Apple Announces Apple TV Take 2 + Price Drop

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Never ceases to amaze me how one could know a lot about one technology and be a total moron about another. Crack a book and learn what HD really is. Breaking news to you Sherlock, entire networks broadcast all of their content in 720P. For many types of content a progressive signal surpasses an interlaced one. Actions sports comes to mind.

This bit about action sports looking better in 720p is also "eye of the beholder" at best. If you like the look of action sports on CBS vs. ABC & ESPN, you are seeing 1080i vs 720p. Action sports can be done very, very well in both formats.

However, 1080p takes much of the advantage sometimes pitched as 720p- p = progressive- so that it too is rendering the whole image at once, rather than doing what is called interlacing (which is the i in 1080i). And again 1080p is working with more than 2 times the pixel count.

But closer to topical issues, since live "action sports" seems to be something that would be WAYYYY out in the future in terms of being pumped through a device like AppleTV (an entirely different technological bandwith problem), what would really matter until the time that broadband pipes could stream live action sporting events in either 720 or 1080 is high-action MOVIES, against which, again, the argument for why AppleTV hardware should be 1080 still can make a lot of sense.

 

[Wingnut330]

No Wingnut. That is not correct. You can output iMovie creations to files (very easily by the way) and they will play just fine on AppleTV. If you shoot many home movies, this is one of the BEST features (like easy access to iPhoto libraries on the biggest screen in the house), because it makes your movies immediately available on demand (rather than having to hook up the camcorder or find the right DVD, etc.)

iMovie (and Quicktime Pro) has an AppleTV output setting which results in a file that plays just fine. And if you shoot with a HD camcorder, it will yield really great movies, sharper than any home movies you've ever seen.

Awesome! Thanks for the tip. I need to learn more about doing things like that. It's one of the reasons I switched from the PC world. I'm very new to this whole Mac thing. I bought a Mini about 3 weeks ago. I have it hooked up to a new 52" Sony Bravia LCD - It looks stunning.

With the announcement of the new ATV, I may change my strategy a bit and move my Mini to my Den and connect a ATV to the LCD and stream everything into the Family Room. The only thing the Mini gets me in the Family Room that the ATV doesn't is internet browsing and that isn't a huge issue.

 

[peharri]

Given you need a fairly large TV to see the difference between 720 and 1080, or even DVD and 720, I doubt the resolution is a big issue for now. Not that I'm glad about it, but I'm going to make a guess that the choice means that the service requires a third of the bandwidth of 1080, which is probably enough to make or break it as a usable device for on-demand video.

I'm more disappointed about the sound. I have an HD DVD player, and even though it has to down-convert the sound to DTS because of my older receiver, the fact is the sound quality is superb compared to DVDs, which are generally Dolby Digital. Stereo on ED, and "Dolby Digital 5.1" on "HD", to me is a disappointment.

ATV 2.0 is what ATV 1.0 was supposed to be. We're going to have to wait until ATV 3.0 at the earliest to see the device that many of us hoped would be released this year. If they can just improve the sound on the HD service, I'd happily plunk down my $230, even without a resolution upgrade.

 

[BigHat]

This bit about action sports looking better in 720p is also "eye of the beholder" at best. If you like the look of action sports on CBS vs. ABC & ESPN, you are seeing 1080i vs 720p. Action sports can be done very, very well in both formats.

However, 1080p takes much of the advantage sometimes pitched as 720p- p = progressive- so that it too is rendering the whole image at once, rather than doing what is called interlacing (which is the i in 1080i).

But closer to topical issues, since live "action sports" seems to be something that would be WAYYYY out in the future in terms of being pumped through a device like AppleTV (an entirely different technological bandwith problem), what would really matter until the time that broadband pipes could stream live action sporting events in either 720 or 1080 is high-action MOVIES, against which, again, the argument for why AppleTV hardware should be 1080 still can make a lot of sense.

I agree that everything you say is true. I also wish Apple pumped 1080i and maybe someday 1080p. Just not willing to say this release is a failure because it's only 720p. And to correct the assertion that 720p isn't part of the HD broadcast std.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Given you need a fairly large TV to see the difference between 720 and 1080, or even DVD and 720, I doubt the resolution is a big issue for now.

peharri, this is also a commonly-quoted misconception (about needing a big screen to notice). Your computer monitor may have a high enough resolution to show 1920x1080. If not, even some laptop monitors do.

If you popped open a 1080p file and the exact same movie as a 720p file, the window that would open for the former would be substantially larger than the window that opened for the latter. Why? Because the resolution is so much higher. Now, suppose you want to recreate the TV experience, so you click "full screen" for playback.

If your laptop screen is 1920x1080, the former will fill the screen without having to "scale" the video. Each pixel on that laptop screen would have corresponding data to show. On the other hand, if you wanted that 720p file to fill the screen, it would have to "scale" up, meaning the computer would need to use educated guesses as to the colors of the "filled in" pixels. Since the guess cannot possibly match reality, there will be a difference.

This is very much like opening a jpeg file that doesn't quite fill your screen, and then scaling it up to fill the screen resolution. You will see a difference (as the file size goes up from 100%). However, it should be noted that moving pictures are better at tricking the eye to not notice those differences as easily as a still photo.

Bottom line: on even a relatively small physical screen- like the BTO 17" Macbook pro screen- the resolution of the source file is likely to show a visible difference.

In Apple's own words...

By upgrading to the high-resolution 1920x1200 pixel display, you'll enjoy a workspace with 30% more pixels than the standard model, or as many pixels as the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display. You'll have more space for palettes and windows, and you can watch 1080 HD video content at full resolution.

Now blow the 2 source files up to BIGGER screens (where all the "pixels" are even bigger) and it becomes easier to see the differences, but even on a tiny(?) laptop screen, I'd bet that most people could notice the difference between a head-to-head test of 720p vs 1080p.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Just not willing to say this release is a failure because it's only 720p.

I'm definitely with you there. Anyone reading this thread should not take my comments as bashing the device; they're all just "vocalizing" a wish feature that isn't there. Even "as is"- meaning, before the new features announced yesterday- I love AppleTV for what it can do. It can:
-make home movies available on demand- even in HD- via simple output from iMovie,
-make photo collections available on demand- in HD- from iPhoto on the biggest screen in the household,
-make favorite music readily and easily playable (in all kinds of lineups or with shuffle) on the best speakers in the household,
...ALL of these without having to locate physical media (or hookup camcorders or laptops), and then find the right spot on the physical media to begin playback

For my household, just these 3 features alone make AppleTV a fantastic bargain.

That it can also offer all of our DVD films on demand is also killer compared to locating the DVD and hoping that its not too scratched.

The YouTube connection can be fun at times. Video podcasts can also entertain at times. Etc.

It's definitely a "little box that could" for us.

Yesterday's upgrade announcements (FREE by the way!!!) makes it that much better- especially- for us- the 5.1 sound option, and HD video rentals.

The one remaining wish we now hold (down from about 5 wishes the day before yesterday) is 1080p hardware support. For that, we'll have to hope for a next generation that will hopefully arrive sooner than later. But even without it, current prices of AppleTV are almost negligible for the expanded enjoyment it brings to family & friends who want to see the latest vacation photos or video, or hear a selection of favorite (good) music, etc. WITHOUT having to squeeze into some office space and do the same on a much smaller screen with lower quality speakers, etc.

 

[Wingnut330]

How does it access your DVD's on demand? Are you able to store DVD's onto it's hard drive?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

How does it access your DVD's on demand? Are you able to store DVD's onto it's hard drive?

Not exactly. To get DVDs you own to play on AppleTV, the movie has to be converted to a format compatible with AppleTV. You can use programs like MacTheRipper and Handbrake to convert DVD movies to AppleTV format. It's pretty easy to do this, though it is a time-consuming process for each movie (it's easy for it to take about 8 hours to do the conversion on average hardware).

The good news is that you can just set the computer up to do the work, then leave it (I typically leave it on overnight) to do the conversion. Then, you put the resulting file in iTunes and it is available on AppleTV- just like a song you've ripped from a CD.

It's pretty easy from start to finish, though not as easy as ripping a CD into iTunes. Check out online info about those 2 programs and they'll walk you through the process. Handbrake can also convert DVD video for iPod, PSP, etc.

 

[BobVB]

I don't know why you guys would expect Apple to support MKV.

Because THEY said they are going to have HD movie files with DD5.1 and those files have to be some kind of format. MKV with its H.264 video and AC3 'passthru' DD5.1 sound is the most likely candidate.

I think the DD 5.1 is going to just be for AppleTV. If you read the fine print in the new iTunes update, it suggests that HD rentals are only for AppleTV, not for iTunes/FrontRow.

Yeah but that still means the file is of some format and since we want to know how to make our own files so that they too will have the DD5.1 passthru sound we are curious about just what that format is.

That said, if you want to play .mkv files in Quicktime or in FrontRow, get Perian. It works perfectly.

Actually that was one reason why I asked, I have Perian 1.0 installed, made an .MKV file with Handbrake and QT won't play it - only VLC. So I will delete Perian and reinstall to see if something is messed up.

 

[peharri]

peharri, this is also a commonly-quoted misconception (about needing a big screen to notice). Your computer monitor may have a high enough resolution to show 1920x1080. If not, even some laptop monitors do.

Yes, but in the context of the AppleTV this doesn't matter. The AppleTV hooks up to a regular TV, something you'll be watching from across the room. This isn't like having a 17" MacBook on your lap.

(And, to be honest, having seen both HD DVD movies on my big TV, and DVDs on my Macbook and on the same time, I'm still of the same opinion. It's not that you can never tell the difference - of course you can. Blade runner gave us all a real "wow" moment when we first saw it in HD, and we're seeing Planet Earth at the moment and there are lots of "wow" moments in that. It's just that 90% of the time, the difference is unnoticeable, and the other 10% it's noticeable but not something you'd have realized was missing if you'd only ever seen it in ED)

To make matters worse, most HD TVs on sale for less than $2,000 right now are 768 line, and most observers are saying you should be careful to put contrast ratio ahead of line count when making a final decision once you do get into 1080 vs 768 territory.

I don't think the majority of people using an AppleTV, most of whom do not have $2,000 TV sets, are going to notice the difference between its 720 and HD DVD/Blu ray's 1080. What, in my opinion, they will notice is the latter's (HD DVD and, to some extent, Blu-ray's) vastly superior sound compared to AppleTV's Dolby Digital.

 

[BobVB]

Never ceases to amaze me how one could know a lot about one technology and be a total moron about another…

I. can't. resist.

More importantly, unless you're sitting closer than 8 feet to a 50" screen you couldn't tell the difference anyway and mostly likely not even then.

You realize the MAXIMUM recommended viewing distance for a 50" HDTV displaying a 1080i image is 6.5 feet, right? The recommended THX experience distance is 5.6 feet.

I do get the impression here of people saying they can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 is the majority don't know how they're supposed to have their TVs setup in the first place.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So what I think you are saying is that AppleTV is fine at 720 for the reasons you list, when, in (likely) fact Apple could (if it wanted to) roll out a 1080p version of AppleTV for probably not that much more cost.

My arguments are not really about what fits what people have now, or what applies to XX% of households now, etc. I'm mostly focused on the wish that AppleTV could have really locked in on what will probably be a long-term standard (at 1080p) rather than something that would have been a "wow" in about 2003 (when 1080p was not yet available in consumer hardware).

My belief is that it seems unlikely- even with an Apple premium- that a 1080p Apple TV would cost more than about $499 if it had been launched yesterday. And I very strongly believe that if that is true, Apple shouldn't be making the resolution decision for consumers, but at least giving us the option to choose to pay up for 1080p version, vs. taking what might work fine for XX% of people now for less.

Just because you believe that TVs below $2000 aren't 1080p, doesn't make that so (do some searches). And even if we make that statement into the "majority" of TVs, that's only "as is" now. Let's see what happens in just 6-12 months.

In the meantime, "as is" (with a 720p max video spec) creates the possibility of having to buy the movie twice- once now to fit what most people might have now, and again when most people replace their TV with what will probably be a 1080p set. We've already played that game- maybe a few times- to go from VHS to DVD and now maybe BR or HD-DVD. Of course, this is exactly what the Studios want, which might help explain why all of them signed on with this HD rental deal. But the Studios could have still chosen to rent their films only in 720p, aiming to still move most people to potentially have to buy/rent films 2 more times- even if Apple delivered a 1080 AppleTV.

If Apple did roll out a 1080p AppleTV, it would naturally encourage all the buying, ripping, HD camcorder encoding, podcasting to all be done at 1080p now, which would work on both the current and future HD sets in most homes, looking as good as possible- now and in the future.

In short, downscaling from a higher quality source (at 1080p) maxes out the picture quality on a 720p set today, as well as tomorrow's 1080p set. But being satisfied with a 720p signal today because that's what Apple chose to offer as max resolution, just won't look as good on tomorrow's set.

The cost of the hardware to "future proof" this little box should not be so much that we need to go through 2 generations to get there. Instead, Apple could have just gone on and delivered the future yesterday (or even last year), leaving all the other pieces (TV, sources of content, etc.) needing to "catch up" to Apples full potential. Wouldn't that have been more Apple-like?

 

[ccoulson]

Are the HD releases actually available now, or not until the AppleTV update rolls out? I've been poking around and haven't found any titles offered in HD - even titles that have been heavily promoted as HD releases (300, PotC, etc.).

 

[BobVB]

Are the HD releases actually available now, or not until the AppleTV update rolls out? I've been poking around and haven't found any titles offered in HD - even titles that have been heavily promoted as HD releases (300, PotC, etc.).

If they are there only those few AppleTV 'Take 2' that exist can see them. You can only order the HD videos via an AppleTV with the new software which doesn't access the iTunes store via the iTunes interface we can see.

 

[ccoulson]

But how about for viewing on HD-capable computers?

 

[BobVB]

But how about for viewing on HD-capable computers?

Nope. Several sources have confirmed the HD movies is AppleTV only and full resolution display will probably only be through the encrypted HDMI connection. HD movies will not be transfered back to iTunes or viewable on any other device.

 

[BigHat]

So what I think you are saying is that AppleTV is fine at 720 for the reasons you list, when, in (likely) fact Apple could (if it wanted to) roll out a 1080p version of AppleTV for probably not that much more cost.

My arguments are not really about what fits what people have now, or what applies to XX% of households now, etc. I'm mostly focused on the wish that AppleTV could have really locked in on what will probably be a long-term standard (at 1080p) rather than something that would have been a "wow" in about 2003 (when 1080p was not yet available in consumer hardware).

My belief is that it seems unlikely- even with an Apple premium- that a 1080p Apple TV would cost more than about $499 if it had been launched yesterday. And I very strongly believe that if that is true, Apple shouldn't be making the resolution decision for consumers, but at least giving us the option to choose to pay up for 1080p version, vs. taking what might work fine for XX% of people now for less.

Just because you believe that TVs below $2000 aren't 1080p, doesn't make that so (do some searches). And even if we make that statement into the "majority" of TVs, that's only "as is" now. Let's see what happens in just 6-12 months.

In the meantime, "as is" (with a 720p max video spec) creates the possibility of having to buy the movie twice- once now to fit what most people might have now, and again when most people replace their TV with what will probably be a 1080p set. We've already played that game- maybe a few times- to go from VHS to DVD and now maybe BR or HD-DVD. Of course, this is exactly what the Studios want, which might help explain why all of them signed on with this HD rental deal. But the Studios could have still chosen to rent their films only in 720p, aiming to still move most people to potentially have to buy/rent films 2 more times- even if Apple delivered a 1080 AppleTV.

If Apple did roll out a 1080p AppleTV, it would naturally encourage all the buying, ripping, HD camcorder encoding, podcasting to all be done at 1080p now, which would work on both the current and future HD sets in most homes, looking as good as possible- now and in the future.

In short, downscaling from a higher quality source (at 1080p) maxes out the picture quality on a 720p set today, as well as tomorrow's 1080p set. But being satisfied with a 720p signal today because that's what Apple chose to offer as max resolution, just won't look as good on tomorrow's set.

The cost of the hardware to "future proof" this little box should not be so much that we need to go through 2 generations to get there. Instead, Apple could have just gone on and delivered the future yesterday (or even last year), leaving all the other pieces (TV, sources of content, etc.) needing to "catch up" to Apples full potential. Wouldn't that have been more Apple-like?

Are you aware of the bandwidth needed to download a Blu-Ray movie or any other 1080P content? How many people could endure that.

 

[BigHat]

I. can't. resist.



You realize the MAXIMUM recommended viewing distance for a 50" HDTV displaying a 1080i image is 6.5 feet, right? The recommended THX experience distance is 5.6 feet.

I do get the impression here of people saying they can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 is the majority don't know how they're supposed to have their TVs setup in the first place.

Get serious and join the real world. I'm quite aware of the ratios established and suggested for HD viewing. The reality is those ratios make sense for 100" or larger displays. You know a lot of people that sit 5.6 feet from a TV of any size? Where is it? In their bathroom?

Even in a college dorm room you'd likely set farther back than that and it's my point.

I sit 10' feet from arguably one of the best 60" plasma sets on the planet. Is it optimal? I could certainly sit closer without any "screen door" impact but I find this best for many reasons. I see wonderful 1080P content, but find variances in 720P and 1080i broadcast quality overshadow resolution differences. By the way, 720p broadcast HD looks just fine at 10'.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Are you aware of the bandwidth needed to download a Blu-Ray movie or any other 1080P content? How many people could endure that.

It's not nearly as bad as some would lead you to believe. But still, I'd rather have the option to endure that longer download, rather than have someone at Apple decide that for me and thus I should be happy with 720.

Again, the Studios might not want to allow 1080p content to even be in the equation right now (even if there was a 1080p AppleTV). Maybe they want to give BD and HD-DVD their full chance to get us to all buy our movie collections again on disc before finally giving in the a digital download model.

But even if that was true, I'd still much prefer to at least have 1080 hardware- even if was just for my own HD camcorder video, photos, etc.

 

[BobVB]

Get serious and join the real world. I'm quite aware of the ratios established and suggested for HD viewing. The reality is those ratios make sense for 100" or larger displays. You know a lot of people that sit 5.6 feet from a TV of any size? Where is it? In their bathroom?

Ha I am at this moment sitting 5.5 feet from my 65" watching 'Oceans Thirteen' in 1080p - an excellent viewing experience.

I sit 10' feet from arguably one of the best 60" plasma sets on the planet. Is it optimal? I could certainly sit closer without any "screen door" impact but I find this best for many reasons. I see wonderful 1080P content, but find variances in 720P and 1080i broadcast quality overshadow resolution differences. By the way, 720p broadcast HD looks just fine at 10'.

What can I do but just refer to your first statement and add that people who are satisfied with 'just fine' rather than going for the best experience possible out of their expensive equipment probably aren't the people who should be giving others advice (or at least not the advice they should be taking at any rate

Edit: A bit snarky response maybe... sorry. Technically someone with 20/20 vision needs to sit at least within 6 feet of a 50" display to be able to resolve all the details. OF COURSE viewing 1080 looks a lot like 760 from greater distances - limitations in the viewers eyes are 'downscaling' a 1080 picture at greater distances.

If you're going to bother watching HD then it should be from close enough to get the benefit of it - why bother with HD at all if its not?

 

[peharri]

So what I think you are saying is that AppleTV is fine at 720 for the reasons you list, when, in (likely) fact Apple could (if it wanted to) roll out a 1080p version of AppleTV for probably not that much more cost.

No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that it's a disappointment that it's not 1080, but it's not a show stopper either for me or for more than 90% of the population who do not even own equipment capable of showing the difference anyway. Most TVs sold right now are 768 line. I don't think you can even get 1080 (in terms of a device suitable for the living room) unless you buy something more than 40". Or *snort* a CRT.

What is a show stopper for me is poor sound. Dolby Digital 5.1 is better than stereo, but frankly, having used HD DVD for less than a month, I've experienced Dolby TrueHD goodness (and not even directly, it gets converted to DTS by the player because of my ancient receiver), and that, to me, is more important. But that said, I'm probably in a minority there too.

For most people, Dolby Digital 5.1 and 720 lines will be HD enough for them. So the second generation AppleTV may well work out. The third generation may go 1080, but don't underestimate the amount of bandwidth that's needed. A typical HD DVD or Blu-ray movie is in the order of 15G, not something you can download in real time over an average DSL connection, and that impacts the instant gratification appeal of the device.

BTW, at $230, I'm seriously tempted to get one to replace my home server. And perhaps a second one - can stick Ubuntu on it, use it with a generic USB HDTV adapter, and presumably MythTV will turn it into an HD DVR. Yum.

 

[mtbdudex]

24 hours makes sense because it is easier to remember. You start a movie at xx:xx and you know you have until xx:xx the next day to watch it. If you make it longer, then people need to remember it's xx:xx + yy:yy and then they get all confused.

And if people cannot adequately manage 24 hours, what makes you think they can manage 30? Or even 48?

They just need to exercise a bit of responsibility and effort.

Can I assume you have kids?

I have 3; 6 , 4, and 2 years old.

Sure, most of the time things go smooth, but trust me at times kids are kids and the 24 hrs will be too short.

 

[matticus008]

You realize the MAXIMUM recommended viewing distance for a 50" HDTV displaying a 1080i image is 6.5 feet, right? The recommended THX experience distance is 5.6 feet.

Are you nuts? The recommended distance for 50"+ displays is 10-16 feet. A 55" television in a 10' room is out of scale. People are not meant to have a three foot path between their sofa and their TV bench.

THX recommendations are for theaters, not homes. Even the SMPTE recommends 3(w) distance--on a 50" plasma, that means if you're closer than 10 feet, you're unnecessarily close.

don't know how they're supposed to have their TVs setup in the first place.

You're not supposed to sit five feet from your TV. Setting aside that it flies completely in the face of room ergonomics and aesthetics, it's not good for your eyes and it's not the way content is meant to be enjoyed. At that distance, you might be able to resolve the highest number of pixels in the image, but unless you're inspecting the frames of a film, you're missing the point.

The distance ranges you use are the optimal quality distance between the surface and the human eye--which is not the same as the optimal viewing distance or an optimal placement location for a home.

It's not nearly as bad as some would lead you to believe. But still, I'd rather have the option to endure that longer download,

It's nearly double the size of 720p content--SD content, even compressed, is over 1GB per film. The costs of serving that to millions of customers is not insignificant.

It's beyond the bandwidth available for broadcast, and it's beyond the sensible bandwidth needed for streaming/network delivery. If you want 1080p content, put in a BD film. It's impractical to deliver films that large. No one does it.

Ha I am at this moment sitting 5.5 feet from my 65" watching 'Oceans Thirteen' in 1080p - an excellent viewing experience.

You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

If that's your preference, so be it and your eyes are your own, but that's not where most people sit, it's not where filmmakers intend for you to sit, and it's not where professionals recommend you sit. If you're going to use theater metrics, you should build a theater in your home.

 

[BobVB]

Are you nuts? The recommended distance for 50"+ displays is 10-16 feet. A 55" television in a 10' room is out of scale. People are not meant to have a three foot path between their sofa and their TV bench.

What can I say Matticus, you're wrong. There are a number of home theatre viewing distance calculators on the net, use them.

You're not supposed to sit five feet from your TV. Setting aside that it flies completely in the face of room ergonomics and aesthetics, it's not good for your eyes and it's not the way content is meant to be enjoyed. At that distance, you might be able to resolve the highest number of pixels in the image, but unless you're inspecting the frames of a film, you're missing the point.

I know you mother may have told you that with your old broadcast standard TV but such is not the case with HD imaging. Modern TVs you are supposed to be sitting just behind where you could resolve the individual lines. No, it doesn't hurt your eyes - yes, not doing so just wastes the resolution you paid big bucks for.

The distance ranges you use are the optimal quality distance between the surface and the human eye--which is not the same as the optimal viewing distance or an optimal placement location for a home.

Actually yes it is - if you are sitting back where you lose data then you are wasting your HD - why bother with HD at all?

You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Only because you have used to watching your TV from ridiculously far away.
Your HD TV isn't supposed to be set up to be seen by everyone in a large room - if it is you have it set up wrong or its not set up for viewing performance. Sure I don't care about the resolution or distance I view the kitchen TV but then I don't care if its HD either.

The HOME maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance for my TV is 8.8 feet. The HOME maximum THX viewing distance is 10.2 feet, recommended 7.3 feet.

Again, why waste your money on HD if you are viewing from too far back to get any benefit from it?

 

[ChargerSteve]

Are you nuts? The recommended distance for 50"+ displays is 10-16 feet. A 55" television in a 10' room is out of scale. People are not meant to have a three foot path between their sofa and their TV bench.
...
You're not supposed to sit five feet from your TV. Setting aside that it flies completely in the face of room ergonomics and aesthetics, it's not good for your eyes and it's not the way content is meant to be enjoyed. At that distance, you might be able to resolve the highest number of pixels in the image, but unless you're inspecting the frames of a film, you're missing the point.
...
You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Seriously true! Ha, if I followed the 5.5 ft plan, my feet would hit my TV when I reclined in my la-z-boy! Of course this might be an advantage because I could use my sock to wipe off the kid's fingerprints and the dog's nose prints (because in the real world most of us live in, our displays do get prints on them, also the lights are sometimes too bright because someone else is reading in the same room as the TV, you might even hear some noise from the street out front, etc).

Again, Apple is trying for more of a mass market appeal. Most people don't design their homes around their TVs. For those of you with dedicated home theaters and all the best equipment, did you really think a $229 device was going to meet your high standards? Do you spend your time on message boards complaining about how a $400 Sony receiver sucks because it doesn't sound as good as your McIntosh tube amp? Do you refuse to watch HD TV shows broadcast because they're not in 1080P? Do you only watch stations that broadcast in 1080i because you don't think 720P is as good? Do you all drive Rolls-Royces or do some of you drive Accords because they're pretty damn good for the money.

I know this is just a message board and it can be fun to talk about what could be done better and what we'd like to see in the future, etc. But from some of the comments, I'm not sure how some of you people manage to tolerate living in a world so full of sub-optimum experiences!

Be realistic, put things in perspective. Again, it's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good for the price.