Apple Announces Apple TV Take 2 + Price Drop

[GeekLawyer]

Get home from work 6pm, cook a meal, sit down to watch a movie at 8pm, press play. Suddenly there is a power cut [ insert any other unforseen event here ], so you plan to watch it the following evening after work.

24 hour limit means you cannot.

30 hour limit means you can.

Contact Apple, receive a credit, and re-rent the movie. Simple as that.

 

[nubero]

I'm pretty positive that anyone that gives a **** about video/audio quality is not buying an AppleTV. The rest simply don't care or are clueless like the majority of this forum.

Truer words were never spoken... well... written actually

 

[BobVB]

Handbrake already can, actually.

Ok so with them saying it can do DD5.1 'passthrough' you're guessing they will use the .mkv H.264/AC3-pass thru format?

Guess we really do need to have someone can get an HD rental and reports. Apple web page says they are available today but to whom? AppleTV units with the upgraded software? Are there any out in the wild yet?

 

[gkarris]

I also hope that Apple will offer HD movies for purchase and not only for rental.

I would agree with your conclusion if everyone had fiber running to their router. But since they don't, 720p makes the most sense from a content-delivery perspective.

Also, on a personal note, I don't want to buy an HD-DVD player or a BD player.

Doesn't look like you'd be able to buy HD or have 1080 content from Apple - would make the Blu-ray group (Sony and Disney mainly) unhappy with that...

 

[whatever]

Downloads are just way more economical, ecological and convenient than CD's are. The last CD I bought (Dark Passion Play by Nightwish) was because it was released first on CD and only a bit later in iTunes, and I wanted to have it ASAP, and the CD contained a second disc that had instrumental version of the album, while iTunes only had the regural version.

iTunes now has the double album.

 

[foneschlomo]

I'm pretty positive that anyone that gives a **** about video/audio quality is not buying an AppleTV. The rest simply don't care or are clueless like the majority of this forum.

I think there is a difference between giving a **** and making sacrifices in one area to gain something in another, which is how the real world works. I can appreciate a 1080p signal (actually, i think the Batman Begins DVD looks too realistic in Blu-ray, but that's a different discussion), but I am willing to sacrifice some quality to the fact I can sit in my living room when I have a date over the house and casually browse thousands of movies without leaving the house. The quality difference isn't going to matter for a date movie enough to negate the convenience.

My favorites I'll buy in true hi-def because I watch them again and again. Similar to my music collection- some is in AAC, some is on vinyl, some is on CD.

 

[GeekLawyer]

Doesn't look like you'd be able to buy HD or have 1080 content from Apple - would make the Blu-ray group (Sony and Disney mainly) unhappy with that...

I also don't want to buy 1080p content, and certainly not from iTunes. How quickly would you fill up even the 1TB Time Capsule with that much data?! I just want to download my 720p rental, watch it, and get on with my life. And getting on with my life doesn't include caring if Sony or Disney are unhappy with my choices as a consumer of their content.

 

[aidanpendragon]

I've yet to see any real comments here comparing AppleTV 2 to the Pay-Per-View services generally available from cable & satellite alike. I seem to recall that their prices are not too far off Apple's mark - and this is equipment already in many homes. So why would you pay $229 for another box that duplicates those features you already have?

 

[BobVB]

Oh give me a break. Only the most pickey HD fanatics (aka AVSforum types) can even tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on < 100" screens.

Oh I can't agree with that - I'm an old fart with trifocals but the difference between 720 and 1080 on my 65" Sony is VERY noticeable. But I'm not a renter anyway - I'd much rather own most movies but I'm a movie 'rewatcher' which of course the 'only watch once' crowd just can't understand 😉

But with DD5.1 possible now it does make the AppleTV a great way to digitize and get rid of the DVD collection which is why I'll be getting one. As for HD I'll be buying my content for the foreseeable future - recently got the first 4 Harry Potter movies (as well as a number of others ) from Amazon for less than $10 each.

 

[j26]

...Or upgrade your wife to one with a longer battery life. 😛

If she's made by Apple she probably doesn't have a user replaceable battery 😀

 

[MrMoore]

The update looks nice, but I'm still not hooked. First, I don't have a HD Television and don't have plans to purchase one yet. To take full advanatage of HD I would need to get service from Comcast, update my Tivo Series 2 [I LUV my Tivo]. The cost ain't worth it at the moment.

I guess I could connect it to a monitor, but if I have to do that, I might as well watch it from my iMac. Maybe when the day comes I get a HDTV, I'll look at the TV

EDIT: Wait! I noticed that the AppleTV can now connect via RCA connectors. I've been connecting my MacBook Pro to my TV. Now I might consider the AppleTV. Damn you Apple 😉

 

[whatever]

Well there hasn't been HD content before other than movie trailers and it used 6 discrete channels that were inexplicably dumbed down to Pro Logic II. The new AppleTV tech spec page says it does DD5.1 pass-through so maybe an AC3 track? We shall see.

Hopefully Handbrake can handle it - I have almost 800 DVDs in 2 Sony jukebox players and would like to digitize them to make room for the inevitable Sony Blu-ray jukebox 😉

I'm hoping you joking about getting a Blu-Ray jukebox. I don't know if they even make such a beast, but if they didn't I can only assume the price. Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in hard drives now and once all the bugs are worked out rip Blu-Ray discs to the hard disk?

 

[nubero]

Oh give me a break. Only the most pickey HD fanatics (aka AVSforum types) can even tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on < 100" screens.

The problem is another one (if I understand you right):
In most tests they take test subjects and let them compare 720p50 with 1080i25 (or make that 720p60 vs. 1080i30).
So they make you compare a higher framerate in a small resolution to a lower framerate in a higher resolution that is interlaced as well...

No wonder people like 720 more.

For Video Captured content we will have to wait for 1080p50 / 1080p60

Then again for Movies shot on Film you can already have true 1080p24 (on BluRay Disc only) which is the same 24fps the film material is created in. And appart from 4K there's nothing really out there that could beat that quality wise.

It's actually a small revolution: The first time you really get the same framerate at home as you have in the Cinema...

 

[GeekLawyer]

I've yet to see any real comments here comparing AppleTV 2 to the Pay-Per-View services generally available from cable & satellite alike. I seem to recall that their prices are not too far off Apple's mark - and this is equipment already in many homes. So why would you pay $229 for another box that duplicates those features you already have?

My ultimate hope and goal is the banish rented satellite and/or cable boxes from my life (and monthly budget) forever. The promised updates to the TV get me a step closer to achieving that goal.

 

[ChrisA]

Let's see if I understand this? You pay $229 upfront for a set top box and then for each movie there is a pay per view charge of between $3 and $5. Is that right?

If Apple was serious about this they'd offer a subscription service and a FREE set top box with a payed up subscription. The $229 up front cost will be a killer for most people.

What the industry needs is a stands based network protocal for streaming video over Ethernet. Then the converter box (Ethernet to HDMI) becomes a standardized commodity item, like routers are today. I really, really do NOT want to have more set top boxes than I have remotes.

 

[BobVB]

I'm hoping you joking about getting a Blu-Ray jukebox. I don't know if they even make such a beast, but if they didn't I can only assume the price. Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in hard drives now and once all the bugs are worked out rip Blu-Ray discs to the hard disk?

Not with the size of the files for HD, even today's minimal storage costs, and the number of blu-ray discs I'll eventually have. I have two 400 DVD jukeboxes that came out to less than a buck a disc for easy storage and convenient playing. Sure they were a couple hundred each more than just a player unit but that should be the premium over a blu-ray player too, I mean the jukebox mechanism is the same, right? And I have no problem paying more for getting what I want especially when its pretty much a one time cost. Its rental fees that give me no 'equity' that cause me pause.

 

[GQB]

I'm pretty positive that anyone that gives a **** about video/audio quality is not buying an AppleTV. The rest simply don't care or are clueless like the majority of this forum.

Or recognize that throwing $$$ after such microscopic increments of quality is essentially being a bleeding edge sucker in the consumer culture.

 

[Neuro]

1080p is not the "current basic standard" of HD. 720p remains the most widely used format. It is the best broadcast standard, the only viable streaming standard, the most prodigious content format, and the most popular television set standard. All but the highest-end HDTV units are limited to 720p/1080i, even today. The price of 1080p has fallen dramatically, but the only 1080p content is on physical media, where it will remain for the foreseeable future.

My point is that in the public mind in the UK, 1080p is the standard. Almost any new TV you can buy is 1080p. All the marketing in the shops reflects this and anyone looking for a new TV wants 1080p (regardless of whether they know what it is). So why would Joe Public they think a 720p AppleTV is a good match for their 1080p TV?

As far as I know - the AppleTV is supposed to be a mass-market consumer TV device, not especially for computer monitors.

 

[nubero]

Or recognize that throwing $$$ after such microscopic increments of quality is essentially being a bleeding edge sucker in the consumer culture.

1080 is 2.25 x the resolution of 720...
Based on European PAL (which is slightly more than NTSC as you can see in the chart) Where PAL is factor 1, 720 is factor 2,2 and 1080 is factor 5...

define microscopic

 

[whatever]

Conclusion: Apple needs to update the AppleTV hardware to support 1080p.

Apple TV can today support 1080P. The problem lies with the enduser experience. A 1080P movie (esp. in the US land of the worst Internet Speeds in the world (based on my experiences and nothing else) will take hours to download. Now is it really worthwhile to spend hours downloading a movie that you only be able to watch over a 24 hours period. The answer is no.

 

[GQB]

The problem is another one (if I understand you right):
In most tests they take test subjects and let them compare 720p50 with 1080i25 (or make that 720p60 vs. 1080i30).
So they make you compare a higher framerate in a small resolution to a lower framerate in a higher resolution that is interlaced as well...

No wonder people like 720 more.

For Video Captured content we will have to wait for 1080p50 / 1080p60

Then again for Movies shot on Film you can already have true 1080p24 (on BluRay Disc only) which is the same 24fps the film material is created in. And appart from 4K there's nothing really out there that could beat that quality wise.

It's actually a small revolution: The first time you really get the same framerate at home as you have in the Cinema...

I guess my point is that we talking tiny margins here. And for anyone other than videophiles (i.e. 99% of the market) these differences are academic.

Frankly, I had HD on a 32" tube for 2 years before I went plasma.
At that point I was restricted to 37" and after research, opted to go with ED over HD because I found (on AVSforum) that the viewing experience between ED and HD on a < 42" screen at > 10 feet was indistinguishable. And I've found that to be the case.

What I object to is this hyperbole of 720p 'sucking'. That's just silly consumerism (and probably dissonance reduction) on the part of those who have shelled out big $$ to be first on their block.

 

[SthrnCmfrtr]

1080 is 2.25 x the resolution of 720...

define microscopic

Except a 1080 display is not necessarily 2.25 x the area of a 720 display. You're not really talking as much about resolution as you are pixel density, and that's a lot more difficult to distinguish than screen size.

That's what people are talking about with diminishing returns. You put 50 billion pixels in a 3" display and it's not really going to look all that much better than a 1 megapixel 3" display or even a 640x480 3" display.

 

[BillyG]

Network appliance

Add
Safari
Mail
Wi-Fi keyboard

This would make it a very interesting product to buy for those who do not need a computer but would like to email and browse internet.

 

[gkarris]

????????????????????????????

How did this AppleTV Take 2 thread become a discussion about HD Pixel Density (or whatever...)?

Go get it, download stuff, enjoy...

 

[GQB]

define microscopic[/QUOTE]

Well, that's a pretty misleading graph because it makes it look as if 1080' is 3 times sharper than 480p.
Video to DVD was clearly a monumental step up, and consumers were able to see that easily.
DVD to 720p/1080i often leaves (again) most consumers scratching their head about what the big deal is. Get familiar (as we are) and its obvious, but that's not what retailers are finding with most users.
720p to 1080p is even more 'marginal'. That's how I'm defining it.

I don't think that graph squares with human perception.

I'm framing this in the context of 'what is the sweet spot in the market for Apple to be chasing to have the biggest impact.'
I just think they have it right in that context.