Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mdelvecchio

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2010
3,151
1,149
There are some seriously jaded responses here.

Use your imaginations, people. Netflix is an AppleTV app. So could be Hulu, ABC, etc...

agreed. i love all my plugins in Plex. no reason why every single one couldnt be an ATV app. wish they had gone that route..its still the mini for me, but my dad would have enjoyed that.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
1: I have heard there is 16G of flash in :apple:TV

2: ->
Holy cow,
man, I don't know how many times I can say this: you don't need 1080p on an appleTV!!!!!!
the information content of the source material (itunes/anything on ipad) is WAAY WAAAAY below 1080p bit rate capability.

How do you know my local mp4 content is not 1080p ? :rolleyes:

AppleTV can stream for a DAAP server on your local network. DAAP can serve up 1080p. Thus while you might not need 1080p, others might. Stop speaking for everyone else.
 

SockRolid

macrumors 68000
Jan 5, 2010
1,560
118
Almost Rock Solid
Apple TV should be as simple as possible

(blah blah) ... Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device ... (blah blah)

Wrong. This is the trap that Google is falling into. They will be thrown down the same stairs that WebTV got thrown down.

Just a simple example: web browsing on TV is a horribly bad idea. Why? Because everyone wants to surf different things. Do you think the family would let Mom look up a roast beef recipe in the middle of, say, Monday Night Football? And would Dad be allowed to look up his team's quarterback's passing statistics during a family showing of Kung-Fu Panda? I don't think so.

There just isn't any good reason to web surf on your big-screen TV. It's there for communal use in most homes. Family members can surf on their iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, MacBooks, or whatever else.
 

nelmat

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2008
798
58
When the time is right? Yes, instead of offering an innovative and interesting new product with all kinds of potential 3rd party support and things to look forward to, let's offer the same old product that didn't sell before for a somewhat lower price, take away all internal storage so it's even less useful in some areas, ignore ALL previous customer suggestions (say 1080p?) and hope it sells anyway. Then we'll hint that SOME DAY maybe we'll offer something useful or interesting to consumers IF we sell a whole boat load of them, which we won't because it's uninteresting and out of date just like the last version that didn't sell for squat. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I TRULY wonder how Steve ever got where he did. He'll show all this innovation in some areas like the iPhone but then appear to be Forrest Gump when it comes to something that's actually pretty simple like home theater products (i.e. offer the best quality and state of the art features for a reasonable price offering all the conveniences of the best products that already exist).

For example, if Apple TV had 1080p from the start, a DECENT sized hard drive (even if that meant making SLIGHTLY bigger to fit a 3.5" hard drive; imagine THAT!?!) contained a DVR and Blu-Ray drive with support to convert them to be stored in iTunes automatically (like they do for CDs; a license would make this possible), had a front panel display that at least had a CLOCK on it (rather than just a little led light that does squat) and maybe even display title/artist information so you can see what's playing music-wise when the TV is turned off and don't have to wear out your projector bulb just to see a flipping album cover endlessly...or perhaps offer a cool visualizer to watch while you listen? What's THAT?!? :rolleyes: ), put in place the ability to add features like Netflix support, etc. as they become available (i.e. give the thing proper hardware assisted video decoding) and supported ALL the available formats so you can watch your home movies etc. without having to convert them to M4V and left provisions in place for gaming (and included a "remote" that could be used for gaming ala the "wii") and offered it for around $500, MAYBE just MAYBE the thing would have actually SOLD because it would have the potential to replace most of the home theater gear out there (just add receiver and TV).

THAT is what it would take to be as innovative as an iPhone. Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device with slick controls that can be upgraded to do just about anything you'd want it to do, whether it be a DVR or a cookbook display for the TV in the kitchen/dining room. If it had the proper connections (e.g. input video as well as output it) and the right hardware inside (hardware assisted encoding/decoding) with enough room to store apps/videos/movies (1.5TB 3.5" drives and larger are DIRT CHEAP for goodness sake!), it could do for TV what the iPhone did for smart phones. But no, some of those things MIGHT cannibalize iTunes music/movie sales, so we cannot include them! Never mind that we claim we do not make much profit from selling those sorts of things. We simply CANNOT offer a user-friendly do-everything type device because we want to sell SD 480p movies with low-quality video encoding and Dolby Pro Logic 2-channel sound to people that don't think there is anything better.... :rolleyes:


Sorry to quote all that garbage again, but you miss the point.

Content:

Apple aren't in control of this.

The studios aren't on board, so no point getting excited until there's a decent amount of content available on the rental model.

Infrastructure:

Apple aren't in control of this.

There is no way to stream 1080 into the average house, this is a streaming device therefore there's no reason for 1080. When 1080 is realistic, telcos are going to massively increase/remove consumer bandwidth limits.


Until this happens, the product remains a hobby. At $99, this is a no brainer, a toy - people wanted it cheaper, Apple halved the price. I don't own the original apple TV, but those people I know who do, love it - there are too many factors outside of Apple's control, you can't blame Apple for the studios refusing to allow their content onto this platform.
 

thewireman

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2007
194
0
Michigan
Does Apple TV have a USB output? Is that for harddrive or something? It would make more sense because of the apps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Bevz

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
816
137
UK
An App Store for AppleTV-specific apps could increase the utility of what initially seemed a disappointing upgrade.

Absolutely, the upgrade was very disappointing, but an app store on it... well, that's a different ball game altogether!
 

SockRolid

macrumors 68000
Jan 5, 2010
1,560
118
Almost Rock Solid
Apple TV's 1-2 punch: AirPlay, then App Store

AirPlay will work the moment iOS 4.2 is released. Neither the media nor consumers realize what a huge impact AirPlay will have on consumer electronics. And many of the posters on this thread, past and present, don't realize it either. The ability to stream any H.264 content you can access from your portable iDevice to Apple TV is killer feature #1 for Apple TV.

Killer feature #2 will be the App Store. Much harder than it sounds, even though Apple TV runs iOS under the hood. I am not an iOS developer (yet) but it seems like updating iOS apps (and iAds) to full HDTV resolution is fairly easy. iOS is now at 960x640, 1080 resolution is 2x that at 1920x1080. Apple could do the line same line doubling trick they did for iOS 3.x apps on iOS 4.x. Simple.

Over time, developers can update their Apple TV-targeted apps to full 1920 resolution. And Apple can tell developers to write their apps (and iAds) for full 1920 resolution. The math is easy: 1/2 to fit those pixels onto iPhone and iPod touch. And if next year's iPad goes to 1280x720, that will be an easy 2/3 resize.

The harder problem, which could take much more time to figure out, is bridging the gap from multi-touch hand-held apps on iDevices to multi-touch remote-control apps on Apple TV. There are a dozen ways to make it work but only Apple knows which is the best way. The rest of us will know sooner or later, possibly as soon as 4.2 is released.
 

gugy

macrumors 68040
Jan 31, 2005
3,879
5,292
La Jolla, CA
Well I would like ATV to have 1080p and support for external hard drives.
I know there is not much content out there available at 1080p for streaming but for folks that have their local media at 1080p would be a nice thing to have.
Also the storage would be nice so you don't need the Mac on at all times to watch something.
I understand that this device is aimed to a certain category of people that is the mainstream. I just think adding these two features would open it to more folks. But at the same time I think Apple wants you to spend the $700 to get a MacMini to do these things.
I just think $700 is too much dough to use just as a media player. Anyway, life goes on.
 

MenLoveToys

macrumors newbie
Sep 9, 2010
12
0
I don't see why people are saying it needs an input controller.

The point isn't that there will be iPhone apps running on the Apple TV.
The point is there will be Apple TV-designed apps running on the Apple TV.

arn

Then How would the kids control it when you are at work?

What happens if you get a phone call?

How would I control it from my Android OS Droid X?

Seems rather limited access and presumptuous to assume that everyone is going to purchase an Apple Controller to access this.
 

SockRolid

macrumors 68000
Jan 5, 2010
1,560
118
Almost Rock Solid
AirPlay gets around the studios stalling, 720 is fine for now

...
The studios aren't on board, so no point getting excited until there's a decent amount of content available on the rental model.
...

You're forgetting AirPlay. Any H.264 content can be streamed from your iDevice to Apple TV. You can stream CNN, for example, from the CNN app, and MLB from the MLB app. You want to buy "Shrek 3"? You can buy that on your Mac/PC and stream it to Apple TV.

...
When 1080 is realistic, telcos are going to massively increase/remove consumer bandwidth limits.

Until this happens, the product remains a hobby. At $99, this is a no brainer, a toy ...

Agree. 1080 isn't necessary for the mainstream consumer market. Vidiots might see a difference when they sit too close and look for artifacts.

But putting iOS on Apple TV means that Apple has gotten more serious about their "hobby." Now there is a way for developers to target big-screen HDTVs. (And, I almost hate to say it, but iAd was probably developed for HDTV-resolution apps from the start.)
 

benoitgphoto

macrumors 6502
Jul 19, 2007
264
2
When the time is right? Yes, instead of offering an innovative and interesting new product with all kinds of potential 3rd party support and things to look forward to, let's offer the same old product that didn't sell before for a somewhat lower price, take away all internal storage so it's even less useful in some areas, ignore ALL previous customer suggestions (say 1080p?) and hope it sells anyway. Then we'll hint that SOME DAY maybe we'll offer something useful or interesting to consumers IF we sell a whole boat load of them, which we won't because it's uninteresting and out of date just like the last version that didn't sell for squat. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I TRULY wonder how Steve ever got where he did. He'll show all this innovation in some areas like the iPhone but then appear to be Forrest Gump when it comes to something that's actually pretty simple like home theater products (i.e. offer the best quality and state of the art features for a reasonable price offering all the conveniences of the best products that already exist).

For example, if Apple TV had 1080p from the start, a DECENT sized hard drive (even if that meant making SLIGHTLY bigger to fit a 3.5" hard drive; imagine THAT!?!) contained a DVR and Blu-Ray drive with support to convert them to be stored in iTunes automatically (like they do for CDs; a license would make this possible), had a front panel display that at least had a CLOCK on it (rather than just a little led light that does squat) and maybe even display title/artist information so you can see what's playing music-wise when the TV is turned off and don't have to wear out your projector bulb just to see a flipping album cover endlessly...or perhaps offer a cool visualizer to watch while you listen? What's THAT?!? :rolleyes: ), put in place the ability to add features like Netflix support, etc. as they become available (i.e. give the thing proper hardware assisted video decoding) and supported ALL the available formats so you can watch your home movies etc. without having to convert them to M4V and left provisions in place for gaming (and included a "remote" that could be used for gaming ala the "wii") and offered it for around $500, MAYBE just MAYBE the thing would have actually SOLD because it would have the potential to replace most of the home theater gear out there (just add receiver and TV).

THAT is what it would take to be as innovative as an iPhone. Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device with slick controls that can be upgraded to do just about anything you'd want it to do, whether it be a DVR or a cookbook display for the TV in the kitchen/dining room. If it had the proper connections (e.g. input video as well as output it) and the right hardware inside (hardware assisted encoding/decoding) with enough room to store apps/videos/movies (1.5TB 3.5" drives and larger are DIRT CHEAP for goodness sake!), it could do for TV what the iPhone did for smart phones. But no, some of those things MIGHT cannibalize iTunes music/movie sales, so we cannot include them! Never mind that we claim we do not make much profit from selling those sorts of things. We simply CANNOT offer a user-friendly do-everything type device because we want to sell SD 480p movies with low-quality video encoding and Dolby Pro Logic 2-channel sound to people that don't think there is anything better.... :rolleyes:


I don't agree. Your description is not innovation, it's only putting in 1 box all the existing home theater technologies. Streaming from the cloud IS innovation.
 

8CoreWhore

macrumors 68030
Jan 17, 2008
2,649
1,181
Tejas
Apple TV has UNLIMITED Storage.

It's connected to the home network... where you can have your own hard drive.... aTV doesn't need one... see how that works, kiddies?

After the aTV keynote, pundits said: "...today, Google dodged a bullet". :D
 

eye

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2009
572
2
Detroit
Without a hard drive on the new Apple TV I guess the tv app store is only going to be for the old, BETTER, Apple TV. Funny how it had more and better features when it was a "hobby".
 

MenLoveToys

macrumors newbie
Sep 9, 2010
12
0
Wrong. This is the trap that Google is falling into. They will be thrown down the same stairs that WebTV got thrown down.

Just a simple example: web browsing on TV is a horribly bad idea. Why? Because everyone wants to surf different things. Do you think the family would let Mom look up a roast beef recipe in the middle of, say, Monday Night Football? And would Dad be allowed to look up his team's quarterback's passing statistics during a family showing of Kung-Fu Panda? I don't think so.

There just isn't any good reason to web surf on your big-screen TV. It's there for communal use in most homes. Family members can surf on their iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, MacBooks, or whatever else.

Do you really think that the family watches TV together that much anymore?

The kids all have TV's in their bedrooms and I know when I want to watch Football and the wife wants to watch another show I lose and watch it on the HD TV set in the bedroom.
 

Newton1666

macrumors newbie
Mar 25, 2008
22
0
Server Farms

The right time might be when the server farm in North Carolina goes operational, and then those puny Rebels will be wiped from the Aldarin System.

In truth I don't expect much from :apple:TV until more content providers start making there own apps for iOS ecosystem. Jobs flips the switch and everyone is happy. This egg is waiting for more chickens to hatch.

*More than enough mixed metaphors and Star Wars references for one day.
 

paradox00

macrumors 65816
Sep 29, 2009
1,405
819
Then How would the kids control it when you are at work?

What happens if you get a phone call?

How would I control it from my Android OS Droid X?

Seems rather limited access and presumptuous to assume that everyone is going to purchase an Apple Controller to access this.

The Apple Remote comes in the box...

You completely missed his point.
 

chris975d

macrumors 68000
Sep 21, 2008
1,795
55
Georgia, USA
Without a hard drive on the new Apple TV I guess the tv app store is only going to be for the old, BETTER, Apple TV. Funny how it had more and better features when it was a "hobby".

This is what I've been wondering. I haven't read up that much on the new AppleTV, but I think it's all streaming, correct (meaning no on board storage)? And if Jobs is talking about a possible app store for it some time in the future, won't the apps downloaded need a place to reside (i.e. storage space)? If the new AppleTV can't download/store anything, where are the apps supposed to stay?
 

Bevz

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
816
137
UK
I don't see why people are saying it needs an input controller.

The point isn't that there will be iPhone apps running on the Apple TV.
The point is there will be Apple TV-designed apps running on the Apple TV.

arn

Well said.

Even though ATV apps would obviously be written to be controller by the ATV remote, it's not hard to imagine support also being written to take advantage of multiple types of input devices... iPhones etc, but clearly it would be product suicide to insist each ATV user also own another iDevice to control it!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.