98% of U.S. Apple Retail Stores Out of Stock of Apple TV [Updated]

[ThatsMeRight]

Wrong
Wrong
And wrong.

LTE chips are actualy cheaper them 3G chips, their just not as advanced right now, and use up too much power but their components are cheaper

LTE frequencies are actualy cheaper too, and apple will help carriers by promoting LTE now and getting people ready to move over to LTE on the iPhone.
That will help the carriers continue to expand the cheaper spectrum and not have to waste more money updating 3G towers to make sure 3G customers are happy

Finally, Apple is a company with one goal: be the best. Make the best products
Provide the best service
And make customers the happiest.
You obviously don't know anything about what Steve stood for and what Apple is really about. I suggest you read his authorized bioography.
Companies that have a goal of making money quickly go downhill, like Microsoft

You are definitely wrong regarding Apple's goal. I do certainly believe that the Apple employees are really enthusiastic about Apple and its products, but in the end Apple's goal (talking about the big bosses, the management) is to make money.

Steve Jobs was great in advertising.

All commercial companies have one goal: earning money.

All of them. There's not a single exception. And if there is, than it is not a commercial company.

And oh, I do not agree with you on the fact that Apple provides the best service. Actually, in Europe their customer service is quite bad...

 

[charlituna]

Nah, I disagree. Adding three flavors of video quality is confusing and would be quite convoluted to the customer at that point,

Very valid point and perhaps Apple will agree and drop the whole SD option since all of their supported stuff is 720p. Or maybe the only way we will see the SD options is if we go to the store on our ancient SD only iPod touch or older phones. As I recall they have a way to not show the 720p options those folks can't use anyway so there is likely a way to do the flip.

Customers will just scratch their heads thinking whats the differences between the two.

Most customers aren't that stupid. They know the differences between 720p and 1080p and even if Apple uses HD and HD+ they typically have something that will explain the difference just fine.

It was easier for Apple to say, "Hey, we just upgraded our music quality to iTunes +. Download now. Thanks and have a nice day!", and be done with it. For sake of simplicity, I think this is exactly what Apple will go through again.

I think it's the direction they would like to go and as older items drop off the support list it will be more and more possible.

Closed Captioning and Subtitles too.

These I think should be required on all tracks (which is why I give them the two week/two month allowance) along with the alt audio tracks and should be free to all users. Especially the Closed Captioning. And call me crazy but I think that Audio Tracks for the Visually impaired should be required as well.

Apple's commitment to accessibility is a point in its favor and this types of requirements just add even more to that commitment.

 

[acidfast7]

And oh, I do not agree with you on the fact that Apple provides the best service. Actually, in Europe their customer service is quite bad...[/i]

To be honest, that's because the average level of customer service here (EU) is quite high (that has a lot to do with the mandatory 2-year EU-wide warranty as well.) In the US, Apple is quite good because most electronics retailers are useless (Best Buy, etc...)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Nah, I disagree. Adding three flavors of video quality is confusing and would be quite convoluted to the customer at that point, and that's not how Apple likes to do business. Simplicity runs through all their product lines and this shouldn't be an exception.

Look at some content in the iTunes store now. They have up to 4 buttons next to the item: Buy HD, Rent HD, Buy SD, Rent SD. Now think of adding two more buttons to that. Then decide if you want to see the terms 1080p and 720p splattered across all over those buttons, or if you want to instead give them names like HD for 720p and HD+ for 1080p. Customers will just scratch their heads thinking whats the differences between the two. It was easier for Apple to say, "Hey, we just upgraded our music quality to iTunes +. Download now. Thanks and have a nice day!", and be done with it. For sake of simplicity, I think this is exactly what Apple will go through again

I can see your point here but I don't think they can do it. Why? Because iTunes supports old Apple hardware too. SD is still one of those options because older hardware can't play 720p OR Apple may have some care about some people having bandwidth that can't work with with the bigger 720p file sizes.

A fair amount of hardware in place is capped off at 720p. Kill that option and those people accustomed to 720p would have to choose the SD option... or upgrade their hardware... including all the people who have purchased the gen 2 device as recently as 13 days ago.

I believe that there will indeed be 3 tiers of video content still available in the iTunes store. If Apple is hung up on too many buttons then maybe there will be initial buttons for just SD & HD. Choosing the HD file will then present the person with options for faster download and start (720p) or slower download but highest quality (1080p), maybe even showing an estimated time to start playback of each for that user by gauging their individual bandwidth.

If one option is to be dropped, I'd have to guess that it would be the SD option, as it is still supporting the oldest hardware that can only work with it. But I'd still bet that all 3 will be available.

Besides, as is abundantly clear in every thread about 1080p, it appears that there are huge pockets of people that can't see the difference, that think 1920 x 1080 resolution pictures is no better than 1280 x 720 resolution pictures, "the chart", the bandwidth, etc (you know the arguments). All of those should rant very loudly against Apple for forcing a useless "I can't see the difference so no one can either" format in place of whichever one they personally think is best.

 

[Icaras]

These I think should be required on all tracks (which is why I give them the two week/two month allowance) along with the alt audio tracks and should be free to all users. Especially the Closed Captioning. And call me crazy but I think that Audio Tracks for the Visually impaired should be required as well.

Apple's commitment to accessibility is a point in its favor and this types of requirements just add even more to that commitment.

I couldn't agree more. The entire iTunes store catalogue just needs a massive overhaul when it comes to these basic accessibility standards. It's nice to see more and more titles getting closed captioning and it seems to be pretty standard now for new release items, but I really wish they'd start pushing Subtitles too. So far the only subtitled movies I know of in the iTunes store are The Dark Knight and Cars 2. What a selection

 

[Xtremehkr]

I wasn't planning on buying a new AppleTV just yet, but dammit, shut up and take my money.

 

[appleofmy"i"]

Wohhoooo Pittsburgh!!!

 

[Icaras]

I can see your point here but I don't think they can do it. Why? Because iTunes supports old Apple hardware too. SD is still one of those options because older hardware can't play 720p OR Apple may have some care about some people having bandwidth that can't work with with the bigger 720p file sizes.

True, but did you also read Mountain Lion's requirements?

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/1...many-2006-2008-macs-with-integrated-graphics/

iOS support also drops after the 3rd last generation in line. And the optical disc drive? Gone from the Air and the Mac mini. Flash? Absent on iOS from day one. Apple isn't afraid to push forward emerging technologies when it comes to it and leave behind everything in the dust.

A fair amount of hardware in place is capped off at 720p. Kill that option and those people accustomed to 720p would have to choose the SD option... or upgrade their hardware... including all the people who have purchased the gen 2 device as recently as 13 days ago.

If Apple doesn't happen to put into effect a nasty upgrade fee for 720p owners, then running 1080p content on existing 720p hardware wouldn't be a problem. At fullscreen, your Mac will resize accordingly anyway. The one issue of course would be if your Mac's GPU could handle 1080p (performance-wise), but since buying HD in the store also gives you an SD copy, then I agree with you that they would have to go down to SD. However, these customers would be "future proofed" as well, so whenever they upgrade their hardware, at least there content is already up to speed.

I believe that there will indeed be 3 tiers of video content still available in the iTunes store. If Apple is hung up on too many buttons then maybe there will be initial buttons for just SD & HD. Choosing the HD file will then present the person with options for faster download and start (720p) or slower download but highest quality (1080p), maybe even showing an estimated time to start playback of each for that user by gauging their individual bandwidth.

I can understand variable quality when streaming, but not when downloading a file. I think your theory would work well for Apple TV where you have the option of renting the content right there and then. Or also watching your purchased TV shows from the cloud. Having a setting in Apple TV to stream the quality of video best for your connection would definitely be convenient, but if you're going to buy the content on your Mac or iPad and play the file later, then the consumer should still not have to deal with selecting any tier other than SD and HD at all. Once you download the file, then you're done with it and you shouldn't have to download again.

So basically for Apple TV renting, it should just be like how the Netflix app is for iOS...lower quality at 3G speeds, and better quality at wifi, all seamless and transparent to the user. But for purchasing your content, I still believe 3 tiers at the store front will be a confusing mess for customers.

If one option is to be dropped, I'd have to guess that it would be the SD option, as it is still supporting the oldest hardware that can only work with it. But I'd still bet that all 3 will be available.

Well, looks like we won't have to wait long to see if Apple will announce anything for iTunes tomorrow morning! All this stuff should be clearer soon enough.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Yay South Hills Village for actually having something in stock for once. That store never has had anything I need in the past. Always had to go to Shadyside for everything.

The same can be said for Ross Park! Shadyside is just so inconvenient for people now that it's not the only store, and it's usually where I just go from the start.

But I feel bad for the sucker who find one at S. Hills and thinks, "I finally found one!" only to read the news tomorrow and be like, "NOOOOOO!"

 

[olegandbuster25]

You are definitely wrong regarding Apple's goal. I do certainly believe that the Apple employees are really enthusiastic about Apple and its products, but in the end Apple's goal (talking about the big bosses, the management) is to make money.

Steve Jobs was great in advertising.

All commercial companies have one goal: earning money.

All of them. There's not a single exception. And if there is, than it is not a commercial company.

And oh, I do not agree with you on the fact that Apple provides the best service. Actually, in Europe their customer service is quite bad...

Nope not What apple stands for at all
Yes they make the most money, but that's simply because their THAT good.
And obviously they need to make money to continue to make great products.
I simply don't believe that is their #1 goal.
And don't know about Europe, but then again I'm sure those Europeans think their too go to be an ideal Apple employee haha
Plus I'm sure Apple's influence even in training isn't as strong over there...

 

[MacAddict1978]

You are definitely wrong regarding Apple's goal. I do certainly believe that the Apple employees are really enthusiastic about Apple and its products, but in the end Apple's goal (talking about the big bosses, the management) is to make money.

Steve Jobs was great in advertising.

All commercial companies have one goal: earning money.

All of them. There's not a single exception. And if there is, than it is not a commercial company.

And oh, I do not agree with you on the fact that Apple provides the best service. Actually, in Europe their customer service is quite bad...

I would agree with you except the service.

With no disrespect, but Europe seems to always have some issue with service. European markets represent the most dissatisfied people in the world with consumer goods, services, and retailers.

I don't know if it ever occurred to you, but maybe some of your alleged consumer friendly laws create obstacles and not companies themselves all the time? The governments micromanage everything companies do there to an obscene level. Apple can't even offer the same value of Apple care to you because of restrictions and regulations on consumer warranties... which actually gives you less in many ways.

Even your top rated companies still don't compare in scores to similar companies or their foreign versions. I've never understood it.

 

[jeremyrader]

discount gone...

something I just noticed: I get special pricing through my work on apple products through an apple epp website. Before this announcement, the aTV was $89 with my discount; it's now full price at $99.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Like I said, I can see your point and think it would likely be SD if one is indeed dropped. I just don't think it will happen.

TV2s are capped at 720p. People who bought one as recently as 13 days ago would expect their best resolution playback to be supported. It seems Apple would have to keep the 720p.

So then what: drop SD and present them as HD and HD+ choices in the store? I have a hard time imagining Apple selling something as ambiguous as "HD+, better than HD". I think they'll actually use the industry terms of either the numbers "720p vs. 1080p" or maybe even the "full HD" term.

I really think all 3 options will survive. If for nothing else, some of the programming in the store is ONLY available as SD.

But as you say, we'll see soon enough now.

I can add that it's very nice to get one more TV3 rumor so close to the event. For a long stretch there is was all iPad3 rumors and I was starting to think that maybe TV3 was lost. Getting one more this close to the event makes me think that maybe there really will be a 1080p TV rolled out tomorrow... at long last!

 

[MacAddict1978]

I personally hope for a complete overhaul of the ATV operating system. The fact that it doesn't have an actual App-style interface, when all of the other "smart" and connected televisions and devices have them, is ridiculous.

There are so many possibilities. It's the one Apple device that you can't really 'customize' with your favorite apps. I know part of the problem is that Apple doesn't want competition for its own offerings, BUT the ATV pales in comparison to a Roku, Boxee, or even TiVO. An App Store for the ATV is long overdue, and the time is ripe.

I know it's the one iOS device that you can't control by touch, but maybe they need to create a control center for it for the iPad and iPhone. I'm not talking about the current remote control, but a mirrored screen to whatever apps and features that are on your ATV.

Whatever happens, please give us Hulu Plus!

I personally like the interface. It's elegant, stylish, and not only easy to navigate, but you can navigate quickly to find an item.

IOS, even with folders, or other media devices that display apps, require scrolling and searching for an item. It's just not as elegant, but touch input doesn't make it feel like it takes forever. Or, on IOS you can just spotlight instead... not so easily done with the Apple tv.

Love you idea of a mirrored interface on an IOS device though, but I don't want to see the interface turned into the IOS interface. The current remote leaves much to be desired!

And an App store would be a great and needed addition. I don't think Apple is worried about other content providers so much. I mean, most of them already have Apps for IOS that can be airplayed onto the Apple TV anyway. There a few that won't work that way, like HBO Go (grrrr!), but things like HBO Go would make me happy, even if there was no app store.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Your suggestion doesn't make sense. The Apple TV is so cheap already, it wouldn't make sense to offer a cheaper model. Offering cheaper iPhones is Apple's way to compete with Android's cheaper phones. Apple doesn't need to compete in the same way with the Apple TV. Plus, I think this next Apple TV will put the current one in he Dark.

Actually, I can understand the guy's thoughts on a cheaper model. Roku had 6 for awhile (which I think they've just scaled back to 4 since Christmas, or are working to that.) The scheme for Roku works well, because you buy on the features you want. Don't want to play games or care about 1080P or having a connection option other than HDMI? Hey, $49. Want all that, $99.

Apple actually really does need to compete in the way they compete with Android, because they're at the bottom of the barrel in marketshare for this type of device.

Since Roku rolled out the tiered pricing format, they've sold tons of units. I can't find the link, but it's estimated that Roku probably sold more boxes this past year alone, than all Apple TV models combined. It's menu's and interface lack the elegance of Apple's, but it's a far better product than the Apple TV. They're also now available in stores, where before you had to order a box online. The Roku box also gets a better recommendation from all the tech review sites, and that's helped them... outsell Apple by a lot.

Even when the Apple TV2 rolled out in 2010, most people were like Rokuwho? Whats a Roku? That changed almost over night holiday 2010 when it became one of the best gifts to give. I'm glad for Roku's success, because it puts the heat on Apple to turn a hobby device into a product that needs to compete in the market. I chose the Apple TV over the Roku because I thought I'd get more benefit out of Airplay and connecting to my iTunes library. But now that I've seen and used both devices, I think the Roku would have been better. Airplay isn't as friendly as it should be and often has long loading times, there's no way to add new things to the device, and you're stuck with itunes as the only place to get new content. I could forgive not having more purchase and rental options, if I had other content channels that weren't subscription sports.

Has anyone seen the new Roku? There's been a lot of discussion about dongles, but the port it uses isn't your HDMI. (Few TV's even have it yet.) They're keeping the boxes too, but it gives a consumer an option.

I'm really hoping for a great update to the Apple TV... but honestly, a kick butt software update with a channel store (not even an app store per say) would be like Christmas for me. 90% of the 300 Channels the Roku offers are utter garbage, but there are some really good ones.

 

[11thIndian]

Conceivably, I think the question of too many choices (SD, HD720, HD1080) is fairly easily solved.

iTunes sniffs out what type of device you're using when you attempt to buy or rent video content. So from the consumer perspective, all they should have to do is decide SD or HD. iTunes will know which hardware can support 1080 (iPad3, AppleTV3, Mac) and deliver it-

Older hardware will automatically be served 720 content as they do now.

People who are very bandwidth restricted or have smaller sets are by and large renting/buying SD content anyways. Those who want HD will likely to want the biggest they can get.


Until we see what Apple's philosophy for delivering 1080p (assuming they are) content for iTunes is (4x the file size of 720 content, or some new amazing processor intensive codec), there's a lot of unknowns.

Fortunately that will all be answered tomorrow.

 

[redfirebird08]

In the end, it's not about bitrate, it's about compressor quality. If a faster processor can enable a better codec that delivers a better picture at lower data rates, then who cares what the bitrate is?

As physical media, BR has the advantage in that you're keeping large file sizes all locally on disk. But the truth is that the codec BR players use is probably not terribly efficient- it doesn't have to be! As long as the movie will fit on the disk who cares.

As soon as you get into digital downloads you have to balance bandwidth against bitrate. Over the next 5-10 years one of two things will happen-

1. more complex codecs will allow for better image quality at lower bitrates OR

2. average bandwidth speeds and data caps will extend, making streaming much larger file sizes more feasible.

It's anyone's guess as to which of those things will happen first (I think the former), but undeniably digital downloads will ultimately eat physical media sales. The only question is timeframe.

Of course. But as long as we're talking about h.264, Blu-ray will blow anything Apple offers out of the water...which makes the iTunes prices laughable. Apple and any other digital store needs a revolution in the codec department, something that could provide the same quality of a 40 gig Blu-ray movie for 10% of the size (similar to iTunes 720p file sizes right now).

 

[monaarts]

Had some free time and wanted to have some fun... Enjoy..

 

[kjs862]

It won't until it's jailbroken, or until you can install an app that allows a 3rd party to do a streaming conversion.

There's nothing in Apple's recent history that says they have any interest in supporting anything other than h.264.

Yeah you are right, unfortunately. I suppose then I am waiting for the next iteration of mac mini.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

I would agree with you except the service.

With no disrespect, but Europe seems to always have some issue with service. European markets represent the most dissatisfied people in the world with consumer goods, services, and retailers.

I don't know if it ever occurred to you, but maybe some of your alleged consumer friendly laws create obstacles and not companies themselves all the time? The governments micromanage everything companies do there to an obscene level. Apple can't even offer the same value of Apple care to you because of restrictions and regulations on consumer warranties... which actually gives you less in many ways.

Even your top rated companies still don't compare in scores to similar companies or their foreign versions. I've never understood it.

You are totally wrong, and that's perhaps because you do not live in Europe.

In fact, a lot of people rather buy their Apple products at other stores (resellers) than at Apple's own stores. Simply because everybody over here knows that Apple ignores all laws regarding warranties and most resellers don't. People here also go to resellers for help with their new Mac or iOS device, because they know Apple won't help them.

I could also turn your argument around: Americans don't know what real service is and that's why they do not complain. I'm sure Apple does just fine in the US, but in Europe it's terrible.

It says something if even your own consumers are more comfortable buying your products at someone else's store.

 

[11thIndian]

Of course. But as long as we're talking about h.264, Blu-ray will blow anything Apple offers out of the water...which makes the iTunes prices laughable. Apple and any other digital store needs a revolution in the codec department, something that could provide the same quality of a 40 gig Blu-ray movie for 10% of the size (similar to iTunes 720p file sizes right now).

I'm sure Apple wishes that it could provide soft content at a more attractive price comparable to BR. Unfortunately, pricing is dictated by the studios who are half interested in digital downloads, and half terrified.

And unlike physical retailers, which can discount products on their shelves at reduced margins... Apple can't.

Ultimately, the choice between BR and iTunes right now is one of quality vs convenience. That said, I think a lot of people would have trouble discerning iTunes vs BR content (based on their home setups- screen size and viewing distance).

iTunes and it's competitors will keep scooping up people as the technology evolves. Personally, I haven't bought a movie in years- just rented from iTunes. I just couldn't stand to spend the money re-buying my movie collection in ANOTHER physical format.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Actually, no US channel broadcasts in 1080p. A few satellite channels offer on demand movies in 1080p. But that's it.

Okaaaaay. That kind of came out of left field. I didn't say any U.S. broadcaster broadcasted in 1080p, I said many broadcast in 720p, i.e., people put up with 1080p without much complaint.

 

[tuc]

... and HDMI carries audio as well as video. My AV receiver decodes this from the HDMI port and can send multi-channel audio to my speakers, so Toslink is not required.

Toslink will also become gradually obsolete because it doesn't have enough bandwidth for lossless HD audio.

The Toslink port is for people with audio systems that don't support HDMI. There are a lot of these. Many are simply old enough that they predate HDMI, others were designed to be audio-only receivers. In this case you connect the appleTV box to the TV with an HDMI cable, and connect the appleTV box to the receiver with a Toslink cable. Now you can watch video content and hear reasonably good audio through your receiver.

You are right that Toslink doesn't support newer audio codecs. I don't know what will happen eventually. I suppose audio-only devices could start using HDMI for better-quality audio, even if they ignore the video. If that happens then appleTV-like boxes should start having two HDMI ports.


Does it bother anyone else that we're not seeing info from industry insiders in addition to evidence related to inventory? If the only evidence we have is inventory levels, then this could be a minor product refresh with no/few new features.

 

[nateo200]

All this talk of 1080i....no no just no! You do NOT want to bring up resolution at the cost of interlacing artifacts! At least not when we have come so far. 720p and 1080p are very similar quality when the encoder knows what they are doing. Good bit rate 720p will look better on a 52" LED than halfway decent bit rate 1080i...resolution is NOT everything although Apple seams to enjoy thinking so. The new Apple TV should support high bit rate video at up to 1080p and that is just that. No 1080i compromise...

 

[flottenheimer]

Yes!