also be one more thing (a BD player, a DVR, a central iTunes content repository, etc) could spend just a little more for those add-ons to get what they want.

I really don't want Apple to (again) arbitrarily decide on closed features of a next-gen :apple:TV (such as building in BD as a fixed feature, thus forcing those of us who want a better :apple:TV- but not necessarily BD hardware in it- to have to accept Apple's new mandate of how we want to get it as they want to serve it to us.

But if Apple would develop an "open" platform for the next-gen, then they or third parties could offer additional options at additional cost so that all those more mainstream features it lacks now could at least have a way to get addressed for those who are willing to pay for them. Apple could keep the cost around the current level by just building in 1080p hardware (and we know they can do it because there are many other little boxes on the market retailing at less than :apple:TV pricing with 1080p hardware cores), with even a few open USB ports for third parties like Elgato to potentially fulfill these other wishes. That so much makes sense to me, and seems like it would be win:win for everyone involved.

I like the idea of having some sort of extension platform but knowing apple it would not likely be open source i think it would be a lot like the app store.

there should at least be DVD/CD slot. It is pretty inexpensive for apple to build in. I might consider buying it if It could have least play DVD/CD's and had as you said some sort of 3rd party apps to run on it.

balamw

Dec 10, 2009, 03:58 PM

So, in a limited time window, some content may be available for rent exclusively on the :apple:TV that's not (yet) available on iTunes for Mac/PC/iPod/iPhone.

I am happy to wait until it becomes available on "regular" iTunes, or just find another way to get the content delivered to me (VoD, NetFlix, buy the disc...)

That may be the key difference between us, and why you find it more compelling than I do at this point. I don't get to watch what I want to watch when I want to (I have young kids) so I am well used to waiting to watch something. If I really can't wait, I've already seen it in the theaters. So rentals are wasted on me 'cause I can't guarantee I'll get my money's worth.

Pre-Hulu I found some utility in being able to buy a missed episode of a favorite show from iTunes and watch it on my :apple:TV, but now if we miss something for one reason or another it's just easier to hook the MacBook up and watch the show on Hulu or the station's website. I have also bought several seasons (mainly of of kids shows) on iTunes, to get things off of the DVR and compensate/encourage the creators of content I enjoy.

Youtube on the :apple:TV was fun for a while too, but the TiVo has it too, and in many ways it's just easier to watch on the iPhone

I was merely using the TiVo DVR hard drive situation as an example of the limits that are typically placed on the devices that are used with protected content.

My point was slightly different. The port may be limited, but the function is not.

While you are not able transfer content by sticking a random HDD or flash drive into the TiVo's USB (or eSATA) port, most content can easily be transferred/moved/archived/converted using network tools provided by TiVo as well as some written by third parties.

So, in reality how is that a limitation?

And while you are strongly encouraged to use a WD PVR expander, there is still nothing stopping you from performing a DIY drive-ectomy, just like you can with the :apple:TV.

Again, where is the limitation?

FWIW I've owned 6 different DVRs over the past 12 years myself, three of them flavors of TiVo. None have failed, though I did upgrade the hard drives on 3 of them myself. Usually they were replaced/upgraded before they had a chance to fail.

I only managed to tolerate the most-recent non-TiVo for 6 weeks this summer. I could save about $1.99/month going back to the FiOS DVR, ($14.99 vs. $12.99 + $3.99) but it just doesn't fit our viewing style due to the crappy UI and its tiny non-expandable HDD.

Due to our viewing style I really need to be able to put a movie "on ice" for a few weeks or a month before I get around to watching the whole thing. (Due to the whole kids thing). I can't do that with a tiny 40 GB HDD.

B

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 10, 2009, 04:46 PM

I like the idea of having some sort of extension platform but knowing apple it would not likely be open source i think it would be a lot like the app store.

Just to clarify, when I refer to "open", I'm not thinking "open source". By "open" I mean normal USB port functionality, maybe a programmers kit to build onto a core platform (just like the one they have for the iphone/ipod touch), and maybe another USB port or three (so that a couple of add ons could be added on without also adding a port multiplier). All that still can keep the cost at or below the current price level- even with 1080p hardware upgrades.

fpnc

Dec 10, 2009, 05:36 PM

So, in a limited time window, some content may be available for rent exclusively on the :apple:TV that's not (yet) available on iTunes for Mac/PC/iPod/iPhone...
Like I said previously, the ratio is at least ten to one which isn't my definition of "some." You can confirm this yourself even without having an Apple TV by noting how many of the movies include the following disclaimer on the iTunes Store: "Also Available in HD on Apple TV."

Furthermore, on the Apple TV you can randomly select movies under different categories and genre and you'll find that about 25% of the movies are available for rent and/or purchase in HD. That suggests that there are several thousand HD movies available on the Apple TV when up until last month there were only about twenty available for rent/purchase on the Mac/PC. In any case, it now appears that there are one to two hundred HD movies available on the Mac/PC, but the numbers still vastly favor the Apple TV. Here is a link that documented this change:

http://www.theiphonespot.net/2009/11/11/apple-greatly-increases-itunes-hd-movie-selection/

While you are not able transfer content by sticking a random HDD or flash drive into the TiVo's USB (or eSATA) port...
I guess that's your confirmation that my original statement was correct. It's actually worse than that, however. Isn't it true that if you remove the DVR Expander disk from the TiVo you lose all of the content that was recorded/stored on the TiVo (i.e. even content that was on the internal drive)? What this basically means is that once you attach the DVR Expander to a TiVo it is basically mated to that one device permanently (unless you'll willing to lose all of the content that you've added since the disk was attached). This is actually a pretty clever mechanism since it dissuades you from even trying to detach the external drive.

I'm not certain why this behavior is so onerous, but I suspect that it is a system to enforce managed copies (or sharing) of the protected content on the TiVo DVR. That's my only point, I'm not claiming that the TiVo lacks options or that it isn't a good product.

As for my use of the Apple TV, I actually purchase or rent very little TV or movie content from iTunes. I do, however, purchase a fair amount of music and music videos since iTunes is probably the best source for that form of content. I also watch a fair number of podcasts, to be honest I think some of the free podcast content on iTunes is better than what you'll typically find on the TV networks. For example, the TED podcasts ( http://www.ted.com/ ) are often both entertaining and informative.

balamw

Dec 11, 2009, 08:27 AM

I do hope Apple finds a way to turn this hobby into a business! They just haven't found a niche that scratches one of my itches for long with it though...

The iTunes store is a wonderful thing, and I am a good customer in both the music and TV departments (as previously mentioned archival seasons of kids shows mainly). However, it's still not the only game in town. I do check Amazon's MP3 store and if it's a newer album I particularly like look to see if I can get the CD for the same price as the download, or if it's an older album, check to see if it might be available on yourmusic.com for $6.99.

I'm not certain why this behavior is so onerous, but I suspect that it is a system to enforce managed copies (or sharing) of the protected content on the TiVo DVR.

However, copies are handled via the network connection. It's not very good enforcement if you can achieve the same end through a different port.

What you describe is just a by-product of the way they chose to organize their file system. Effectively when you use a two drive TiVo (even if both drives are internal), the two drives become part of a software-quasi-RAID with content scattered between the two drives, probably for load balancing reasons**. When you remove one of the drives you could be removing half of the transport stream for one movie. Hence, once the drives are "married" they can't be taken apart without losing data.

(** Which I think arose more from the fact that they were right on the edge of performance when they first came out. Think about what the original Series 1 devices were capable of doing. Encoding two analog streams to MPEG2 and saving them to HDD while decoding another. All this using an ATA/100 bus and much slower drives than we have today. The new machines have it easy since the stream comes in already in digital form, and the drives are on SATA.).

B

fpnc

Dec 11, 2009, 11:30 AM

...However, copies are handled via the network connection. It's not very good enforcement if you can achieve the same end through a different port...
That's called managed copy (see my previous post), because they can still control what you can share or transfer. I think you've already said that there are some restrictions on what files you can transfer (i.e. not every file can be moved to your PC, etc.). The same is true on the Apple TV, there are certain protected sources that you can't transfer back to your Mac/PC.

What you describe is just a by-product of the way they chose to organize their file system. Effectively when you use a two drive TiVo (even if both drives are internal), the two drives become part of a software-quasi-RAID with content scattered between the two drives, probably for load balancing reasons**. When you remove one of the drives you could be removing half of the transport stream for one movie. Hence, once the drives are "married" they can't be taken apart without losing data...
That's true and it's one of the reasons I previously called this a "clever mechanism" because it's so easy for them to implement, but it doesn't change anything that I've previously discussed and it may be more than just a happy coincidence that this also prevents you from using the drive to move anything you want to another location (like your friend's PC). While you could always remove both drives (internal and external) and try to move or copy managed content that's just too inconvenient for most people and thus it's probably enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread hacking of content that they don't want moved to another TiVo or PC.

joelusa

Dec 12, 2009, 10:53 PM

I say let the Apple tv run apps from the App store. Let the market determine what the Apple tv is.

godslabrat

Dec 12, 2009, 11:28 PM

Just to use myself as an example: I have a dedicated DVR and BluRay player. I like them. I chose those devices specifically because they suit my home theater. However, I also have several smaller sets around the house, and two parents who could use some sort of on-demand content device for their home. As it stands, I won't buy an AppleTV for my house because BluRay players are so cheap, and if I'm going to have just one device, that'd be it. I'm strongly considering putting an AppleTV in both my mother's and father's houses... but am very annoyed at the low specs of the unit.

HOWEVER, if Apple were to give me the option to use it as a DVR or BluRay player, I wouldn't even be thinking about this. I'd have an AppleTV in each room of the house, and would have another two on their way to mom and dad. Adding this functionality would change me from "Well, I might buy one, if it ends up being the way to go..." to "How fast can I have four?" And that's four AppleTV units that could be buying iTunes content as well.

At LEAST add 1080p support. There is just no reason not to.

jlasoon

Dec 13, 2009, 05:56 AM

At LEAST add 1080p support. There is just no reason not to.

The difference between 1080p BluRay and AppleTV 720p is irrelevant on anything smaller than 60 inches. I have both units and to be honest I've found myself renting more and more from itunes than I have from Netflix. I'm down to 1 BluRay movie out at a time with Netflix, and I might just drop them altogether. The BluRay concept isn't compelling at all.

The difference is minimal and definitely not a game changer. I would much rather have a dedicated app store for the AppleTV.

kiranmk2

Dec 13, 2009, 10:16 AM

With 1080p it doesn't matter whether can can see the difference between 720p and 1080p - the digital camera "megapixel battle" showed that people assume the bigger number the better, so these days everything "needs" 1080p on the box to sell to the mass market.

See also "dynamic contrast ratio" and 200 Hz screens - pointless marketing terms.

idunn

Dec 13, 2009, 05:45 PM

There are a lot of good ideas on this thread, which Apple should pay attention to. They really should, if they wish their iTunes and ATV franchise to survive and thrive.

What Apple will soon discover is that the increasing size of HDTV televisions, the rapidly decreasing prices of same, increasing library of Blue-Ray media, rapidly decreasing prices of same, will effectively do an end run around their business model.

I love iTunes for its convenience. I much prefer shopping online and having something now (relatively) than running down to the store, waiting for NetFlix, or a physical delivery from Amazon. Moreover, it is much nicer to have all media easily accessed with little more than a click of a button than the (admittedly minor) hassle of sorting through DVDs or CDs.

HOWEVER, and I am probably not alone in this, all I want is to watch what I want when I want. In offering this, Apple and every other content provider has yet to deliver. In Apple's case they have yet to offer 1080p media, so their service worthless for those increasingly demanding such a standard. Also, due the limited size of its internal hard drive, ATV is not the simple plug and play device it purports to be; once someone fills that hard drive (which will invariably happen) they find themselves in the unhappy position of learning more about IT than ever wanting to know. A good many people can just about handle putting a Blue-Ray disc in the slot, and while they might appreciate having a unified library and download on demand, will not be willing (or able) to jump through any hoops to achieve it. Even if willing to forsake 1080p quality (which they increasingly will not), they'll stick with what they can do and understand, with shelfs full of Blue-Ray media to prove it.

Apple could solve a lot of this, and increase their revenue, by realizing they have this back asswards. Rather than on what they want to offer, their business model will depend on most easily getting the desired media up on someone's large HDTV television. The provider that does that best will prevail; if iTunes and ATV cannot or will not they will rapidly fade from existence.

I'm also not buying the issue of copyrights in this matter. As important as they are, and of concern to studios and all providers, it should be self-evident in this age of technology that preserving the broader audience is the best they can hope for. There was a recent program on '60 Minutes' about the trouble they have with guys with cameras in theaters. People willing to watch such low quality dredge will have no problem with the offering of someone creative enough to do a screen capture. But the broader, larger audience will likely happily pay a fair price for quality and convenience. Outfits such as Hulu point a certain (limited) direction forward; in time most media will probably be electronically delivered. Those concerned with preserving existing business models are still living in the 20th century. Online media is still treated like a poor stepchild to broadcast.

Quality and a measure of convenience presently comes in the form of Blue-Ray discs, or watching what is broadcast. Convenience can be had via iTunes and ATV until running up against the space limitations of ATV. If wanting any program extant at the push of a button, no one currently offers that.

Apple could get a lot closer to it by not only offering 1080p through ATV, but also via iTunes. That means a compressed movie file of about 8GB, but even via the lower echelon of 'broadband' it is feasible. But Apple also needs to seriously address the space limitations of ATV. About the only reason I can see to own one is to download HD content they do not otherwise offer. But one might notice they are rapidly increasing HD offerings for direct download, sans ATV. Either way, one will soon max out the storage capacity of an ATV, with the average customer then flummoxed in what to do then. That is unacceptable. Apple has made their reputation on ease of use, and this one critical area where they need to excel in it. They should offer 'plug and play' for all the storage one might ever want.

Then also the question of streaming content. Some movies I'll hold onto forever. Other movies or tv programs are of but passing interest, perhaps watched but once. In some cases not at all sure I want to buy them. One option I would like, is to be able to purchase a rented movie, rather than have it just expire. At minimum it saves having to download it twice, again just that much more convenient. It might not be a bad business model for Apple, in effect being a broadcaster of a wide range of media one also has the option of buying. They could opt either to charge for the initial rental, or perhaps free with inclusion of advertising.

One thing I'm fairly sure of, ATV cannot exist much longer as it is.

fpnc

Dec 13, 2009, 07:34 PM

There are a lot of good ideas on this thread, which Apple should pay attention to. They really should, if they wish their iTunes and ATV franchise to survive and thrive...
Your entire post seems to ignore that fact that it is the media companies and not Apple that control the quality and cost of the movies that are being offered through the iTunes Store. Apple can't just say, "Oh, let's offer everything in 1080p and at a price that is competitive with Blu-ray discs." It's no coincidence that all of the online media outlets are basically offering the same content, at the same resolutions, and at the same prices (or nearly so, exceptions are probably being done for marketing tests and for special promotions). Furthermore, the movie companies don't want Apple (or anyone else for that matter) to grow to the same level of dominance that Apple has already achieved with music on the iTunes Store.

As for your comment about 8GB downloads being feasible for the "lower echelon of broadband," well I think that's somewhat questionable. The average broadband speed in the U.S. is about 5Mbps which means that an 8GB download would take about 4 hours (at best and while consuming 100% of a user's bandwidth). Practically speaking, you'd have to begin the download the night before you wanted to view the movie which might be okay except that if everyone started to use bandwidth at that rate the internet would basically slow to a crawl. That's why I suggested in an earlier post that it could be another 5 years before quality, high-bit-rate, 1080p streaming and delivery becomes commonplace here in the U.S.

Note this statement from the Communications Workers of America (CWA):
“Between 2007 and 2009, the average download speed in the United States has increased by only 1.6 megabits per second (mbps), from 3.5 mbps in 2007 to 5.1 mbps in 2009,” the CWA explains in its report. “At this rate, it will take the United States 15 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea, the country with the fastest average Internet connections.”

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090826/cwa/

South Korea has an average speed just over 20Mbps which is a speed at which quality 1080p should become practical (and then some). In an earlier post I estimated that a broadband speed of somewhere between 8Mbps and 12Mbps would be required to support 1080p streaming ("instant" on). If you take the rates of improvement cited by CWA that means it will be another four years before the average user in the U.S. will have the bandwidth to support that type of service.

In any case, I do think Apple will update the Apple TV hardware within the next year. When they do that it will make sense for them to support 1080p decoding on the Apple TV, but that doesn't mean that they will immediately offer downloads at 1080p.

So, in 2010 expect a new Apple TV with 1080p decode support, larger storage options (or interface to a high-capacity, standalone iTunes Media server), and possibly some support for third-party applications akin to the App Store for the iPhone/iPod touch (sandboxed, controlled, and not a completely open platform).

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 13, 2009, 07:52 PM

Your entire post seems to ignore that fact that it is the media companies and not Apple that control the quality and cost of the movies that are being offered through the iTunes Store. Apple can't just say, "Oh, let's offer everything in 1080p and at a price that is competitive with Blu-ray discs." It's no coincidence that all of the online media outlets are basically offering the same content, at the same resolutions, and at the same prices (or nearly so, exceptions are probably being done for marketing tests and for special promotions).

If the current :apple:TV had been 1080p capable from the beginning. And if the mass market chose :apple:TVs for the last few years instead of BD players and (later purchaser) DVD players such that a 1080p :apple:TV was as prevalent at BD players are today, the studios would experiement with 1080p downloads, find that they will outsell handicapped 720p, and 1080p content would be rapidly growing on iTunes.

The studios just want to sell their content- as much as possible. A few studios chose to exclusively support HD-DVD and not BD. Then when HD-DVD as a format folded, they changed their minds and switched to BD. If BD failed but a 1080p :apple:TV succeeded (that is, it sold big time to the masses), how long do you think the studios could resist as a group?

1080p podcasts would come out. 1080p captures from DVRs would start showing up as "alternatives". Etc. The pressure to compete would build. The internal pressure for profit would build. And boom, 1080p experiments would begin on iTunes. If they found that 1080p outsold 720p, more 1080p content would be added.

However, "as is", it's impossible to play 1080p studio content on hardware that can't do it anyway. So there is little reason to experiment with 1080p content on iTunes, and thus the Studios push their best to mediums (and hardware) that can play it back (and where the money is).

Other than the fear of Apple dominating the video industry like they are dominating the music industry, the studios just want to sell their stuff. And if :apple:TV was as appealing for the home as iPods and iPhones are for what they do, the Studios would have little choice but to play ball with Apple.

This is Apple's next big thing to take... or to lose.

As to the broadband problem. That is a real problem for the U.S. But some of those kinds of problems aren't addressed until they become a revenue problem for broadband carriers (much like AT&T looks like they are finally feeling enough pressure to actually have to put some serious money into building out their network). Some parts of the world- and some parts of this country- are not so limited in high-speed broadband. So, opportunities for 1080p broadband distribution on a global scale have existed for Apple for some time.

If we have to wait until the U.S. companies that control the broadband pipes will expand the plumbing because they want to do so, even 5 years probably won't be enough. But making 1080p content available should not be delayed because the likes of Comcasts and AT&Ts and others have not yet given "us" the bandwidth.

idunn

Dec 13, 2009, 09:27 PM

I wish I had 5Mps of download speed. You don't even want to hear what a fight it has been with Qwest to get a reliable 1.5Mps (in actuality 1.3Mps, at best). I consider that lower echelon 'broadband.' Yet I can still download the average movie (not in HD), say 1.2GB, in less than 3 hours. Hardly wonderful, but given my location it is still preferable to driving somewhere, etc. I have downloaded HD content from iTunes, and would 1080p if it were available. Doesn't require 100% of internet resources, but does slow all else down. My understanding that at least in metro areas download speeds are appreciably better, if certainly not matching that of Japan or South Korea.

Be that as it may, Apple still has to contend with the realities on the ground. The average customer doesn't know or care what their licensing agreement with studios may be, only in what provides them the best overall experience. If that means forsaking iTunes and ATV for Blue Ray media, they will. Apple could help its cause by at minimum allowing their ATV to transmit 1080p. If not knowing the ins and outs of their licensing agreements, my presumption that content providers will be happiest with the widest possible circulation at the highest possible price. They do themselves no favors in short sheeting online providers, such as Apple.

Personally, my two biggest issues with ATV are problematic storage options and the lack of 1080p, and probably not alone in this. Allowance for such sites as Hulu would be nice as well. But this is academic, the average customer wants the easiest solution towards what they want on the HDTV set, favoring those offering results rather than excuses.

kiranmk2

Dec 14, 2009, 06:12 AM

The thing is Apple was wise enough to make the iPod support not only AAC, but also the popular mp3 format. This meant people could rip their CDs to their iPod and once they enjoyed having all their music with them they would be encouraged to use the iTunes store. The problem of a similar approach for the ATV is that it is technically illegal to rip your DVDs at the moment which I guess is why Apple don't support the .mkv format. It's a shame as .mkv has a lot of advantages over m4v including DTS audio, but it is used a lot for pirated material.

NightStorm

Dec 14, 2009, 07:53 AM

JonHimself

Dec 14, 2009, 08:58 AM

I've spent a good amount of time reading through this thread and even though it's just my opinion and it's no more or less valid than anyone elses, I think that a lot of people not only want this device to be something that I don't think Apple intends it to be but they also seem to not have a grasp of the largest group of people that would be purchasing this device.

I don't think this device is meant to be a replacement for all of our current media devices but (in traditional Apple fasion) represents a NEW media device. From Apple's perspective (in my opinion) they want people to purchase their movies and tv shows from iTunes (more on that later). I don't think they're intending to create one device to rule them all, but rather one device to create a new way of watching tv (Tv. Reinvented (copyright))

My second point is who the device is targetted at. I see a lot of people mentioning that it needs DVR, it needs Bluray, it needs 1080P, it needs 5.1 and 7.1 surround sound, it needs to support MKV files and DTS audio. Now consider the following sentence, "I won't purchase an AppleTV until it supports MKV files, decoding of DTS audio and displays full 1080p resolutions" NOW consider repeating that sentence to your boyfriend/girlfriend, coworkers, people in Best Buy asking what the difference between 1080p, 802.11n, and 1TB or asking if LCD is the same thing as HD and think about how much of that statement they would understand. I'm a tech nerd and love to be on the cutting edge but am also realistic enough to realize that a good portion of people don't share the enthusiasm and probably are content with 720p and would never even notice the difference. (As an example and not at all representative of anything, my parents recently called me to say they finally got HD. When I showed up they had an LCD, HD satellite received but had it hooked up with composite cables, had the picture cropped and didn't even realize that NBC had a standard definition channel AND an HD channel).

Apple products (at least their most recent media-related devices) are not about being the most technologically advanced but seem to be more about getting the most amount of people to be able to use their products with little to no trouble. The iPod doesn't support all the codecs people want it to, probably doesn't have the best DAC.. the iPhone doesn't have the fastest processor, the best resolution, the best camera, etc.. and the Apple TV doesn't support full 1080p, every (or even some) video codecs or allow us to attach external hard drives, etc. Being restricted hasn't seemed to hamper the other two devices in terms of success.

For me, the solution is simple and isn't entirely in Apple's hands (which I think is very important in looking at why the device has taken so long to be pushed/advertised/adopted). In order for the AppleTV to "succeed" they need to do the following - slight bump in specs, not to 1080p but just to be able to handle 720p flawlessly, increased hard drive size to reduce dependence on iTunes, some kind of App Store (things like adding weather, customizing the screen saver/adopting a "home" screen, MLB at bat, news feeds, etc), subscription service for movies and tv shows and a big advertising campaigning.

Unfortunately, I think the most important part of that (the content) is out of their hands. I will admit that I download all of my TV shows in HD mkv files and spend the time converting and tagging them to get them to work with AppleTV. Movies are done similarly, though I do find I'm purchasing more and more Bluray movies, ripping them and storing them. If Apple was able to offer a subscription service (even if it was 30-40$/month) and all of my content that I download in HD was available in HD, I would sign-up (that's the "new" way for Apple - subscription iTunes will mostly replace my cable bill and my need to purchase movies... doesn't cover live sports, but this isn't a perfect solution, I don't think there ever will be). I think the biggest piece of the puzzle is easily accessible content and right now it's hindered by hard-drive size (for longer-term storage) and availability. A subcription service limits your reliance on hard drive size and getting the networks to sign-up helps with the availability.

Anyways, this became one of those long posts that will likely get glazed over, sorry.

fpnc

Dec 14, 2009, 12:40 PM

JonHimself is correct on almost every point.

I do think, however, that Apple will sneak in 1080p in the next hardware update to the Apple TV. What I mean is that it might have 1080p capabilities but there won't be any introduction of 1080p to the iTunes Store. Kind of like the situation with the iPhone 3GS and latest iPod touch, which can both play 720p videos and yet iTunes won't allow you to transfer such content to either unit (but I'll admit that there's really little point to watching HD on the iPhone/iPod's small screen).

Tilpots

Dec 14, 2009, 01:06 PM

If Apple was able to offer a subscription service (even if it was 30-40$/month) and all of my content that I download in HD was available in HD, I would sign-up (that's the "new" way for Apple - subscription iTunes will mostly replace my cable bill and my need to purchase movies... doesn't cover live sports, but this isn't a perfect solution, I don't think there ever will be). I think the biggest piece of the puzzle is easily accessible content and right now it's hindered by hard-drive size (for longer-term storage) and availability. A subcription service limits your reliance on hard drive size and getting the networks to sign-up helps with the availability.

Live sports and live news. Include a tuner and DVR into the AppleTV and these are no longer obstacles. Almost every major sporting event and major news event is covered by the big networks. These networks broadcast their signal FOR FREE into the vast majority of American homes. Until they put broadcast TV in the AppleTV, the "non tech people" will never, ever buy this equipment en masse.

If you include the DVR, and only if you include the DVR, you can then put together an iTunes subscription package of what the cable and satellite companies offer that will prompt enough people to drop cable or satellite and buy in to Apple's iTMS. The one cannot coexist successfully without the other. At least not until every content provider can provide their viewers with live streams of their programming.

A DVR does not add a significant cost, it does not take away sales from the iTMS (exactly the opposite), and it gives consumers a choice in how they receive their home entertainment. An iPhone replaces a traditional phone with 10x the upside, an iPod replaces a walkman and a boom box among many other things, the AppleTV replaces nothing currently, and until it does, it will remain a failure. My use of the word failure is not meant to start an argument. It's the only product we never see sales figure touted. It's the only general consumer product that gets zero advertising. It's the only product Apple produces which the distance themselves from by using the term "hobby." If they saw it as a success, wouldn't Apple treat it differently?

JonHimself

Dec 14, 2009, 01:23 PM

Live sports and live news. Include a tuner and DVR into the AppleTV and these are no longer obstacles. Almost every major sporting event and major news event is covered by the big networks. These networks broadcast their signal FOR FREE into the vast majority of American homes. Until they put broadcast TV in the AppleTV, the "non tech people" will never, ever buy this equipment en masse.

If you include the DVR, and only if you include the DVR, you can then put together an iTunes subscription package of what the cable and satellite companies offer that will prompt enough people to drop cable or satellite and buy in to Apple's iTMS. The one cannot coexist successfully without the other. At least not until every content provider can provide their viewers with live streams of their programming.

A DVR does not add a significant cost, it does not take away sales from the iTMS (exactly the opposite), and it gives consumers a choice in how they receive their home entertainment. An iPhone replaces a traditional phone with 10x the upside, an iPod replaces a walkman and a boom box among many other things, the AppleTV replaces nothing currently, and until it does, it will remain a failure. My use of the word failure is not meant to start an argument. It's the only product we never see sales figure touted. It's the only general consumer product that gets zero advertising. It's the only product Apple produces which the distance themselves from by using the term "hobby." If they saw it as a success, wouldn't Apple treat it differently?

Live sports/news are great examples and absolutely will prevent mass adoptions. However - with things like MLB At Bat available as a plug-in and perhaps NHL Centre Ice (again, hypothetical plug-in) that is potentially one LESS hurdle and would prevent the need for a DVR. That opens a whole other debate about blackout restrictions etc etc.. but if all major sports got on board with that (which they probably will eventually - maybe not AppleTV but certainly live online video streaming) it would help. Even news networks could do something similar. There have been broadcasts available live online and it wouldn't be a stretch for the major news shows (maybe not all the locals) to offer it online simultaneously. Just options.
You are right though, not having live sports/news will prevent A LOT of people from getting on board with a complete replacement/rethinking of how they watch tv now.

EDIT: How would a DVR promote sales in the iTunes store? I'm just wondering because if I can record and watch shows whenever I want I don't see an incentive to ALSO buy them from iTunes.

Tilpots

Dec 14, 2009, 01:36 PM

Live sports/news are great examples and absolutely will prevent mass adoptions. However - with things like MLB At Bat available as a plug-in and perhaps NHL Centre Ice (again, hypothetical plug-in) that is potentially one LESS hurdle and would prevent the need for a DVR. That opens a whole other debate about blackout restrictions etc etc.. but if all major sports got on board with that (which they probably will eventually - maybe not AppleTV but certainly live online video streaming) it would help. Even news networks could do something similar. There have been broadcasts available live online and it wouldn't be a stretch for the major news shows (maybe not all the locals) to offer it online simultaneously. Just options.
You are right though, not having live sports/news will prevent A LOT of people from getting on board with a complete replacement/rethinking of how they watch tv now.

MLB At Bat is the current shining beacon in the pro sports digital world. Will the NFL, Hockey, and Basketball join in? No idea. The pro sports franchises are the ones that really need to be concerned with the content producers, not Apple as some suggest. Just about every dime these franchises make come from selling their broadcast rights. If MLB can show that their new distribution method can not only co-exist with traditional broadcast rights, but also make them a nice profit, the other leagues can't, won't , be too far behind. I've yet to see stats on how the MLB is doing here and would love it if someone could post some concrete info.

The college sports issue gets into a trickier territory than the pro sports issue. These are, after all, learning institutions (:rolleyes:) and their goals are different than the pro's. While I'm sure the NCAA would back a broad digital distribution platform, until the pro's successfully make the transition, I just don't see it happening. I could be wrong, of course, and the NCAA may go first, but there's over 330 D-I schools and I would bet it's an all or nothing deal to bring them into alignment.

EDIT to your EDIT: :)
EDIT: How would a DVR promote sales in the iTunes store? I'm just wondering because if I can record and watch shows whenever I want I don't see an incentive to ALSO buy them from iTunes.

Right now, most markets only receive 5 or so stations (more if you count subchannels) for free OTA. But these are the big networks, for many the majority of their viewed programming comes from these networks. Many, many people in these markets also subscribe to cable or satellite and with the above mentioned local networks comes about 500+ more channels. 490 +/- of these channels are worthless to most people, yet they have to pay for them to receive the 10 +/- ones they actually care for. For me that's the ESPN's, a couple of the Discovery's, HGTV, the Golf Channel, Fox Sports South, and maybe a couple more. I pay about $120 a month to watch these channels in HD with an HD DVR and to receive the rest whether I watch them or not. If I could get the major networks for free OTA with DVR capabilities and download/stream only the shows I actually watch (not live sports) from the above channels, I'd probably save $90 or so dollars a month. That $30 I am spending now goes to Apple, not the cable or satellite companies. I'd then be inclined to rent/purchase movies through iTunes instead of Movies-onDemand from my cable provider or from Netfllix or any other service, becasue I'm already in the system. Apple, to their credit, does make it easy. Apple becomes my TV entertainment provider and not the cable or satellite company. I spend my money (which I'm already spending now) with Apple. I'm even saving almost a hundred bucks a month. I'm super excited, Apple's super excited. The cable company's pissed, but screw them, and I know I'm not alone here. Apple also doesn't need to invest in or support a street to street infrastructure so $30 bucks to them is like my $120 to the cable company.

JonHimself

Dec 14, 2009, 01:46 PM

You are right about it being complicated and largely out Apple's hands, unfortunately and definitely right about it not being something that could happen quickly (ie within the next few months). I know the NHL offers an online solution and were looking at putting on the iPhone, the MLB app - as you said - is a great example. And, again as you said, it probably gets even trickier when you get into college sports (or minor pros like AHL, CHL... sorry only hockey examples).

I'm just making the argument of NOT needing a DVR... would I like one? Absolutely! It would go great with my OTA antenna and would allow me to NEVER need/want to have cable/regret not having cable again... the only thing I miss from not having cable is the live sports.

fpnc

Dec 14, 2009, 01:59 PM

...A DVR does not add a significant cost...
Would you like to provide some data to back up that claim? Without a fast and potentially expensive CPU the only way you can compress live video is with a custom hardware encoder chip. Then you have issues with AV certified drives and reliability as a DVR needs a drive that can be recording/accessed 24/7. Next, if you want a really nice DVR experience don't forget the cost of the intellectual property and the need for a good TV schedule service. As one data point, look at Elgato's EyeTV 250 which runs $200 just for the tuner and hardware encoder. Apple could beat that price, sure, but a DVR might add at least $100 to the cost of the Apple TV. In any case, I don't think that could compete very well with the DVRs from the cable and satellite services (which also offer DVR capability for their premium content). As for the latter (tuner and DVR for premium content), Apple would have to include support for CableCARD which I've already discussed as a failed initiative (according to the FCC).

Here are the stats for the EyeTV 250 (a somewhat pricy but nice video converter and tuner):

http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/250plus/product1.en.html

It's the only product Apple produces which the distance themselves from by using the term "hobby."...
And it will have to remain a "hobby" until the broadband infrastructure is ready for widespread HD transmission and the content providers loosen their grip on the control of the movies and TV shows. Besides, the sales numbers on the Apple TV are estimated to be about 7 million units which is around $1.5 billion in revenue -- not a bad "hobby" if you ask me. For a company with other "hit" products like the iPhone/iPod that's not a great success, but it's really not at all terrible.

Note, I'm not suggesting that Apple can't or shouldn't improve the Apple TV, it's just that I agree with the post from JonHimself -- Apple has "bigger fish to fry" with the Apple TV.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 14, 2009, 02:12 PM

EDIT: How would a DVR promote sales in the iTunes store? I'm just wondering because if I can record and watch shows whenever I want I don't see an incentive to ALSO buy them from iTunes.

Because if you give the market what it wants, the market will buy more :apple:TVs. And while a DVR (preferably an add-on option for just those that want a DVR) may indeed prevent a sale of what can be DVRd, EVERYTHING ELSE in the iTunes store that isn't being run this week on "free" television would also be available to you via iTunes. Similarly, you DVR a program as a trial, decide you like and want to go back and "catch up". You can't DVR into the past to catch up, so you'll buy the old episodes or seasons to catch up from... that's right... iTunes.

Now, don't give the market what they want, and those that won't buy it unless it also gives them an (optional) DVR function does NOT buy an :apple:TV. I can say for certain that those people CAN NOT possibly buy other shows and old shows or seasons on a device they will not have in their stack.

The analogy would be to go back in time to that first iPod and iTunes roll out. And Apple decides that this new thing called "ipod" can ONLY get its content from iTunes store purchases- not CDs, no MP3s, etc (not from content you already have). Would iPod have sold as well? Of course not. And if not, would other innovations such as iPhones, many more kinds of content in the iTunes store, etc, etc have come to pass. Maybe or maybe not.

You are right that a DVR may indeed prevent a sale of a show that some guy is already getting via the DVR. But what you're missing is that if that guy isn't motivated to buy an :apple:TV in the first place, he can't possibly buy that iTunes content via a device he doesn't own.

On the other hand, open up the :apple:TV a bit more. Let those that want a DVR add on be able to pay for it via someone like Elgato. Let those that want BD functionality be able to buy it from someone like Other World computing. Etc Then, the mass market will see ways to buy an :apple:TV instead of a DVR or BD player, Apple can get :apple:TVs deeply entrenched in the living room, and let the convenience and much broader availability of content via iTunes supplant- and eventually obsolete- DVR and BD functionality- just like the iTunes store content is supplanting and moving CDs toward fading away. But it seems unlikely that this will work the other way.

Tilpots

Dec 14, 2009, 02:16 PM

Would you like to provide some data to back up that claim? Without a fast and potentially expensive CPU the only way you can compress live video is with a custom hardware encoder chip. Then you have issues with AV certified drives and reliability as a DVR needs a drive that can be recording/accessed 24/7. Next, if you want a really nice DVR experience don't forget the cost of the intellectual property and the need for a good TV schedule service. As one data point, look at Elgato's EyeTV 250 which runs $200 just for the tuner and hardware encoder. Apple could beat that price, sure, but a DVR might add at least $100 to the cost of the Apple TV. In any case, I don't think that could compete very well with the DVRs from the cable and satellite services (which also offer DVR capability for their premium content). As for the latter (tuner and DVR for premium content), Apple would have to include support for CableCARD which I've already discussed as a failed initiative (according to the FCC).

Here are the stats for the EyeTV 250 (a somewhat pricy but nice video converter and tuner):

http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/250plus/product1.en.html

Even a $100-$200 price increase to the consumer would be a savings. As I mentioned above, I would recoup that in 2 months. CableCard compatibility is not necessary, because the whole reason to include the DVR is to get people to cut the cord. And as for scheduling services, that's something Apple could easily take care of. I'd think it even be included as part of the purchase...

And it will have to remain a "hobby" until the broadband infrastructure is ready for widespread HD transmission and the content providers loosen their grip on the control of the movies and TV shows. Besides, the sales numbers on the Apple TV are estimated to be about 7 million units which is around $1.5 billion in revenue -- not a bad "hobby" if you ask me. For a company with other "hit" products like the iPhone/iPod that's not a great success, but it's really not at all terrible.

It's not about the infrastructure, everything they need is alrady in place. Everybody else is currently doing it. 1080P, Blu-ray, and DVR's don't need any other support than what's already here, now.

The competition, you may say apples to oranges, but it's the best I can think of with comparable specs, costlier prices, and other features that a "useful" AppleTV might include:

Worldwide sales figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars)

1. Wii – 50.39 million, as of 31 October 2009 (2009 -10-31)[update][7]
2. Xbox 360 – 31.20 million,as of 27 January 2009 (2009 -01-27)[update][19]
3. PlayStation 3 – 27 million, as of 30 July 2009 (2009 -07-30)[update][20]

So 7 million units sold over three+ years is way off the mark. Again, the word "failure" is about the only one that fits.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 14, 2009, 02:25 PM

Would you like to provide some data to back up that claim? Without a fast and potentially expensive CPU the only way you can compress live video is with a custom hardware encoder chip. Then you have issues with AV certified drives and reliability as a DVR needs a drive that can be recording/accessed 24/7. Next, if you want a really nice DVR experience don't forget the cost of the intellectual property and the need for a good TV schedule service. As one data point, look at Elgato's EyeTV 250 which runs $200 just for the tuner and hardware encoder. Apple could beat that price, sure, but a DVR might add at least $100 to the cost of the Apple TV. In any case, I don't think that could compete very well with the DVRs from the cable and satellite services (which also offer DVR capability for their premium content). As for the latter (tuner and DVR for premium content), Apple would have to include support for CableCARD which I've already discussed as a failed initiative (according to the FCC).

Here are the stats for the EyeTV 250 (a somewhat pricy but nice video converter and tuner):

http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/250plus/product1.en.html

fpnc, that's why "bigger" options like a DVR or BD should be "add on" options- perhaps from third parties like Elgato- vs. built in. The price of :apple:TV is probably about right should a 1080p platform come out with some of the more "open" feature to support aftermarket options, maybe an iTunes app store, etc

Now, if someone wants Apple to build all of these bigger things in, then price will likely run higher, making it less appealing to the masses. So, as I see it, the goal is to give the markets what they want, but let them adapt the product to their own wants (mostly) through add-ons (much like add-ing on DVR of BD players to Macs).

Those, apparently like you that want the "pure" vision of buying everything from iTunes could still get it exactly as you do now. But those that want it to do a few other things for them could pay up to add on the extras to fulfill their own wishes. You win. They win. And Apple wins (by selling a whole lot more :apple:TVs).

Or, Apple sticks with the vision as you seem to favor it: buyers of this device shall buy their content solely from the iTunes store, even if that means having to buy the same shows they could already get as part of what they are paying a cable/satt provider for. That is how we like it and that is how you shall like it." and not see that big pickup in :apple:TV sales.

Meanwhile, BD players with some extra :apple:TV- like functionality will sell well. And DVRs either near-free from their cable/satt provider or via TIVO purchases and similar, will keep flowing into homes that don't have :apple:TVs. Let that go long enough and :apple:TVs potential fades to a very small group of Apple fanatics, never getting entrenched, and thus the vision of everything via iTunes seems to stretch ever-further out into the future.

The vision that you keep arguing for hinges on Apple getting an :apple:TV in every living room. How you seem to keep arguing to accomplish that (sticking with iTunes only "as is") doesn't seem to support the "hinge" piece of the vision. The vision won't happen if Apple doesn't win the living room. And the market doesn't seem to be buying enough of what Apple is selling "as is" relative to this device.

fpnc

Dec 14, 2009, 08:00 PM

...So 7 million units sold over three+ years is way off the mark. Again, the word "failure" is about the only one that fits.
Small point, but let's keep our facts straight. The Apple TV first became available at the end of March 2007 so it's been available for less than three years. As for the Wii, XBox, and PlayStation numbers you cite I'll counter with this which is much more applicable since TiVo offers a combination DVR and streaming media box and service:

TiVo subscribers as of 3rd quarter 2009: 1.5 million and the company is still losing money. Further, note this statement from TiVo's last earnings call:

On a net basis, TiVo-owned subscriptions decreased by 45,000 in the third quarter and our TiVo-owned subscription base ended the quarter at approximately 1.5 million subscriptions. Our MSO [Multiple System Operator, Time-Warner, CableVision, Comcast, etc.] broadcaster subscription base declined by 123,000 from the prior quarter, in line with the pattern we have seen over the past several quarters, when taking into account the 146,000 subscription adjustment due to the DIRECTV reporting issue.

In addition, Sony and Microsoft have lost billions of dollars on the PlayStation 3 and the XBox 360 (respectively) -- a situation that I don't think Apple would consider a raging success. The console gaming market, however, can't really be compared to the video streaming and DVR businesses and that's why I suggest you take a look at the situation over at TiVo.

Link to TiVo earnings transcript: http://seekingalpha.com/article/175182-tivo-inc-f3q10-qtr-end-10-31-2009-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1

The industry as a whole is moving toward internet-based delivery and it doesn't take a genius to know that in less than 20 years that's how all content will be delivered. This means that DVRs and Blu-ray will be gone before that time, maybe not in another five years, but even by that time the transition will be well on its way.

Apple's recent purchase of LaLa and their plan to build a one billion dollar server farm in NC are only the beginnings. Streaming media is the future of the entertainment industry and that's where Apple wants to go. Frankly, I think it is a possibility that Apple is looking at ways to reduce the cost of the Apple TV rather than making it multi-functional and even more expensive. What they may offer is a diskless, streaming-only player that will require an always on connection to your computer or an interface to an Apple produced, standalone iTunes server (something like Apple's Time Capsule).

Tilpots

Dec 14, 2009, 10:08 PM

Small point, but let's keep our facts straight. The Apple TV first became available at the end of March 2007 so it's been available for less than three years.

It was announced in September of 2006... anyway...

As for the Wii, XBox, and PlayStation numbers you cite I'll counter with this which is much more applicable since TiVo offers a combination DVR and streaming media box and service:

TiVo subscribers as of 3rd quarter 2009: 1.5 million and the company is still losing money. Further, note this statement from TiVo's last earnings call:

If you read the conference call, TiVo is actually doing just fine. You could almost say most DVR's are TiVo's, intellectual property at least, hence the number of litigations they're involved in. Everybody's been using their ideas, and they're starting to get paid for it. Not only that, they have begun to license their tech to companies with millions upon millions of subscribers, like DirecTV, Dish, Virgin, and many others. It proves the point that DVR's are in extremely high demand.

In addition, Sony and Microsoft have lost billions of dollars on the PlayStation 3 and the XBox 360 (respectively) -- a situation that I don't think Apple would consider a raging success. The console gaming market, however, can't really be compared to the video streaming and DVR businesses and that's why I suggest you take a look at the situation over at TiVo.

Link to TiVo earnings transcript: http://seekingalpha.com/article/175182-tivo-inc-f3q10-qtr-end-10-31-2009-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1

I chose to compare the AppleTV to the gaming consoles mostly due to their functionality, namely the PS3. It's a media center, a Blu-Ray player, and in the UK, it's a DVR. While Sony is subsidizing these boxes somewhat, they're making much more money on the backside with the game purchases. Apple would be able to do exactly the same thing. Say they lose $100 on the AppleTV hardware. As I stated above, they still stand to make a monthly income from a user buying iTunes content. For a casual user like myself, I might spend $30 a month at the iTMS. I use it for 4 months and the AppleTV has made Apple $20. I use it for another 4 years, and that same AppleTV unit will bring Apple $1440. Just like AT&T subsidizes the iPhone, because the voice and data plans are where they make their money.

The industry as a whole is moving toward internet-based delivery and it doesn't take a genius to know that in less than 20 years that's how all content will be delivered. This means that DVRs and Blu-ray will be gone before that time, maybe not in another five years, but even by that time the transition will be well on its way.

Apple's recent purchase of LaLa and their plan to build a one billion dollar server farm in NC are only the beginnings. Streaming media is the future of the entertainment industry and that's where Apple wants to go. Frankly, I think it is a possibility that Apple is looking at ways to reduce the cost of the Apple TV rather than making it multi-functional and even more expensive. What they may offer is a diskless, streaming-only player that will require an always on connection to your computer or an interface to an Apple produced, standalone iTunes server (something like Apple's Time Capsule).

Hey, the future is great, but what about the here and now? Everybody talks about physical media being a dying breed. That's such a lame statement. It's like saying gas powered cars are a dying breed. Of course, both statements are true, but your not going stop seeing discs or gas stations anytime soon. Transitions, by nature, take time. In five years, Blu-Ray will still be here and so will gas guzzlers. Just because their "old" doesn't mean they won't work. And especially in today's market, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

fpnc

Dec 14, 2009, 11:30 PM

...If you read the conference call, TiVo is actually doing just fine. You could almost say most DVR's are TiVo's, intellectual property at least, hence the number of litigations they're involved in. Everybody's been using their ideas, and they're starting to get paid for it. Not only that, they have begun to license their tech to companies with millions upon millions of subscribers, like DirecTV, Dish, Virgin, and many others. It proves the point that DVR's are in extremely high demand...
I'm glad you bring up the intellectual property point, since I already mentioned that as an obstacle to Apple's entry into the DVR business. Yes, DVRs are doing just fine but those are being offered through the cable and satellite companies and that's why I've suggested that this isn't a business where Apple can compete. Furthermore, TiVo lost money in the third quarter which isn't what I'd call "doing just fine."

Here are their statements for the last quarter and their projections for the next:
...This led to a net loss for the third quarter of $6.7 million, which compared to our guidance of a net loss of $8 million to $10 million. This compared to a loss of $900,000 in the year ago quarter, after excluding the $100.6 million net gain from the EchoStar litigations, which included litigation proceeds, interest and related taxes.
-- and next quarter --
...for the fourth quarter we expect...[a]...net loss in the range of negative $13 million to negative $15 million.
However, the only money they appear to be "making" is through litigation (mainly) and through the licensing of their DVR technology (marginally) which isn't exactly a business model that Apple can use to make the Apple TV a success (although that money is allowing TiVo to continue to exploit the DVR business). In any case, Apple isn't going to include TiVo software within the Apple TV so your point about "most DVR's are TiVo's" doesn't really help your argument.
...While Sony is subsidizing these boxes somewhat, they're making much more money on the backside with the game purchases...
True, the business plan for these gaming consoles was to subsidize the cost of the hardware through their licensing business. However, that hasn't worked at all for Microsoft (which is still billions in the red on their XBox business) and I suspect that Sony is in the same situation (they've lost more than they have made).
...Hey, the future is great, but what about the here and now? Everybody talks about physical media being a dying breed...
Well, the future may be closer than you think. That's where the real genius is, knowing or guessing when that transition will take place. In any case, Steve Jobs has said the following, ""I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it's been." That's partly marketing talk and a Steve Jobs' vision statement, but I'm pretty sure that's what they will be doing with the Apple TV.

fpnc

Dec 15, 2009, 01:13 AM

...It's not about the infrastructure, everything they need is alrady in place. Everybody else is currently doing it. 1080P, Blu-ray, and DVR's don't need any other support than what's already here, now..
Since you were responding directly to this statement from my earlier post:
And it will have to remain a "hobby" until the broadband infrastructure is ready for widespread HD transmission and the content providers loosen their grip on the control of the movies and TV shows.
I have to ask, where is "everyone else" doing 1080p streaming and downloadable content? Microsoft is just beginning to do some trials with highly-compressed, 4Mbps, 1080p but that hardly proves that the infrastructure for quality 1080p content streaming is "already in place." YouTube just started 1080p "HD" postings, but the one I looked at was a horribly artifact-ridden 2.5Mbps clip that was certainly no better than what Apple offers today with their 720p iTunes Store (and my internet connection averages about 8Mbps which is well above the average in the U.S.).

I've already said that I expect Apple to introduce a new Apple TV next year that will have the capability to decode 1080p, but I don't expect them to make significant use of that resolution until the internet infrastructure is able to support it for a large user base. Then, as I've noted before, Apple has to find a way to convince the content providers to allow 1080p delivery in direct competition to Blu-ray and their other HD carriers (premium cable and satellite, etc.).

As far as Blu-ray and DVRs, I've already voiced my concerns (or doubts) about the possibility of Apple either including or enabling those technologies in the next Apple TV. I'm very confident that Apple will continue to focus on streaming and downloadable content from the internet, that's where they want to be successful and that's where they should be attempting to "slay the beast" (whether that should be infrastructure, easy of use, and/or new and expanded licensing terms with the content providers).

To enlarge upon Steve Jobs' statements concerning Blu-ray, both Blu-ray and DRV are probably a "bag of hurt" as far as Apple is concerned.

MacConvert

Dec 15, 2009, 02:56 AM

The AppleTV is going to die a quick death soon.

Steve Jobs et. al. will see the light of day (as he always has, that smart son of a gun) and match the Mac Mini to AOpen's MP45-BDR tech specs, and/or possibly beat it.

I could see even your DVR wish coming true with Tru2Way - either embedded in the Mini if they can squeeze it in or perhaps w/an external USB module just for the CableCard.

With increasing broadband speeds (e.g. FTTH) as well as wireless upgrades to infrastructure (LTE), TV/movies/music are all going to go a-la-carte, instead of packaged, e.g. you will create your own packages a-la-carte instead of being told what goes in your package (which I always found to be somewhat 'brainwashy'). Flat fee pricing for tv/movies/music will (e.g. Netflix) will become more common, because it creates the perception of value for the consumer.

This is how I see things unfold for the ATV...

Is apple planning on keeping the apple TV line? I think they need to add a DVR and a blue ray player as well. I'm sure apple could take over this market as well. Comments?

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 15, 2009, 08:19 AM

I found this article: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/us_tec_blu_christmas interesting relative to the debate within this thread. There are points made to support both sides, so if you pick and choose- as is being done within this thread- you can draw out of this support for both visions.

My perspective cuts down the middle: deliver an :apple:TV largely as is, with 1080p hardware, a few "normal" (open) expansion ports, an "open" software platform (iphone like) SDK, plus app store. Apple could deliver this one without having to up the price, still get the Apple margin, and leave a lot of buyer wishes to third parties.

As such, my perception is that Apple needs to do what it needs to do to get this box entrenched in the mass market's living rooms. People will buy only so many set-top boxes, and the guy with 1080p BD player, and a DVR, etc is not going to be very motivated to go buy a 720p :apple:TV which, to approximate the DVR experience will then involve having to rebuy (some) shows already flowing into his home.

Give the market what it wants (through third party add ons if necessary) then obsolete the BD and DVR functions over time as we move toward the "vision" of "download everything from iTunes". Don't give the market what it wants, and Apple doesn't entrench this box in mass market living rooms, and someone else will win this battle. From my perspective, here's key excerpts from that article...

"There are now Blu-ray players in nearly 12 million U.S. homes"
and
"Until now, the pace of adoption for Blu-ray has matched what DVD had when it pushed aside video cassettes more than a decade ago"

I think its safe to assume that there are not 12 million :apple:TV's in U.S. homes.

The second quote presents the opportunity for Apple: follow the model of what made DVD players fly into homes (which is not solely deliver lower quality picture than standards that are readily available), entrench, then ride the wave that follows. BD is struggling to stick with the pace at which DVD players flowed into mass market homes, but certainly not because :apple:TVs "as is" are eating their lunch. Thus there is a hunger for a great "next gen" alternative which a next-gen :apple:TV could fulfill.

If I was Apple, I would kill 2 or 3 birds with one stone, by delivering a 1080p device that can also (optionally) be a BD player and a DVR (if users wanted to add those on). Keep the price about where it is, and Apple would basically be giving the market the choice of buying individual boxes or buying one box with lots of customizing feature options. It is easy to imagine that I'd sell tons of these next-gen 1080p :apple:TVs, entrench in mass market (not just Apple fanatic) homes, then leverage the convenience of deep library of content available via iTunes to eventually obsolete the BD and DVR add-on pieces (much like home AV equipment like the use of VCR's & Laser Disc players were eventually phased out by their buyers, as more convenient and/or better quality options came along).

Whatever boxes "fill" the stack next to the mass market's HDTVs are the boxes through which video content can be subsequently sold or rented. If Apple doesn't make it's box so appealing that the mass market deems it a "must have" addition to their AV stacks, there is no iTunes rental revenues from boxes that aren't in those homes.

fpnc

Dec 15, 2009, 11:55 AM

A few comments. First, for the most part everything that has been posted in this thread has been pure opinion and I've yet to see any suggestions from anyone (including myself) that I'd call a real game changer for the Apple TV.

HobeSoundDarryl continues to claim that Apple needs to do what the "market wants" or "give the market what it wants." However, if HobeSoundDarryl is privy to some extensive market research that indicates that customers would rush to the Apple TV if it allowed DVR and Blu-ray expansion then he should just make that information available. Otherwise, HobeSoundDarryl is just repeating what he wants and there is no way that he can claim that he speaks for the majority of potential Apple TV customers.

I suspect that market research along this line is pretty difficult. People may not really know what they want since this technology is relatively new. Further, it would be pretty easy for someone to ask for this or that until they actually have to pay for it or until they experience the full meaning of what they are asked to approve or disapprove. Thus, it may be that the best that Apple can do at this time is to merely guess at what customers might be willing to buy. Well, "guess" may be too strong of a term, it should be an informed opinion backed up with real financial estimates on what the market will accept and with a good dose of analysis on what is really feasible given current technology and competitive markets (things like intellectual property barriers and licensing costs need to be examined in great detail).

The only real game changer that I can see for Apple's movie/video store is for it to have a reduction in pricing. If all of the standard definition movies rentals were $0.99 and if the HD was priced at $1.99 then they'd have a likely hit. Unfortunately (for us) the content providers won't allow such pricing because it would compete too vigorously with DVDs, Blu-ray, and cable/satellite broadcasting. In any case, if Apple could get terms like that then the rest of the providers would get the same deal so that may not alone be good enough to push the Apple TV over the top.

A subscription service might be a good idea, but it would have to offer both price and convenience features over standard cable/satellite services to make much of a difference (and once again, pricing and availability is all in the hands of the content providers).

Next, it is my opinion that the 1080p question is kind of pointless. Yes, it's most likely that the next Apple TV hardware will support 1080p decoding but that doesn't mean that the industry will then be ready to support content delivery in that format.

Given the above, it's my opinion that Apple can't really do much to make the Apple TV as wildly as successful as either the iPhone or iPod and that may just be the case for the time being.

mstrze

Dec 15, 2009, 12:07 PM

I can really see why this is still a hobby piece of equipment to Apple since 'Hollywood' has such a stranglehold on the actual 'physical' media:

THEY dictate prices to a great extent
THEY will not allow native importing of DVDs or BluRay into iTunes/AppleTV

PLUS

You have the infrastructure limitations of how to deliver larger than 720p content via current internet methods.

You have most people with TVs that won't allow you to notice a differewnce between 720p and 1080p....and don't tell me that TVs will keep getting bigger. There is a physical limitation in homes whether it be wall space or significant other that will set this upper limit to probably around 37"-42" for most folk.

Until some of these issues are solved, I don't think AppleTV will make any significant changes. They may add 1080p, but don't expect the iTunes store to start offering that content anytime soon due to size and quality issues. This would appease folks who have 1080p sources already inhouse. I can't see a DVR or BR built in, although an outsourcing through 3rd party would indeed be nice.

Argh...so many hurdles! I really, REALLY love my AppleTV and have been able to get some friends and relatives to get them too. I really wish some of the suggestions in this thread could be done. I would love to see it more mainstream.

Biggest wish right now: Subscription...I would pay as much as $40 a month. I have already dropped DirecTV and we live entirely on OTA HDTV and AppleTV and we are very happy. :)

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 15, 2009, 01:36 PM

Otherwise, HobeSoundDarryl is just repeating what he wants and there is no way that he can claim that he speaks for the majority of potential Apple TV customers.

I've posted more than once that I could care less about DVR or BD add-ons or as built-in features. But I'm a big enough fan of the :apple:TV that I own, and Apple in general... not to mention that my business is marketing and product development with both heavily based upon market research... to have spent time in the places where existing owners and potential buyers talk about product like :apple:TV and I've seen enough feedback from potential buyers to conclude that if a next-gen (1080p) platform was developed, and it was open enough to allow the likes of an Elgato and similar to extend the functionality to also cover the BD & DVR bases, it seems highly likely that a lot more of these potential buyers could then be moved to buy.

The alternative is to keep it approx "as is", relatively closed and locked almost entirely into iTunes content consumption (at least for the masses), and thus keep selling it at about the pace it sells now. Do you FPNC believe that it is selling well enough now to entrench in the masses living rooms, and thus create the potential to realize the Apple vision as you've presented it in the 5-year timetable you've also offered up?

And if so, where exactly is that big boom in sales going to come from relative to the non-Apple-fanatic masses? Do you not see that if Apple doesn't get this box into most of the households, that this "everything via iTunes vision" cannot possibly be fulfilled? What about the way that you keep pitching it (mostly leave it the same, but maybe with 1080p hardware upgrade) is going to make the masses buy it over BD and DVRs and similar? How does Apple catch up to the pace of sales of BD players, and the entrenchment of DVRs (not just TIVOs) so that the masses can embrace the "download it all from iTunes" vision you so passionately support?

And finally, why not desire something that fits your vision of what you think it should be while also being able to fit other peoples wants of what they would like it to be? Because Apple has said it shall be so? My opinion is a way for you to get what you want, others to get what they want, and Apple to be able to sell a device that seems to fit a lot of buyer wants. Your opinion is a way to get what you want, some others to NOT be able to get they want, and somehow Apple will- perhaps magically- be able to accelerate the pace of :apple:TV sales. Which seems more favorable to fulfill your vision?

...it would be pretty easy for someone to ask for this or that until they actually have to pay for it or until they experience the full meaning of what they are asked to approve or disapprove.
So it's better that Apple decides for the masses because Apple knows best?

The beauty of the more open, add-on concept as I've argued in this thread is that at least there is the potential for a next-gen :apple:TV to be what various buyers would like it to be. If Elgato's DVR add-on is too expensive, but buyers still want a DVR, then they still get a DVR as a separate box. If someone's BD player add-on meets with general buyer disapproval, then buyers may not buy that add-on. Etc. At least the marketplace would have the OPTION, instead of Apple arbitrarily deciding things like handicapped 720p is "good enough", and so on.

Being in my business, it is so hard to understand how customers- even Apple lovers on an Apple fan board- can get so behind a concept of let Apple choose what is best for us, as you appear to be doing in your arguments.

I'll concede that maybe Apple does know best. Perhaps :apple:TV exactly "as is" is ideal, and that any more, or a normal USB port(s), or a BD or DVR add on option, and so forth would all be complete failures in the marketplace. But it's evident from the sales of "hacks" that subsets of existing :apple:TV owners want more out of the box "as is" than as Apple chose it to be. And if you do a little biased research just in thread after thread on this board alone, you'll see that there are a fair amount of people saying that would buy one if it just had __________________. If they don't buy one because it doesn't have _______________, then sticking with things "as is" doesn't get an :apple:TV into their homes. I offer that there is certainly more of them, than there are of us.

Thus, it may be that the best that Apple can do at this time is to merely guess at what customers might be willing to buy.

That's a big load of crap. First, Apple certainly has the ability to build a better :apple:TV- particularly the relatively easy hardware options I've described in my posts. It is far from the "best that they can do" as it is right now.

Second, it is very easy to do next-gen :apple:TV research if Apple was more open about it. For example, given the huge fan base of cross sale potential (those who own an iPhone/iPod Touch), Apple could roll out a simple "app for that" that asks those (MILLIONS OF) people what they would want in a next-gen :apple:TV. Present a menu of options and ask them to rank those most desirable. Include an "other" category for items not listed in the menus. Put the same "app" on the Apple site so that people without iPhones/iPod touches could offer their wants too. Then promote the crap out of a "We're All Ears" campaign asking users to play a role in one of Apple's "next big things".

Will the market pay for such features? Put best guess cost estimates right in the feature list. Then, those "voting" are qualifying their votes with what each wish will approximately cost in a finished product (or add on). Or, let them build their ideal next-gen :apple:TV, and then ask them what they would pay for that one. There are standard metrics that apply to letting a public-driven product concepting effort like this arrive at the "real" price they would actually pay.

That would be easy to execute, purely objective (based on the "votes"), and very obviously point to 3-5+ most wanted enhancements to an established product. My company helps our clients do this kind of thing all the time. Apple could easily do this kind of thing, quickly learn what the market wants (and what the market will pay for those wants)

Apple chooses not to do this sort of thing, which leads to massive product successes and massive product failures. An open Apple (in this way) would likely only accelerate the pace of home run products they roll out. It is- IMO- the most fundamental thing that is mostly missing for how Apple does it's business. They would be much more successful than they already are if they would at least open their ears a little more to such cheap & simple market research, then let the collective brilliance of their market help them make good decisions about new products in the pipeline.

The only real game changer that I can see for Apple's movie/video store is for it to have a reduction in pricing. If all of the standard definition movies rentals were $0.99 and if the HD was priced at $1.99 then they'd have a likely hit. Unfortunately (for us) the content providers won't allow such pricing because it would compete too vigorously with DVDs, Blu-ray, and cable/satellite broadcasting.

This is likely a big factor, and in this we agree. Lower pricing of the content AND a subscription model (as you've also offered) would be wise steps in the right direction. And yes you are right that the studios control the pricing (and after seeing how much Apple pushes around the music companies, I don't blame them one bit for not wanting to hand over similar domination to Apple).

But here again, unless your vision of :apple:TV somehow magically moves the masses to buy the :apple:TV's, there is little incentive for the Studios to even try lower prices on something as unpopularly received (by the masses) as :apple:TV. But get one in nearly every home (by making it cover some of the other bases) and the Studios will feel the profit-driven desire to test things like 1080p and lower prices via iTunes, see that they can make more that way- even at lower prices- vs. burning discs and giving a big cut of each sale to Walmart & Best Buy, and thus the vision gets here sooner than later.

Studios just want to make as much money as they can. If :apple:TVs were as entrenched as iPods, they would be scrambling every which way to try to get their content into iTunes, and selling as much of it as possible- even at lower prices.

Next, it is my opinion that the 1080p question is kind of pointless. Yes, it's most likely that the next Apple TV hardware will support 1080p decoding but that doesn't mean that the industry will then be ready to support content delivery in that format.
Wouldn't it be more pointless for the industry to support 1080p if ALL that an :apple:TV market can playback is handicapped 720p? If the hardware is there, at least there is the potential for a Studio to TEST 1080p downloads. Should Apple not build in features like MMS or tethering to iPhones until AT&T is completely ready to support such features? Should Macs not be enhanced until the bulk of software can fully take advantage of multi-core hardware, etc?

If you take a stance that the content has to come from the Studios BEFORE it makes sense for Apple to build that hardware in, there's never a reason for the Studios to play ball with Apple. But, if Apple goes ahead and delivers hardware beyond what the Studios will support now, (and beyond what many people's broadband pipe can manage now), then buyers are buying a "futureproof" product, not one that is already "old technology".

In my own case, what I most want out of a 1080p :apple:TV is the last link in my chain. I shoot precious family video on a 1080p camcorder, polish it in iMovie where I can output it in 1080p, running iMovie on a Mac, and I can insert that 1080p render into iTunes. I have a 1080p HDTV. But I can't get the video from iTunes to that HDTV through the device best suited for that purpose.

Unlike what you've implied, I don't really care much about the Studios bringing 1080p content to iTunes, or that broadband pipes might be too tight for the masses to be downloading 1080p content from iTunes (or BD or DVR functionality). But I would love a 1080p :apple:TV pretty much "as is" if my posts were about MY wants. If you're going to speculate about the markets, it's important to be able to see the markets beyond YOUR own uses and needs.

And even almighty Apple doesn't guess it right every time.

Given the above, it's my opinion that Apple can't really do much to make the Apple TV as wildly as successful as either the iPhone or iPod and that may just be the case for the time being.
Or, Apple could try something different such as some of the ideas that people like me have shared in this thread- including the quick & easy market research approach I've offered in this post- and see if they can heat up sales of this product.

I'm so passionate about it because I see it as a no-brainer, home run, likely to be a bigger success than the iPhone if they would just execute a few simple things to expand it's appeal. From my perspective what is in the way is mostly an issue with Apple's will to make it great now, and certainly not a lack of ability, or know how, or technical competencies, or methods to nail down what a next-gen :apple:TV should be.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 15, 2009, 02:20 PM

Biggest wish right now: Subscription...I would pay as much as $40 a month. I have already dropped DirecTV and we live entirely on OTA HDTV and AppleTV and we are very happy. :)

I think many would be with you on this one mstrze. The trick is twofold:

getting the studios to make that kind of (generally better than cable/satt option) deal
getting the controllers of the principal broadband pipes (cable/satt) to allow their cash cow psuedo-monopoly business to be undercut with a solution that flows through those very same pipes

I would love to see it happen, but especially because of the 2nd bullet, I find it hard to imagine it will be allowed to happen. If too many could do as you've done (jettison the cable/satt bill) in exchange for internet downloads, guess what those companies feeling the pain (cable/satt) will do with their broadband pricing?

I think for it to actually happen, Apple would also need to bring a new kind of broadband solution so that interested subscribers could bypass the traditional broadband provider pipes.

Or, unfortunately, pricing would likely be such that it remains a generally better deal to keep your cable/satt subscription for those that can't live without channels beyond the basics.

mstrze

Dec 15, 2009, 02:23 PM

I only use my local cable provider for broadband. So they get my money, even without me using their 'cable tv' services. ;)

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 15, 2009, 02:41 PM

I only use my local cable provider for broadband. So they get my money, even without me using their 'cable tv' services. ;)

Oh, I understand that. But let a bunch of other people do what you are doing so that your cable provider feels the pain in their cable business, and watch what happens to your broadband bill. The last thing those in control of the pipes want is to end up as just a cheap broadband pipe. And these companies controlling those pipes especially love the easy- and lucrative- profitability of their core television programming distribution businesses. They won't lose that easy money to someone like Apple if Apple's solution has to flow through their pipes.

Sorry to hit you with that. But what would you do if you were them?

idunn

Dec 15, 2009, 08:42 PM

"The home video market is crucial for studios because that is where they recoup much of the cost of producing movies."
'Hollywood hopes an ensemble cast boosts Blu-ray'
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/us_tec_blu_christmas

The most basic equation in video is a content provider and the customer with a screen that wants to watch it. Everyone in between, including Apple, is only a middleman.

Content providers want the widest possible circulation, but most of all the most revenue possible. They have to deal with a fickle audience, rapidly changing technical standards, and a variety of middlemen with competing business models and goals.

Customers want to watch what they want, when they want, as easily and cheaply as possible. They have to deal with rapidly changing technical standards, and a variety of middlemen with competing business models and goals. As customers, they have a lot of options and also a lot of headaches.

As an aspiring middleman (with iTunes), someone such as Apple could take advantage of this situation. They are competing with the likes of Wal-Mart, Amazon, Dish Network, Comcast, to name a few. Challenges include traditional thinking, among content providers for one. Perhaps most importantly in present limitations with true global broadband. Strengths include a solid established brand and growing franchise in iTunes. Also, with iTunes, a good business model in offering digital media.

Digital media eclipses many of the issues of format (DVDs, Blue-Ray, etc.), even as it has to contend with those of its own. But a digital file, no matter how transmitted, remains the purest form, before issues of encoding, etc. It is also the form best adapted across all platforms, and simplest for the customer to use.

From Apple's perspective the biggest bottleneck in their distribution chain is in inadequate broadband (which they have only some control over), and ATV. Video via iTunes will remain a 'hobby' as long as its content is not easily transferable to HDTV televisions. Few will settle for a computer screen. Thus ATV is critical to the success of iTunes until or unless HDTV sets can receive such data directly.

While Apple has total control over ATV, it also has some influence in adoption of true broadband. Technically, decent broadband is possible. Only a question of will that can be influenced by demand. If internet transfer of 1080p movie files became the norm the infrastructure in such places as the United States would choke. If this increasingly became the case, infrastructure could and would adapt. Moreover, it is in the national security interests of such places as the US to have stellar internet; they do themselves no favor in maintaining half-assed, limited broadband service. Business alone, and not just in movies, demands it.

But while working on that front, Apple could turn most of its attention to its 'hobby' of ATV. As the above cited article mentions, many customers may forsake quality for utility and portability. But only if they have to. Via iTunes, Apple can excel in utility and portability, they might as well in quality. For most it has probably been a revelation to witness 1080p on a large HDTV television. Few, if the viable option, likely willing to settle for less. Particularly not when sets at 40" and above are increasingly becoming the norm, with more and more media being broadcast in 1080p.

Satellite providers such as Dish Network offer internet. An option, if one must, with but a download speed of 1.5Mps, and rather expensive. But they have no problem offering most any other channel one might want, increasingly in HDTV. They also presently enjoy advantages in offering live content (ie: Sports), selection, and ease of use. Someone using such a service, Comcast, etc., has little reason to use ATV, other than for purchase of media (but that inferior to Blue-Ray). With a more robust DVR, why wouldn't someone such as Dish Network prevail? Conceivably one could have not only the option of recording most anything, but also the option of easily purchasing it (sans commercials) and having it automatically archived.

Apple has to contend with that. iTunes is not a given, and it has prospered to date largely due music and within a window that other providers have yet to fill.

Broadcasters such as NBC have seen their business model shot to hell of late. They, along with CBS, ABC and FOX are adapting to the internet, but slowly. They cannot assume any longer a near monopoly which advertisers could count on. Everything is now fragmented. The same holds true for such monopolistic content providers as the NFL. Increasingly they cannot shop their wares for the best annual deal with one of the major networks and consider it done. What they and their advertisers will have to recognize and adapt to is a widely disperse market of a myriad of small channels, each of which can make them a profit, in total quite possibly larger than before.

What these guys need is an aggregator. Before, someone such as ABC was, by default. Now they are but one of many content providers, and but one of many middlemen in distribution. There may be a new Google in this, whether Apple or someone else, that not only best gets media from content providers to customer's HDTV sets, but also best provides for advertisers in a very fragmented market.

No one is presently doing this.

Michael CM1

Dec 15, 2009, 08:53 PM

After seeing some TVs for sale yesterday, Apple TV is in trouble as a hardware device. TVs with Internet connections are getting more popular and coming with Netflix and other stuff already built in. I saw a Samsung 52" LCD for $1300 with this.

As this feature makes it into more TVs, Apple should probably wise up and develop Apple TV as a widget for such platforms. Apple TV is $229, the same price as Samsung's bad-ass Blu-ray Disc player that streams all sorts of stuff and loads faster than a PS3. Apple will only get die-hard iTunes media buyers to get the hardware at that price. I'd like to get my iTunes content on my TV, but not at that price. I have only bought a few shows and movies via iTunes, and I don't think I'll be buying more as BD prices come down. "The Universe" looks MUCH better in Blu-ray HD anyway.

fpnc

Dec 16, 2009, 03:33 AM

Thus, it may be that the best that Apple can do at this time is to merely guess at what customers might be willing to buy.
...That's a big load of crap...
I'm uncertain as to why you choice to extract that small fragment from my previous post when I immediately followed that sentence with the following:
Well, "guess" may be too strong of a term, it should be an informed opinion backed up with real financial estimates on what the market will accept and with a good dose of analysis on what is really feasible given current technology and competitive markets (things like intellectual property barriers and licensing costs need to be examined in great detail).
I guess you consider that a "load" also?

As for these questions:
Do you FPNC believe that it is selling well enough now to entrench in the masses living rooms, and thus create the potential to realize the Apple vision as you've presented it in the 5-year timetable you've also offered up?

And if so, where exactly is that big boom in sales going to come from relative to the non-Apple-fanatic masses?
I think the answer is fairly obvious, Apple doesn't need to win at making the best multi-functional hardware device, they just need to win at offering the best streaming media service and any hardware that they produce will just be a window into that service.

My "vision" is that streaming media is the future, I don't think that can be disputed (or at least it could be the most likely outcome). Thus, I see Apple making incremental improvements with the Apple TV hardware while concentrating on ease of use and quality of service. As most of us have already opined, there are still a lot improvements that Apple could make through software upgrades and changes in the licensing terms of the media they offer through the iTunes Store (although as we all seem to agree, the content providers currently have a very tight grip on exactly what Apple can offer in the way of movies and TV).

By the time that streaming media begins to replace Blu-ray players and DVRs the cost of the hardware to support streaming 1080p content will be extremely low. Then, with the proper infrastructure and streaming service Apple will be able to produce a box for $100 (or less) that can completely replace Blu-ray players and DVRs (think of this, no moving parts and a few chip could do it all). As I've already written, the true genius in this whole question is knowing when or how soon this transition will take place. In the interim Apple will be building infrastructure (like that one billion dollar server farm) and perfecting their streaming services (for the iPhone/iPod, Macs/PCs, and the Apple TV).

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 06:54 AM

I'm uncertain as to why you choice to extract that small fragment from my previous post when I immediately followed that sentence with the following: I guess you consider that a "load" also?

No, the balance was OK, and yes, the financial forecasting and modeling is a part of good new product development processes. What made it a load of crap was implying that it may be as good as Apple can do and/or guessing was maybe as good as they can do for researching what features would be desirable. Both of those implications are completely false. Certainly Apple has the ability to make better hardware than what :apple:TV "as is" amounts to now (and even what it was when released several years ago). And certainly Apple could do "research" as cheaply, quickly and simply in ways such as the example I shared in that last post to get a very good feel for what BUYERS would like to see in the next incarnation (for some reason I don't understand, they just choose NOT to do that).

We should not worship at the alter of Apple so thoroughly that we blindly accept that they know best in all things, and that whatever they deliver is the best it can possibly be. While Apple does a great job in many things- and in many ways- they don't do EVERYTHING perfectly right, and this is an obvious opportunity for them to use their deep- and capable- technical and marketing competencies to do this much, much better.

There are no good excuses for what seems like mostly a lack of will and/or focus on a product that could be bigger than iPhone... and that they could clearly evolve into yet another category killer.

I think the answer is fairly obvious, Apple doesn't need to win at making the best multi-functional hardware device, they just need to win at offering the best streaming media service and any hardware that they produce will just be a window into that service.

So, do you think they are doing that now? Are they "winning" with this thing "as is"? If you measure winning by sales, closely related set-top hardware options are outselling them. If you measure it by quality of video, it appears the mass market is reasonably aware that 1080p is "true HD" (and if not, they've been trained to think bigger numbers are better). If you measure it by Apple's own focus on what is working (selling heavily) for them, it seems like even Apple doesn't see it as "winning".

Many companies make the best ______________, but if it doesn't sell that well, is it a winning product?

My "vision" is that streaming media is the future, I don't think that can be disputed (or at least it could be the most likely outcome). Thus, I see Apple making incremental improvements with the Apple TV hardware while concentrating on ease of use and quality of service. As most of us have already opined, there are still a lot improvements that Apple could make through software upgrades and changes in the licensing terms of the media they offer through the iTunes Store (although as we all seem to agree, the content providers currently have a very tight grip on exactly what Apple can offer in the way of movies and TV).

In this, you & I agree. So what would put Apple in a position to better win concessions from those studios? My opinion is make a next-gen :apple:TV that the mass market will buy... THE product of the year for 2010 (and maybe 2011), entrench (meaning get into a high percentage of living rooms, ahead of purchases like BD players, DVRs, etc), and then let the Studio's greed- and competitiveness- move them to want to do deals with Apple to sell their content to all of that opportunity.

Your opinion seems to rely on some kind of magic... that Studios will one day just magically embrace the :apple:TV channel because internet distribution is the future. Or that magically the mass market will decide to buy :apple:TV's as APPLE has decided to configure them- but in great numbers- because internet distribution is the future. What makes your vision come to pass, if the product is not heated up so that the mass market buys it en masse?

By the time that streaming media begins to replace Blu-ray players and DVRs the cost of the hardware to support streaming 1080p content will be extremely low. Then, with the proper infrastructure and streaming service Apple will be able to produce a box for $100 (or less) that can completely replace Blu-ray players and DVRs (think of this, no moving parts and a few chip could do it all). As I've already written, the true genius in this whole question is knowing when or how soon this transition will take place. In the interim Apple will be building infrastructure (like that one billion dollar server farm) and perfecting their streaming services (for the iPhone/iPod, Macs/PCs, and the Apple TV).

Well this is the most important piece. I was under the impression that you believed :apple:TV should compete with BD and DVR options. This reads like you are conceding the next step in the market to them, and that Apple is working on trying to entrench in the mass market AFTER those start petering out. In trying to understand your point of view, that's an important concession.

My arguments are based on an idea of getting to your vision much sooner, not by waiting out another round of disc-buying to replace (DVD) discs that replaced (LD) discs that replaced (VCR) tapes, but actually attempting to take that next round from BD and DVRs ASAP. It is my opinion that moving now (yesterday) with a next-gen 1080p :apple:TV somewhat more open as I've described it would allow this device to directly compete with BD and DVRs NOW, giving the mass market a desirable alternative to another round of disc buying, by buying the "next big thing" from Apple.

If BD player sales roughly follow DVD sales (and they largely have to date), DVDs are still "king" more than a decade later. I sincerely hope that the grand plan for :apple:TV is not as much as another decade out. And I believe it doesn't have to be... a few modest enhancements (leaving some bigger optional enhancements to third parties) and Apple could bite into that lucrative segment much sooner than 5-10+ years.

mstrze

Dec 16, 2009, 07:32 AM

Oh, I understand that. But let a bunch of other people do what you are doing so that your cable provider feels the pain in their cable business, and watch what happens to your broadband bill. The last thing those in control of the pipes want is to end up as just a cheap broadband pipe. And these companies controlling those pipes especially love the easy- and lucrative- profitability of their core television programming distribution businesses. They won't lose that easy money to someone like Apple if Apple's solution has to flow through their pipes.

Sorry to hit you with that. But what would you do if you were them?

I would argue Darryl, that it is cheaper for a company to be a purely broadband service than to have to deal with all sorts of programmers(TV nets) and negotiating over how much money per subscriber a channel gets and deciding which channels to carry and fighting the Govt. over various laws like must-carry and whatnot.

Sure, it makes them money, but it is a lot of hassle and it's not really as much a cash cow as it was back in the day where cable systems just pulled all their content from over the air or microwaved singals.

If it were me...and it's not...I would LOVE to run a pure broadband company as I would only have one thing to worry about: bringing the internet to customers' homes.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 08:49 AM

I would argue Darryl, that it is cheaper for a company to be a purely broadband service than to have to deal with all sorts of programmers(TV nets) and negotiating over how much money per subscriber a channel gets and deciding which channels to carry and fighting the Govt. over various laws like must-carry and whatnot.

Sure, it makes them money, but it is a lot of hassle and it's not really as much a cash cow as it was back in the day where cable systems just pulled all their content from over the air or microwaved singals.

If it were me...and it's not...I would LOVE to run a pure broadband company as I would only have one thing to worry about: bringing the internet to customers' homes.

mstrze, again I'm with you on what you would like to see, but I would encourage you to look into how much those companies make on their tv signal distribution businesses before you dismiss it as "not much of a cash cow". They don't keep buying each other out because they want more hassle, content provider wars, government battles, etc. Their model is very simple: put up a good fight on things that would increase their costs, but any costs that get forced through (onto them) get passed on to their subscribers in ever-increasing subscription costs (plus a little extra to further pad the profits). When was the last time someone's non-promotional cable or satt bill actually went DOWN in price?

Sure, it would be cheaper to be simply one thing instead of two or three, but cost is only one piece of the net profit calculation. Relatively easy revenues like a deeply entrenched model of the masses paying for TV programming with automatic subscriptions are not something to dismiss so easily (if you were them).

Furthermore if you were them, the board would fire you for wanting to jettison such a lucrative stream of cash to simplify operations to just a broadband pipe business, in the interests of making customers happy. It is admirable to put customers first, but our business society is one that puts stockholders first- even if that means somewhat socking it to customers to do so. Often that seems contradictory to long-term success, but that does tend to be how things often are.

I'm very much with you on the concept, but it just won't happen. If an Apple could significantly impact the cable/satt cash flows with some new (lower cost to end users) deal, those same companies through which Apple's (replacement) signals would flow would charge more for that flow. I believe the biggest reason they are also in the broadband business is the recognition that such a scenario could otherwise play out. Control the pipe and you can nearly guarantee your revenue & profits one way or another.

Look around. How many pure broadband pipe companies are there? Why isn't there many (is there any?)? If you started one and it gained a fair amount of momentum, the Goliaths that own the pipes now would quickly buy you out- or squeeze you out- as often happens when such well-entrenched business models are modestly threatened by entrepreneurial upstarts.

There was a rumor flying a while ago that Apple might take it's cash and buy DISH network. As wild as that sounds, it would have given Apple a way to bypass the established wired pipes and thus be able to control the pipeline between iTunes servers and end users.

AND, Apple (and Google) were apparently also seriously interested in bidding for the wireless spectrum freed up as part of the Digitial Television changeover. This was high-bandwith spectrum, nationwide, which could have opened up another way for Apple to make a broadband (bypass) connection directly from them to end users. More simply, this could have been a great way to offer high-speed wireless broadband by anyone who bought this spectrum.

Either scenario would have been very interesting relative to the envisioned "get it all from iTunes" model and the :apple:TV business. But guess who paid up big time to lock up the bulk of that wireless spectrum? And, at least to this point, the wild rumor about DISH seems to have faded to oblivion.

Bottom line: A CEO who just rolls over and accepts big losses in what has been long-term dependable revenues is not going to be CEO for long. I wish that your wish would come true as you imagine it, but I just don't see the Goliath's allowing it to happen (unless Apple can bypass their pipes to deliver that cheaper, better programming subscription solution directly to the end users like you & me). Competition could help make it happen, but when ALL of the broadband providers available to any given user can be calculated at 1- or sometimes 2- providers, there's insufficient competition to support such a radical change. If everyone had 6-10 broadband providers from which to choose someone like Apple might be able to strike a deal with #5 or #8 to help make such a concept work out. If #5 or #8 were not in the cable/satt businesses, they would love to steal a bunch of broadband subscriptions from those Goliaths.

mstrze

Dec 16, 2009, 10:24 AM

Darryl,

I didn't say cable TV is 'not much of a cash cow' these days just 'not AS much of a cash cow' as in the early day of cable when most content was absolutely free as cable companies pulled in their signals via tall antennas or ones mounted on mountain tops to pull in distant-city independent stations (that's how the first 'superstations' were started...like WPIX in NYC being pulled into my hometown area from mountaintop antennas in NE PA as an example.)

Now, content costs a cable company...so instead of an 80-90% profit margin, those companies are making maybe 10-20% or less. Still big bucks of course.

I'm not arguing your points per se...but just wanted to clarify as you missed one word in my post that makes a BIG difference.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 10:39 AM

I'm not arguing your points per se...but just wanted to clarify as you missed one word in my post that makes a BIG difference.

OK, sorry about missing that one word. And I really would love to see the sequence of events play out like you want them too. It would be terrific to get a lower-cost subscription option to iTunes video content that many could find as sufficiently competitive to their cable/satt setups so that this new iTunes offering plus "free" locals via an antenna would rapidly gain a ton of subscribers.

Win for Users (like you & me). Win for Apple/iTunes (and the "vision"). Lose for pseudo-monopoly Goliaths. But let's see it come to pass before we spend the savings over what we are paying now for X00 channels of mostly stuff we never watch (well, in your case, you're already ahead of me there).

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 11:32 AM

Another big (related) play: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/15/comcast.fancast.xfinity/index.html While much of this reads as "another hulu," note those references to their DVRs, already entrenched in home AV stacks. Apple needs to step it up, and in a hurry.

And also note the 1080p BD player for $78, showing that a 1080p platform with a built-in box can be profitably(?) sold for only $78: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10414375-58.html?tag=rtcol;pop Is there any doubt that a next-gen version from Apple could not add 1080p and maybe another "normal" USB (or similar) expansion port for $200-$300, still feed Apple's margin desires, while giving the mass market more of what they are seeking?

Clearly, some wholesaler is selling a chipset capable of full bandwith 1080p playback for something less than $78. And they or some other wholesaler is selling a BD player for something less than $78 MINUS the cost of that chipset. So it seems reasonable that Apple could sell us a next-gen AppleTV device for $200-$300, and they or a third party could sell us a BD player add-on option for $100-$200 more and everyone interested in just that next-gen or that next-gen PLUS a BD player could get a solution from Apple, that is much more than the sum of the parts... and a more elegant solution vs. buying that $78 (or similar) player as a separate box.

JonHimself

Dec 16, 2009, 11:47 AM

I won't quote any specific text because 1) there's no way I'm finding it and 2) it's been repeated a couple times but while I agree with HobeSoundDarryl saying that it would be a good idea to keep the ATV as is (slight specs to play 1080p) and then allow add-ons from third parties in the form of bluray, DVR, etc what I was getting at is, I don't see Apple doing that.
I think your solution is the best compromise between what (and others) have suggested that ATV becomes your ONLY place for HD movies, TV, etc etc and completely replaces your bluray and cable boxes and what you (and others) have suggested about giving the end-user more options. I say that because, as you've said, the add-ons are... well, added on. They don't affect the cost of the unit to someone like me who doesn't want and/or need them.
The main reason I'm arguing my side is trying to be realistic. I would love to see what you've suggested but I just don't think it Apple would do it. From that state of mind I came up with my side of the argument.
Unfortunately a lot of topics like this get debated to death because it's what people want and we're all likely never going to agree on that. I would want what you've suggested, but knowing (or at least having an opinion on) how Apple operates, I've realistically conditioned myself to expect something more along the lines of what I suggested so that when ultimately a new version comes out and doesn't include those things, I won't be angry/pissed off/disappointed. Not that you would, or are expecting these things either (the fact that you're responses aren't just "you're an idiot, you don't know anything" means you're probably a pretty realistic person), but just saying where I'm coming from

mstrze

Dec 16, 2009, 11:54 AM

Those new BR players with built-in Netflix and the like are game-changers in my opinion. Apple HAS to include BR AND do subscription or AppleTV will be dead.

(Funny how my opinion can be swayed in just a week or so ;) )

fpnc

Dec 16, 2009, 11:55 AM

...I was under the impression that you believed TV should compete with BD and DVR options. This reads like you are conceding the next step in the market to them, and that Apple is working on trying to entrench in the mass market AFTER those start petering out. In trying to understand your point of view, that's an important concession...
You say "conceding," I say leapfrogging (Blu-ray and DVRs). Look what i've said previously (as for understanding my point of view): In any case, Steve Jobs has said the following, ""I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it's been." That's partly marketing talk and a Steve Jobs' vision statement, but I'm pretty sure that's what they will be doing with the Apple TV. -- and -- And it [the Apple TV] will have to remain a "hobby" until the broadband infrastructure is ready for widespread HD transmission and the content providers loosen their grip on the control of the movies and TV shows. -- and -- I'm very confident that Apple will continue to focus on streaming and downloadable content from the internet, that's where they want to be successful and that's where they should be attempting to "slay the beast" (whether that should be infrastructure, easy of use, and/or new and expanded licensing terms with the content providers). Furthermore, let's not forget that if Apple provides the best streaming media experience then that also enables the iPhone/iPod and the rumored Apple tablet and few companies will be able to compete head-on with that hardware lineup as Apple makes those same services available for your in-home, HD entertainment center.

Apple probably isn't too worried about Samsung's Blu-ray player or the cable companies' DVR. The iTunes Store's competition is Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft, etc. Or more precisely, it's those companies' streaming media and so-called cloud-based services.
...What made it a load of crap was implying that it may be as good as Apple can do and/or guessing was maybe as good as they can do for researching what features would be desirable. Both of those implications are completely false... I guess you mean when I said things like this: Given the above, it's my opinion that Apple can't really do much to make the Apple TV as wildly as successful as either the iPhone or iPod and that may just be the case for the time being. (my new emphasis with the bold type)

As for my "guessing" comment, I think I've already shown (or defended) what I was actually saying.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 12:19 PM

You say "conceding," I say leapfrogging (Blu-ray and DVRs).

OK, I'll concede that I was apparently wrong in that interpretation of what you wrote. So, how is that leapfrogging working out? How does Apple get the market entrenchment skating where the puck is going to be if the mass market doesn't buy a ticket to that game? You keep ignoring those questions and comments from me. I've offered my opinion of how this product could be a mass market winner, with a logical approach to win mass adoption by non-Apple fanatics. I've challenged your view by asking if it requires magic- that the Studios and mass market will magically decide to embrace your vision just because internet distribution is the future.

So let's decide that my view is wrong- as you seem committed to do. How does your view get a mass adoption of :apple:TVs into homes? It's not leap frogging if the mass market is buying other boxes (like BD players and DVRs instead of :apple:TV).

Furthermore, let's not forget that if Apple provides the best streaming media experience then that also enables the iPhone/iPod and the rumored Apple tablet and few companies will be able to compete head-on with that hardware lineup as Apple makes those same services available for your in-home, HD entertainment center.

In comments like this, I'm completely with you. That's why I am so passionate that Apple can take this market ASAP if they would move toward delivering a next-gen :apple:TV with features (or at least optional add-ons) that will make the mass market buy it. Apple is extraordinarily well set up to take this market. All of the basic pieces are in place now... except, this tired, mostly closed bit of hardware that would only cost Joe Average about $200-$300 if Joe wanted one.

I want Apple to do it because I love the :apple:TV I own. The UI is the best I've seen for balancing multi-functional power with being "for dummies" and "Grandma compatible". But the hardware is in it's own way. Step it up so that the mass market can embrace it and it will be a big hit. Keep it the same and it is a big hit with only a small segment of Apple fans that "get it" as it is, and can live with individual compromises.

Apple probably isn't too worried about Samsung's Blu-ray player or the cable companies' DVR. The iTunes Store's competition is Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft, etc. Or more precisely, it's those companies' streaming media and so-called cloud-based services.

The mass market is going to buy only so many pieces of set-top boxes for their stack. They are not going to be motivated to go from 1080p on a BD box down to handicappd 720p in an :apple:TV. They are not going to be motivated to want to buy another box so that they can re-buy content they can get as part of their existing subscription to cable/satt on their DVR. In the meantime, these other boxes are adding :apple:TV-like features (and desirable features beyond :apple:TV) such as netflix streaming tech, on-demand video downloads: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10...?tag=rtcol;pop, hulu, etc.

And Yes, Apple had better fear the iTunes copycat potentials of Google, Amazon, and others, because this internet distribution battle can be won by whoever brings a high quality set-top box with the convenience and broad availability of desirable content at competitive prices. Apple has basically shown both the hardware and software sides the way, then- apparently- lost a fair amount of interest in continuing to blaze the trail (minor software enhancements aside). Perhaps those other guys are reading information like the ideas in this thread and building a next-gen :apple:TV with the features the mass markets are wanting to buy? And don't the Studios want ANYONE other than Apple to make this work, so they don't have to get under Apple's thumb (like their buddies in the music industry)?

I agree with the vision. I am as big an Apple fan as anyone. Where we differ appears to be in how Apple can fulfill the vision. I've laid out logical ideas they could follow to have a great shot at realizing the vision quickly. You've done a lot of "keep it mostly the same (but with 1080p hardware)" without laying out how that will lead to entrenchment. Show me the better way, and if it is at least as logical, I'll be happy to concede my views to yours.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 12:33 PM

...but while I agree with HobeSoundDarryl saying that it would be a good idea to keep the ATV as is (slight specs to play 1080p) and then allow add-ons from third parties in the form of bluray, DVR, etc what I was getting at is, I don't see Apple doing that.

Unfortunately, I fear you are right about this. And for my own situation, all I really want is "as is" enhanced with 1080p. I just couldn't buy enough of those units to explode this market for Apple. So my comments are far from what I- myself- want, and are instead my best shot at what I think Apple should do to make a next-gen :apple:TV as hot as an iPhone is to it's market.

And by best shot, I completely believe that Apple could do it, that it is within their abilities, compatible with more "open" concepts they know work (such as the app store, and third party value enhancing options for Macs, iPods, and iPhones, and so on). IMO, it is sooooooo much within Apple's grasp... if they would just choose to take this market. Thus, my frustration is that it seems it is probably mostly a matter of will vs. anything else.

It's not a complex piece of Apple's business. I perceive a relatively small- but dedicated team- assigned exclusively to delivering the next-gen :apple:TV I've described could pretty easily- and pretty quickly- hit a home run. Instead, Apple has spent the energy & time to make the USB port have less functionality than possible (as evidenced by hacks more normalizing that port), and stripping functionality out of underlying- but already existing- software like Quicktime, and so on.

If I could do a "freaky friday" with Steve, I'd just get on this. It would be a monster. Then, I'd take it to CES, and "one more thing" it after my (probable) Keynote, and multiple industry players would wet their pants (or worse). It's hard for me to imagine even the "best of" rumors of this coming tablet ending up as a bigger market than the next-gen :apple:TV box as I've described it in various posts within this thread.

fpnc

Dec 16, 2009, 12:40 PM

...Clearly, some wholesaler is selling a chipset capable of full bandwith 1080p playback for something less than $78. And they or some other wholesaler is selling a BD player for something less than $78 MINUS the cost of that chipset. So it seems reasonable that Apple could sell us a next-gen AppleTV device for $200-$300, and they or a third party could sell us a BD player add-on option for $100-$200 more and everyone interested in just that next-gen or that next-gen PLUS a BD player could get a solution from Apple, that is much more than the sum of the parts... and a more elegant solution vs. buying that $78 (or similar) player as a separate box.
Yes, Apple could do that but from my point of view they probably aren't interested in going that route (to offer expansion capabilities for Blu-ray and DVR functionality). If they eventually decide to go for a more fully-integrated device it could be literally an Apple TV (i.e. more-or-less a really big screen Mac).

Also, I suspect that those $78 boxes don't have a desk-top class CPU and GPU like the Apple TV (those CPUs admittedly getting pretty old and long-in-the-tooth after almost three years on the market). However, one of the advantages of a design like the current Apple TV is that it is fully programmable, they can change the graphical interface and the feature set through software alone. Apple has a long history of doing this, they rely more on software and fully-programmable hardware rather than fixed or limited function chips. In fact, they often over stress the hardware in order to deliver their software-driven experience.

In any case, I agree that prices are coming down and that's one reason I previously said that Apple will eventually be able to produce a $100 or less device that will offer a top-of-the-line 1080p streaming experience that for many consumers will pretty much end-of-life Blu-ray and DVRs.

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 16, 2009, 12:58 PM

Also, I suspect that those $78 boxes don't have a desk-top class CPU and GPU like the Apple TV (those CPUs admittedly getting pretty old and long-in-the-tooth after almost three years on the market).

So again, you ignore my suggestion of painting your picture of mass market entrenchment compatible with your view of "as is" with 1080p.

And in all the research I've done on this and related topics, I've never come across the mass market hinging on whether the chip set inside a box is desk-top class quality. Generally, the mass market wants the thing to work, well, out of the box, be easy to use, but powerful enough to impress. So it's great that YOU value such fine details as "desk-top class chips", but if Joe Average wants to make the most of his new 1080p HDTV this Christmas, I doubt that he is going to pay more than double for handicapped 720p- even on desktop quality chips- vs. $78 for a 1080p BD player.

There's a whole lot more of those "Joe's" than there are HobeSoundDarryl's and fpncs.

fpnc

Dec 16, 2009, 08:15 PM

So again, you ignore my suggestion of painting your picture of mass market entrenchment compatible with your view of "as is" with 1080p.
It's pretty simple, the Apple TV only needs to be good enough (and then some) to provide a window into Apple's streaming and downloadable media services (along with what they offer as extras right now -- user generated content, podcasts, youtube, internet radio, etc.). That will keep them at least in the user's eye and provide a platform for future development. Further, if they win big on streaming mobile devices and services then it will only be a short hop, skip, and jump to gain a spot next to a user's TV (at least among those persons who are willing to pay a slight premium for Apple's products and services -- sort of like the so-called iPhone/iPod halo effect). Let's face it, if the iTunes Store doesn't succeed (or continue to succeed) then I doubt that Apple will have much interest in making a product like the Apple TV a success unto itself. But don't worry, they'll add 1080p (eventually) and they'll continue to add new, internet-based services and they'll try to do all of this in a way that offers the best experience in the industry.
And in all the research I've done on this and related topics, I've never come across the mass market hinging on whether the chip set inside a box is desk-top class quality. Generally, the mass market wants the thing to work, well, out of the box, be easy to use, but powerful enough to impress. So it's great that YOU value such fine details as "desk-top class chips", but if Joe Average wants to make the most of his new 1080p HDTV this Christmas, I doubt that he is going to pay more than double for handicapped 720p- even on desktop quality chips- vs. $78 for a 1080p BD player.
I think you missed my point which was that those $78 Blu-ray players most likely don't have the hardware to offer fully upgradable and programmable services. I really don't know what is inside of that Blu-ray player but I'd be somewhat surprised if it was running a full Linux core that was interfaced to anything like a Pentium/Core CPU, PowerPC, Atom, or even an ARM. It's most likely using an embedded processor with a dedicated HDTV chip and a hardware decoder with limited programmability.

In any case, you're not likely to ever get something as simple as a pong game on that hardware (though an upgrade or by whatever means because the system wasn't designed to be that flexible from the beginning). However, even the lowly and now nearly three-year-old Apple TV has a dedicated CPU/GPU that can support OpenGL 2.0 and even Microsoft's DirectX 9.0 (DirectX cited only as an example of the programmability of the GPU).

Of course, it's all about what you make of this programmability and that's why I've at least partially agreed with your previous statements concerning continued software upgrades on the Apple TV. However, I don't go so far as to expect that Apple will make the Apple TV a completely open platform for third-party enhancements (and by "open" I don't mean open source, just as you've said you don't expect it to go open source either). Here's what I said previously on third-party apps on the Apple TV: ...possibly some support for third-party applications akin to the App Store for the iPhone/iPod touch (sandboxed, controlled, and not a completely open platform). Frankly, I don't think you'll ever see that possibility on your cheap Blu-ray player (because of limitations in its hardware and system design), a point which should have been apparent from my previous post where I said: ...However, one of the advantages of a design like the current Apple TV is that it is fully programmable, they can change the graphical interface and the feature set through software alone. Apple has a long history of doing this, they rely more on software and fully-programmable hardware rather than fixed or limited function chips. In fact, they often over stress the hardware in order to deliver their software-driven experience...

toolbox

Dec 16, 2009, 08:25 PM

Change the interface that the HDD's use. Needs SATA ( if that hasn't already been done) Mine was first Gen. So IDE for me

trip1ex

Dec 16, 2009, 08:36 PM

They need to open up the ATV like the Touch/iPhone.

idunn

Dec 17, 2009, 03:34 AM

You know, I could care less about ATV. But I like iTunes and would prefer to continue to use them as my media content provider of choice. Apple should look at this the same way. ATV has a nice UI, otherwise so what, what does it matter to them or anyone else? Only to the extent that it influences their iTunes business, which in video they'll probably find an increasingly picky clientele.

Like me, for instance. I'm beginning to wonder why I should settle for anything less than 1080p. Seriously. Hell, I don't even own any 1080p media, but I know people that do, and it looks pretty fantastic on their 65" screen. Even 720 'HD' media from Apple looks pretty darn good on this 13" MacBook screen. AND I can certainly discern the difference between it and standard definition real easy. I'm starting to get picky, and fairly sure in migrating to a much larger screen that I'll only at best tolerate DVDs from now on.

Do you think I want to go out and buy a Blue-Ray version of some movie I already own on DVD? No way. But I will, for the ones I really treasure. No doubt. And not at all happy that some older titles are not yet offered in Blue-Ray, and may never be. But the thing is there is enough of a difference to really matter. I'm not alone in this either, in seeing others beginning to really appreciate the difference.

So now myself in the position of questioning iTunes. I love the convenience, but increasingly questioning the rationale of purchasing media which I may turn around and replace with something better. What price convenience? Maybe it is time to consider nothing but Blue-Ray, and in convenience the inconvenience of ripping them for digital storage. I'd just as soon not, and would welcome an alternative.

It will emerge. But will it be from Apple?

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 17, 2009, 07:51 AM

if they win big on streaming mobile devices and services then it will only be a short hop, skip, and jump to gain a spot next to a user's TV (at least among those persons who are willing to pay a slight premium for Apple's products and services -- sort of like the so-called iPhone/iPod halo effect).

Do you not think they've already won big on the streaming mobile devices? Who's mobile devices capable of streaming media are bigger than Apples? The problem is that those millions of iPhone/iPod owners aren't hopping and skipping into the purchase of :apple:TVs. Why, because it isn't good enough "as is"... not equating to the "open" nature of the iPhone/iPod, nor hanging near the cutting-edge in hardware, etc

I think you missed my point which was that those $78 Blu-ray players most likely don't have the hardware to offer fully upgradable and programmable services.

Oh no, I understood that and fully agree that it is the software UI and the flexibility therein to evolve it that makes the :apple:TV my own favorite for these kinds of functions. That is what is best about the :apple:TV "as is" now.

I think you missed my point which is this: if someone can put a 1080p chipset and a BD player in a set-top box and sell it profitably(?) for $78, it should be easy for Apple (or Apple plus a third party) to put a similar chipset in a box with an Apple logo on it and deliver a 1080p next-gen :apple:TV with a(n optional) BD player for the current pricing +/- $100 or so dollars yesterday.

The beauty of software is that you write drivers to link a UI like :apple:TV's to almost ANY underlying reasonably powered hardware and it works. As is, it is running on standard chips (old Pentium M I think), which means drivers are written for a classic PC chipset. The UI is a program running on top of stripped down version of Mac OS X Tiger. So, a next-gen :apple:TV could use just about any core chipset on which Mac OS X can run, which means a next-gen :apple:TV with 1080p has been possible all along. The hardware is seriously dated now as there are a number of 1080p capable little boxes for sale at prices well below :apple:TV's with various :apple:TV-like functionality. None of those seem quite as elegant as :apple:TV's UI (no surprise there), but they keep trying. Meanwhile :apple:TV hardware just stays the same.

So you are right about the software being a key superior feature of the :apple:TV experience- even as is right now. But it's not enough for the mass market who wants superior hardware underpinning that great software, which is why- even for Apple- it is a "hobby".

In any case, you're not likely to ever get something as simple as a pong game on that hardware (though an upgrade or by whatever means because the system wasn't designed to be that flexible from the beginning).

Sorry to point it out but even that lowly player has a rudimentary photo slideshow feature- granted not as nice as :apple:TV's but it is more than just a one-trick pony. And again, the guy that wants 1080p video on his 1080p HDTV might prefer a 1080p device rather than settling for handicapped 720p on a "desktop quality" chipset as "a dedicated CPU/GPU that can support OpenGL 2.0 and even Microsoft's DirectX 9.0 (DirectX cited only as an example of the programmability of the GPU)."

And for those that pay a little more (but less than :apple:TV pricing), they can buy other players with more :apple:TV-like features. Again, not as nicely implemented as :apple:TV's GUI, but those players will come with really tangible, market-desirable features IMPOSSIBLE to be covered via mere software upgrades.

It's only a matter of time until a competitor(s) basically rips off the :apple:TV UI interface in full, links it to an iTunes-like video media source from Amazon, Google, Microsoft or elsewhere, offers it with BD and/or DVR options to kill 2-3 birds with one stone, and has it also linking to Netflix's great service, HULU, and others. I bet this box will be priced at or below :apple:TV's price. Which seems more likely to entrench with the masses?

HobeSoundDarryl

Dec 17, 2009, 08:08 AM

So now myself in the position of questioning iTunes. I love the convenience, but increasingly questioning the rationale of purchasing media which I may turn around and replace with something better. What price convenience? Maybe it is time to consider nothing but Blue-Ray, and in convenience the inconvenience of ripping them for digital storage. I'd just as soon not...

Right there... that's the thing. 1080p will be the max standard for a very long time to come. It's not like we jump even 5 years into the future and we'll be facing a 2160p new standard. From VHS to DVD, consumers stepped up because the picture & sound quality maxed out the standard that was available at the time. Now the max standard is 1080p, and almost anyone buying a "main" television is likely buying that max standard. If so, it is counter-intuitive- even depressing- to own a 1080p set but then be faced with what should be the best possible option- an Apple option- serving up handicapped 720p at best content... even more so when there are many other options (retail) priced substantially lower than :apple:TV that will serve 1080p content to your 1080p TV. That shows that it is easy to box the hardware that could max out the capabilities of all those HDTV's flowing into homes.

What exists is an obvious opportunity for Apple to roll out a next-gen hardware platform that rights this wrong, hopefully with a few additional features (such as those pitched in this thread) to maximize the appeal of this "next big thing" vs. the alternative of buying a bunch of the same movies and shows again on discs to step up to the new max standard. In doing so, Apple would be delivering a relatively future proof box, for which then solely software upgrades (though I support the OPTION for add-on hardware, even if that was mostly just normalizing the USB port(s)) could keep it fresh, interesting, evolving, etc.

I would welcome an alternative. It will emerge. But will it be from Apple?

I think that's who should do it. And if they did, I think it could be done better than just about anyone else, sooner than just about anyone else (because all of the pieces are largely in place now, and they already have a massive base of fans carrying around iPhones, iPods, and Mac's who would love to drop just $200-$300 on a new bit of fun hardware from Apple if it was as desirable- and "open"- as the stuff they've already purchased from Apple).

But will it come from Apple??? I believe all that is in the way is for Apple to choose to deliver it... purely a matter of will and will alone. A small dedicated team solely charged with delivering a "wow" next-gen platform, building upon what is fantastic about the existing model but also incorporating the "I would buy it if it would also _______________" calls from buyers wins this market on the scale that iPods and iPhones have won their markets.

I believe this market is far bigger than even the best scenario for the "tablet". Why Apple chooses not to take it- yesterday- eludes me.