1080i version?
Not until the world's telecoms infrastructure gets updated to allow the bandwidth required, and telco suppliers remove limits on data transfer for consumers.
1080i version?
There are some seriously jaded responses here.
Use your imaginations, people. Netflix is an AppleTV app. So could be Hulu, ABC, etc...
1: I have heard there is 16G of flash in 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.
(blah blah) ... Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device ... (blah blah)
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useful or interesting to consumers IF we sell a whole boat load of them, which we won't because it's uninteresting and out of date just like the last version that didn't sell for squat.
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?!? ), 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....
An App Store for AppleTV-specific apps could increase the utility of what initially seemed a disappointing upgrade.
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
...
The studios aren't on board, so no point getting excited until there's a decent amount of content available on the rental model.
...
...
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 ...
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.
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?!? ), 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....
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.
What a load. Be gone Steve Jobs, be gone...
The right time is when it gets a hard disk, analog audio out and 1080p.
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.
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".
Let the new AppleTV focus the thing its really good at: receiving and controlling network video simply, to your television.
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