Jobs Says Apple TV App Store Could Launch When the Time is Right

[(marc)]

Poor developers. They'd have to develop for old iPhones, iPhone 4, iPad and AppleTV. That'd be a huge mess.

[GeekLawyer]

Originally Posted by (marc)

Poor developers. They'd have to develop for old iPhones, iPhone 4, iPad and AppleTV. That'd be a huge mess.

Yeah, such a $hame to be making all those apps, making all those sale$.

[jmull]

Originally Posted by adriaanmulder

Apple have made the apple tv a simple $100 device that will sell.

Once the number of sales is impressive they will announce an appstore

Then they will release a more capable apple tv centred around gaming capabilities while still selling a cheaper version.

Or at least that's what I think.

The problem I have is that it doesn't cost $100. It cost $100 plus .99 here and 1.99 there just to use it. What does it do besides rent you movies?

[SkippyThorson]

Originally Posted by richman555

2. Storage - I have an original Apple TV and I found very little reason to store the movies local on the device. The streaming works very well. The only reason might be a bad network signal in your home which means you probably want something else to extend your signal. When its the difference between $229 and $99, I would take the cheaper option.

I would too, but I'd also like an alternative to leaving my computer on. You make a lot of good points, but my only gripe now seems unavoidable with the stock TV alone.

If I could pop on a flash drive or hard drive, that would be great. If I could stream from the drives on my airport, that would be even better.

Any alternative to leavin my beastly Windows box on... and people said the first TV was hot.

[paradox00]

Originally Posted by jmull

The problem I have is that it doesn't cost $100. It cost $100 plus .99 here and 1.99 there just to use it. What does it do besides rent you movies?

Stream movies/music from your pc/mac
Stream video/music from apps on your iPhone/iPad/iPod touch
Stream movies from Netflix.

Yes rentals cost $0.99 or $1.99 here and there, but it's not the only way to use Apple TV and cable costs people a lot more.

[arkmannj]

Add some internal storage, add bluetooth and let it pair with a nintendo wii remote and call it good. :-)

or better yet, Apple buy Nintendo, (but generally lets them run themselves) merge the AppleTV and Wii onto a single products (also merging the Wii Shop channel and the iTunes/App stores) give the product more internal storage, beef up a few specs, call it the Wii 2 and go with it.

[jp102235]

Originally Posted by cgc

High bitrates do not equate to high quality; you have to consider the codec and type of content. Some things can be sampled at a lower bitrate without andy perceptible loss of quality...YMMV of course.

so very true, however,when comparing the same codec (or very similar), bitrate may be the only objective measure of quality we have at the time. Ultimately, its the perception of the viewer (and the the TV's effects) that determine PQ.

j

[jp102235]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

Even Blu-Ray is compressed guy.
You don't seem to understand compression at all based on the totality of your post.
I'll leave the rest of your pointless post alone sense it's based on faulty assumptions about encoding methods and the amount of data needed to achieve a clean signal.

ok, yea,
here's the deal: I don't want to get into a master's/phd - level discussion on information theory,image compression, motion compensation or all the different codecs out there. been there, done that, got the advanced degree.

Weirdly, in some points, I kind of agree with you, but you seem so blindingly angry - I am just sort of tired of the discussion, and I realize its doing no one any good.

cheers

j

[macerroneous]

Originally Posted by ruralguy

So when I'm using my mouse to control my PC am I looking at the mouse or the screen? When I use the trackpad on my laptop where am I looking?

I already use the Remote app with my Apple TV and it works perfectly - I think many people seem to be missing the point here that control of the TV via existing touch devices is already up and running and working perfectly fine.

I concur wholeheartedly. I expect there will be games which use the accelerometers and gyro to control the game on the big screen. Expect apple to produce a modified remote app designed expressly for this purpose. "Product suicide to require separate purchase of iDevice to control ATV". Nonsense! The new ATV is designed to be an iDevice peripheral, not a desktop peripheral like the old ATV. It astounds me that anyone on this forum doesn't have an iDevice yet. Shame on you! Having said that, at least on enterprising apple hater will be sure to release an ATV-compatible app for your precious droid.

[adriaanmulder]

a

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

There's only one memory chip in the new Apple TV [max 256 KB] and the A4 is not running at full speed, but at a lower clock rate.

how do you know? I hear you on the flash...but the ram the the a4 clock speed, your don't know. Nobody knows if the Iphone 4 and Itouch 4 are not running at 1 GHZ like the ipad. its all speculation.

But the Apple Tv would not really need more than 256mb of ram. The ipad and itouch get by with that amount of ram very nicely.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

You are the second to suggest this, but you are flat out wrong. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again to explain why so I suggest you look for that post instead of posting nonsense all over again. For starters, you might look at the control interface (or the total lack of one unless you count the hopelessly outdated Front Row) and the total lack of Blu-Ray support in OSX.

Ironically, a *PC* running Windows7, ironically, COULD do and be what I talk about if it had a proper unified control interface that is simple enough to use in home theaters (i.e. you should not have to run it like a regular computer). But a Mac is wholly inadequate for the job given its tiny internal hard drive (2.5" based is unacceptable given you cannot even fit 1TB in it and having to expand externally defeats the point of a home theater shaped box). You cannot access existing HD rentals (that ATV uses) from a Mac Mini under ANY circumstance (defeats the ENTIRE point of the box). There is no simple living room method to convert DVDs, let alone Blu-Ray discs to be stored on its hard drive or a house server (more work). Without the governing interface to make access to Netflix, Hulu, etc. easy to use from a remote type situation (or at least a good controller like a Wii type remote to make navigating such sites simpler), all you end up with is a bloody PC sitting in your living room and having to use the same old mouse-type controls that are NO GOOD for that kind of situation.

In short, your idea sucks because it's 85% incomplete and does not deal with ANY of the shortcomings of being used in a home theater environment. You could run something like Plex instead, but it no more handles Blu-Ray, ripping and encoding (ala iTunes CD ripping ease for movies) any more than iTunes or ATV does. In short, it's not a total or elegant solution to home theater AT ALL. The only benefit about ATV is the ability to handle 1080p and possibly internet-based video services from 3rd party software without "hacking". But you also lose the best feature of ATV over such a setup and that is the ability to rent thousands of HD titles (only a few can be rented or purchased outside ATV). And until recently, the Mac Mini didn't even have HDMI and thus it was unsuitable for rentals anyway.




Man, did you read the other guy's post and copy it point for point? Give it up. Apple already has rentals for all those movies. They can't seem to get the license to SELL those titles or use them with non-HDCP Macs and thus the reasons Steve has no rentals for the thousands of titles ATV handles for regular Macs and thus the reason that iTunes sucks so hard compared to Blu-Ray where thousands of movies are available to both buy and rent. Yes, you can encode your own stuff (illegally) from either BD rips or pirated material, but that is hardly an elegant home theater solution.



WTF is your point? You cannot rent most HD titles except through ATV. You cannot buy hardly any titles in HD from iTunes. iTunes will not handle any 3rd party formats (home videos will have to be converted to M4V to even watch them through that archival system). Worse yet, Apple is increasingly releasing buggered versions of iTunes in order to meet hardware release dates when the software clearly isn't ready (i.e. iTunes 10 crashes 50x more often than iTunes 9, but they had a deadline so they shoved it out the door anyway). If Apple wants to keep the reputation of iTunes mated with Apple hardware intact, they better start thinking more about QUALITY than being in a hurry to meet timetables. NO ONE wants a POS full of bugs and crashes or in the case of a certain iOS hardware device, dropping calls constantly because they were in a hurry to get your money.




Bullcrap. Content companies have NOTHING to do with ATV not sporting BD. They have nothing to do with a decent remote. They have nothing to do with app support. They have nothing to do a lack of 1080p support both on ATV and in iTunes. They have nothing to do with 3rd party format support in iTunes (so you don't have to convert all your existing material including home videos to M4V just to get them to work and then without 1080p and no DTS support or any other modern audio decoder support like Dolby True HD, etc.) They have nothing to do with a lack of gaming support on the the device of any kind, the lack of a front panel display for title information (forcing a TV/Projector to be on even when only playing music titles, wearing the bulbs out when it should be unneeded for music). It has nothing to do with a lack of facilities to converting your existing DVD collection as iTunes does for music CDs. It has nothing to do with the lack of an iTunes style visualizer to use with music CDs (only being able to watch photo slide-shows). It has nothing to do with the lack of support of UPnP or NAS storage devices (thus requiring a PC or Mac to be on and running in order to watch your streamed material). It has nothing to do with the lack of external drive support on the device (at least without hacking). The ATV interface doesn't even give the time of day (let alone weather reports like XBMC) despite the device having the time internally. Forget alarms or sleep modes, etc. I'm sure Hollywood prevented those from being included as well!



WTF does any of that have to do with whether a consumer buys a product or not????? Oh, Steve is a great rich guy who made Pixar so I'm going to just buy anything he sells? Man, are you living in fan-boy world or something? Get with reality!


Well I would hope you know who they are. He than came back to Apple and pulled them out of near bankruptcy to now the Second highest company in Market Cap just under Exxon in just a little over 10 years. HOW IS THAT http://www.macworld.com/article/1460...rc=rss_mainFOR A RESUME!!



You don't seem to understand anything so I'm nor surprised.

Suffice to say if you have a 120" screen with a high-end projector that does a crisp 1080p and you're sitting 10 feet away, you can EASILY see the difference between 720p and 1080p. And let me tell you that such a person is not going to want to watch relatively low bit-rate 720p when high bit-rate 1080p is available (i.e. Blu-Ray).

Many people's systems will not show a big difference, but that does not mean you build for the lowest common denominator. Suppose I cannot tell the difference between 480p and 1080p because I have a small HDTV and sit far away. Does that mean I should start a large DVD collection now? No, because in the future I may be able to afford/buy a larger TV and then all my videos would be sub-standard when if I had bought 1080p Blu-Ray, I'd be all set with content for my new screen. Similarly, why would someone purposely start buying a large collection of 720p movies when 1080p movies are available? Because Apple doesn't want to support them. Yeah, right. The person simply doesn't buy the Apple product and gets a Blu-Ray player or a video display from someone else. 1080p has been available for a decade and BD for over a half decade. Apple is living in the past and it's really starting to grate. People don't want to hear BS excuses about "bags of hurt". The only "bag of hurt" is Steve Jobs himself refusing to support technology by other companies that is clearly superior to the crap he's pushing in the iTunes store (most iTunes movies are NOT available to sell even in 720p! You have to get poorly encoded 480p stuff that doesn't even have Dolby Digital 5.1 sound from over 15 years prior! (e.g. even latter day Laserdisc supported Dolby Digital AC3 5.1!)



You don't need to stream a blu-ray "size" movie. 1080p will compress nicely to 1/4 that size without appreciable increase in artifacts. BD has the extra room so they use less compression. It's that simple. It doesn't mean a streamed movie has to be that large. A 4-5GB sized BD ripped/encoded movie will still look better than a 720p Apple 2.5 GB movie and it will stream just fine over a network. If you have 10Mbps Internet (increasingly common), it will stream in real time over the Internet even just as 720P Apple movies will on a 5Mbps network. You'd need a 40minute to 1 hour delay on a 5Mbps Internet connection (still competitive against having to drive to Best Buy or Hollywood Video in many cases to buy or rent a disc) and much more convenient. Once purchased, it will easily stream on 802.11N in real time.



Yes, let's put our entire lives on Apple servers so they can control our lives for us! I'm sure my personal data would be MUCH safer from hackers, etc. on Mobile Me than on my own Mac. Imagine if you're writing an important document with a word processor running "from the cloud" and the "cloud" goes down (for whatever reason from hacking to local power failure to a computer bug/glitch). YOU'RE FRAKED! You can reboot or switch computers or go to battery backup at home, but you cannot control what happens in North Carolina. So no thanks. I don't want the "cloud".

Dude apple tv is not for you! Get over it. There are other options but the vast majority of people out there will choose the apple tv, especially when it can airplay with the ipad\itouch\iphone. That alone is worth $99.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Itouch 4 are not running at 1 GHZ

itouch get by with that amount of ram very nicely.

What does a wireless keyboard need with a 1 GHZ cpu and 256 MB of RAM anyway ? It's just a bunch of key sensors and a wireless chip.

Oh, did you mean the iPod Touch ?

[dolstein]

The only people who'd need Apple TV apps are those people who don't have an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad, and I don't think many people fall into that group.

With Air Play, you should simply be able to use the apps on your iPod, iPod Touch and iPad (each of which would function as a remote control for your Apple TV).

I cut the cable cord over a year ago because my cable bill kept going up and I was tired of paying for hundreds of channels I didn't need. Since then, I've managed to get by on Hulu and iTunes.

I think it's possible, if Apples handles things right, for the Apple TV system to provide a true a la carte model for television viewing. You like ABC TV's programming? Then buy the ABC TV app, and for a low monthly fee, you'll have instant access to all of ABC TV's original program, which you can steam on your iPod, iPad or (with an Apple TV decide connected) your TV whenever you want. Or maybe you only like Modern Family. So instead of buying the ABC app, you'll by the Modern Family app, and for an even smaller fee, you can stream episodes of that particular program.

Currently, I purchase season subscriptions for several shows that aren't available on Hulu. But for most of these shows, I'm only interested in watching them once. So either a rental model or a "stream only" subscription would be just fine with me, as long as the price is right. The networks just need to be persuaded that the rental or streaming model will generate more revenue than the pay to own model.

[Mistrblank]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

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....

While the geek crowd would cheer, it would still be at a pricepoint where consumers would roll their eyes at the device. Consumers make up more of the buying numbers of devices than the geek crowd ever will. Apple isn't dumb here and putting a $99 device that competes well with other $99 devices like Roku will put Apple ahead. Or did you miss where everyone is laughing at BoxeeBox right now, primarily because of price despite doing all that you said above?

[markgo2k]

Originally Posted by dolstein

I cut the cable cord over a year ago because my cable bill kept going up and I was tired of paying for hundreds of channels I didn't need. Since then, I've managed to get by on Hulu and iTunes.

I think it's possible, if Apples handles things right, for the Apple TV system to provide a true a la carte model for television viewing. You like ABC TV's programming?

...
The networks just need to be persuaded that the rental or streaming model will generate more revenue than the pay to own model.

You're the wave of the future--to the horror of networks, TV stations and everyone else who takes a cut or piggybacks on the content creators. The real problem for the common man, though is no sports. That, too, is changing as the leagues (particularly baseball) start trying to get directly to the consumer through apps.

The problem for your full future vision that it's not up to Apple. It's up to the people who control the content rights.

That said, I think Apple is on the right path here. The key is to get your device+ecosystem to be the leader, and despite the howls of the techies (no 1080p? Sacrilege), a $99 device is probably a good way to go.

The next decade will see TV stations (and possibly networks) begin to die off in favor of a content creator / publisher model through digital distribution. Maybe it's Apple, maybe not. But it's coming...

[jmor]

I was disappointed when the TV was announced because it did not have an app store, so at least this gives me hope. And hopefully it comes soon, because I think I will hold off to buy one until I know for sure.

[JasperJanssen]

Originally Posted by Bevz

Like the article says; it'll be interesting to see if the ATV comes with a reasonable amount of flash memory (16/32/64gb) like the iPhone et al... If it does it'll be a sign they're planning on including app download at some stage!

Much more likely to be 4 gigs or so.

The aTV *NEEDS* storage, simply to operate. It runs iOS, iOS needs a half to whole gig in root and another half to whole gig in the data area. In other words, it's going to have at least 1 to 2 gigs simply not to be a nonfunctional demo doorstop.

It will have a 4 or possibly 8 gigabyte chip inside. There is no reason whatsoever for a 16, apps are *NOT* that big. Not even written for 720p. Apple isn't stupid, they don't put huge great big quantities of flash in something that in all likelihood will never use it.

[gugy]

Originally Posted by JasperJanssen

Much more likely to be 4 gigs or so.

The aTV *NEEDS* storage, simply to operate. It runs iOS, iOS needs a half to whole gig in root and another half to whole gig in the data area. In other words, it's going to have at least 1 to 2 gigs simply not to be a nonfunctional demo doorstop.

It will have a 4 or possibly 8 gigabyte chip inside. There is no reason whatsoever for a 16, apps are *NOT* that big. Not even written for 720p. Apple isn't stupid, they don't put huge great big quantities of flash in something that in all likelihood will never use it.

I am just glad there is some sort of storage there. The hackers might be able to add some features to ATV that are missing. Just like ATVFlash.
I for one would like to see that USB port able to support an external HD to have my media locally without the need of a Mac on at all times. We'll see.

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

how do you know? I hear you on the flash...but the ram the the a4 clock speed, your don't know. Nobody knows if the Iphone 4 and Itouch 4 are not running at 1 GHZ like the ipad. its all speculation.

It is pretty obvious. At least to me, since Apple isn't willing to talk [openly] about the clock speed. You won't find it on the Apple website, nor anywhere else for that matter. Except for the A4 in the iPad, which we all know is running at 1GHz.

This leaves two important questions unanswered:

1.) Why didn't Apple list the clock speed, like it did for the iPad?
2.) Why isn't Apple willing to reply on detailed technical questions, like the exact clock speed?

To me that is a sign that Apple has something to hide. That the A4 isn't running at top speed [in the iPod touch and iPhone 4]. That is why it isn't there, simply because Apple knows that people will complain. Even when they have no reason to complain [because it works doesn't it?].

It might be some other PR twist I am missing, but it sure isn't doing Apple a favor.

Originally Posted by tripjammer

But the Apple Tv would not really need more than 256mb of ram. The ipad and itouch get by with that amount of ram very nicely.

Yup. 256 is enough.

Edit: I was told that Apple will soon be forced to reveal technical specifications in the EU, due to some new legislation.

[FlyinggPenguin]

Is he referring to applications such as ABC Player, Hulu, and Netflix or iOS applications/games like the ever so popular Angry Birds and Doodle Jump? D:

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by (marc)

Poor developers. They'd have to develop for old iPhones, iPhone 4, iPad and AppleTV. That'd be a huge mess.

The apple appstore is right now the only appstore making money for developers. They will be glad to make apps for all 4 devices!

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

It is pretty obvious. At least to me, since Apple isn't willing to talk [openly] about the clock speed. You won't find it on the Apple website, nor anywhere else for that matter. Except for the A4 in the iPad, which we all know is running at 1GHz.

This leaves two important questions unanswered:

1.) Why didn't Apple list the clock speed, like it did for the iPad?
2.) Why isn't Apple willing to reply on detailed technical questions, like the exact clock speed?

To me that is a sign that Apple has something to hide. That the A4 isn't running at top speed [in the iPod touch and iPhone 4]. That is why it isn't there, simply because Apple knows that people will complain. Even when they have no reason to complain [because it works doesn't it?].

It might be some other PR twist I am missing, but it sure isn't doing Apple a favor.


Yup. 256 is enough.

Edit: I was told that Apple will soon be forced to reveal technical specifications in the EU, due to some new legislation.

I hear you man. I understand where you are coming from. I have an ipad and a Iphone 4 and they run almost at the same exact speed. Notice all three devices have different motherboards, but the Iphone 4 has 512mb of ram while the others have 256mb of ram. But geekbench does show that the ipad is still faster than the Ipod 4 and the Iphone 4. All the apple tv needs is the specs of the Ipod 4 and its a go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV
Notice the old apple tv also had 256 megs of ram.

Geekbench results for the following
iPod4,1 18 hours ago Score 387
Motherboard N81AP
ARMv7 @ 0.00 Hz (1 processor)
Geekbench 2.1.9 for iPhone OS

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench...&commit=Search

iPhone3,1 1 hour ago Score 382
Motherboard N90AP
ARMv7 @ 0.00 Hz (1 processor)
Geekbench 2.1.9 for iPhone OS
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench...&commit=Search

iPad1,1 6 hours ago Score 461
Motherboard K48AP
ARMv7 @ 0.00 Hz (1 processor)
Geekbench 2.1.9 for iPhone OS
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench...&commit=Search

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by JasperJanssen

Much more likely to be 4 gigs or so.

The aTV *NEEDS* storage, simply to operate. It runs iOS, iOS needs a half to whole gig in root and another half to whole gig in the data area. In other words, it's going to have at least 1 to 2 gigs simply not to be a nonfunctional demo doorstop.

It will have a 4 or possibly 8 gigabyte chip inside. There is no reason whatsoever for a 16, apps are *NOT* that big. Not even written for 720p. Apple isn't stupid, they don't put huge great big quantities of flash in something that in all likelihood will never use it.

Some of the early rumors said 16 gb of flash storage in the AppleTv. I am guessing 8gb...the Ipod Touch starts at 8 Gb...which is stupid they should have started it at 16GB...maybe they ran out of 16GB because they are going to use those in the Apple TV and the Iphone 4.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

And you support that conclusion HOW exactly? Oh that's right. You just made it up. There's a freaking shock.

It's more like they would NOT ALLOW a Blu-Ray ripper to be sold to the general public. OTOH, they MIGHT allow a secure BD ripping device if the results were also watermarked/protected for secure home use only. Such devices were created for DVD and perfectly LEGAL so spare me the BS you're making up off the top of your head about it could never happen.



The point is that with storage (at 1.5TB selling for <$99, don't tell me it's too expensive to include) it could simply be an *APP*. How would a free app be a deal breaker? You could simply choose not to use it. Besides, the number of people I see that WANTED one when the last ATV came out greatly outnumbered those that said they would not buy one if it was included. My cable box has a DVR, but its internal hard drive is only around 40GB. You cannot expand it yourself. I'd LOVE to have an ATV with a 2TB drive that has a DVR function. I could store dozens of HD movies and TV shows and not worry about them getting bumped. Would I want to buy a separate box (Tivo?) to do this? No, but if all I had to do was connect a 2TB external drive for around $100, I'd do it in heartbeat. You wouldn't? I couldn't care less what YOU do, but I believe plenty of others would like that flexibility if it didn't cost much. Even the new ATV has a USB port on it. Apple could easily enable for external storage if they chose. But they would have had to include some form of input to offer such functions. It would have added little to the price and could have been used for apps to transfer other mediums as well (home videos on VHS, older camcorders, etc.)



Neither do I, but I do store PHOTOS because I don't care for a 2 second load time when they can come up instantly locally (besides iTunes won't stream photos from the main library on the 1st gen ATV). But that does mean that even my 40GB ATV could have acted as a DVR if they had bothered since almost all of that space is available for use.



You obviously are completely and without a doubt CLUELESS to even make such a statement. I'm talking about a box that is also a Blu-Ray player/Ripper/DVR/Game machine and you're talking about the 1st Generation ATV.... Go look up what a good quality Blu-Ray player alone costs. I'd gladly pay $500 for the device I'm talking about because it would replace most of my home theater (add receiver and you're done). I already bought two 1st Gen ATV units ($600 total) and one isn't even used for video most of the time. You talk like that's too much money when most Apple users fork out $1500+ every other year for a new iMac or $2000+ for a new MBP and think nothing of it. My cost schemes are based on Apple margins, not 3rd party companies. $500 would be cheap for Apple. The Mac Mini is $700 MINIMUM now and STILL doesn't even have a BD drive.

But if price was the ONLY reason why ATV didn't sell, then these new $99 units should sell like HOTCAKES. I'm betting in their current form they will not because they lack new features (other than Airstream and Netflix) and don't do 1080p nor does iTunes support (let alone the new ATV work with) HD movie sales. This is purely a rental device. The new XBMC player box has much better potential.



Even Blu-Ray is compressed guy.



You don't seem to understand compression at all based on the totality of your post. You keep talking about bit-rates and quality loss, etc., but you don't look ONE BIT at the METHODS being used for the compression! DVD uses MPEG2 for goodness sake! It's CRAP. M4V is H264. You don't need a 5GB movie file to get "DVD quality" with H264! 2GB is more than sufficient for DVD quality. Similarly, BD is OVERKILL on the light compression front. You can get a BD compressed MKV file that is 5-8GB that indistinguishable from the original under 95% of displays and the lack of head-to-head still comparisons. But I guarantee that 1080p at that rate is still going to look better than a 2.5GB 720P file!



If you think that going from 1920x1080 to 1280x720 is a "small change" in resolution, no wonder you're confused. The difference is large enough that you can fit a 16x9 DVD signal in between the two!



If you think ATV is "barely DVD quality" you are BLIND. Again, learn the difference between MPEG2 and H264 (PLEASE do it; you are stating NONSENSE and have obviously never even seen an ATV HD movie! I've got a top-notch 720P projector and watch both 720p and 480p movies on my 93" screen and it's night and day!)

I'll leave the rest of your pointless post alone sense it's based on faulty assumptions about encoding methods and the amount of data needed to achieve a clean signal.

You hit it man out of the park...but one more thing.....

The new apple tv will be successful because it is cheap in price and has the apple A4 chip...$99 is like almost the cheapest apple product there is besides the Ipod Shuffle. People are gonna snap up the Apple TV like no tomorrow. It will sell out for sure, once they realize who awesome it is when using airplay. Everybody has a Ipod, Iphone and Ipad and a HDTV will get an Apple TV just for the Airplay feature. And once apple makes a cool ass commercial...its all over.

$99 man.....$99....Its gonna be the hottest thing this Xmas....and it it can stream apps....oh look out!