Apple Confirms No Software Update for Original Apple TV

[deconstruct60]

Here's my beef with the new Apple TV:
* Power consumption - Everyone complained about the lack of effective sleep mode on the original ATV. Now, the power consumption of the ATV may be lower, but you'll have to leave your desktop computer on and out of sleep mode in order to use it. Fail.

Not really. The assumption here is that the material is on your home computers. If the local storage management is removed from the situation then you are renting content from Apple. Apple's servers have to be on 24/7 anyway. So no new power savings. You stream from the "cloud" and byapss all of your computers. Net energy savings.

As someone else pointed out wake-on-lan can wake sleeping computers.

* No 1080p - my Blu-Ray player has this, why not the Apple TV?

As long as the content is being delivered through the web this isn't practical with common ISP bandwidth. The amount of data is too large. Yes this where the 'big bang of hurt' actually has higher value but Apple will still blow it of.

* Streaming only - given network congestion, I would want a buffer of at least 500 MB in order to rely on a streaming connection all the time. I'm not aware of any device with a dedicated buffer that large.

errrrr. doesn't the quicktime browser plug-in allow you set a buffer. Pretty sure on a 4GB Mac this is entirely possible. The $99 AppleTV probably doesn't have 4GB of RAM, but shouldn't be too hard to squeeze out 50-100MB or so of memory so this of what it does have ( I'd suspect something closer to 640-1,000MB. )

Honestly, when I read the rumors about the next-generation being streaming only and not having 1080p, I thought it was one of the intentional, incorrect leaks that Apple does to under-promise and over-deliver, like claiming that the original iPhone would have two batteries.

No it made sense because this was one of the primary ways to get the costs down: dump the storage cost. Apple TV cost too much. Apple is going to sell a significant more now because it is $200 cheaper. Basic econ 101 supply demand curves. If Apple wasn't going to do a DVR, then might as well dump the drive.

 

[jamesryanbell]

720p should just be ok with everyone as far as streaming content. The bandwidth available on typical ISPs make the difference matter...a LOT (720p vs. 1080p). Just be ok with 720p. Choose to be ok with it.

If it matters that much to you, go BUY the movies on Blu-Ray and spend more money.

It's one or the other. Those are the available options.

 

[deconstruct60]

--So, the NEW Apple TV is based on iOS. Right? B

This is a bit of stretch. There is no touch interface here. This could just as easily be the stripped down version of Mac OS X that the old Apple TV had. They only need a subset of the Cocoa library. It is not completely different, but neither does it have to be exacdtly the same. iOS brings the expectation that you could run apps from the Apps Store on this thing. You can't. Or at least no one has shown that.

 

[Cleverboy]

This is a bit of stretch. There is no touch interface here. This could just as easily be the stripped down version of Mac OS X that the old Apple TV had. They only need a subset of the Cocoa library. It is not completely different, but neither does it have to be exacdtly the same. iOS brings the expectation that you could run apps from the Apps Store on this thing. You can't. Or at least no one has shown that.

That's interesting. I didn't know anyone was questioning this. So, you're thinking its running on an A4 ARM-based chip, but that its possible its running something other than iOS? Also... you think iOS is ONLY about "touch events" and isn't actually a whole lot more than the UI? I think you'd have to come up with strong reasons why its NOT iOS, not the other way around. We'll certainly see soon enough when it ships.

YES. iOS brings the expectation that it will support Apps from the App Store... yet, Apple has decided NOT to support this. Yet. I'm agreeing with John Gruber's commentary on this:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/01/topolsky-chowder

Not so much there, either. The device is running iOS, though, trust me. So it’s possible that some sort of SDK is coming in the future. But I’m not going to hold my breath. Judging from the demo today, I think the fact that it’s running iOS under the hood is just an implementation detail.

Why isn't Apple TV running apps yet? Lots of theories. My personal favorite, is that Apple has decided that the Apple TV should "stream" apps from other iDevices, and not host/store apps itself. Apple TV has now become a thin client interface for content consumption. Apple needs to finish working out the details for this. That's my guess anyway. AirPlay is missing its final category I say. This whole massive strategy by Apple is... in my delusional theory here... Apple's stealth gambit. The super-cheap ultimate gaming device that doesn't actually store anything.

Watch and see. People will be sending FaceTime sessions to their large screen TVs and using iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches to control games on the TV screen running wirelessly off of the devices themselves. It's going to be crazy.

~ CB

 

[chatin]

Mine has one foot in dustbin as it consistently overheats and slows to a crawl some may confuse with a freeze. By Steve's "Run Cool" comment on Wednesday expect to see AMD hardware for video. Like the clunker Lisa of 1983, Apple probably wishes it could have all this generation in a Utah landfill.

 

[potatis]

I connect the optical out to my stereo system. Easy thing to do.

If your stereo system has a DAC. Otherwise you have to purchase one to get better-than-tv-speaker sound. The old TV had a nice built-in DAC.

 

[kiljoy616]

What a Question

This gives new meaning to the word "brick." Seriously, why couldn't Apple allowed an update to this?

Because its Apple, never under estimate them to drop a bomb.

 

[kiljoy616]

Different hardware/architecture. They're not holding anything back, they just aren't porting the stuff back.

Well said, I was never sold on the old hardware but the new one seems to be what at least for me have been waiting for.

Netflix, streaming, 99 cent movies, only thing missing is Hulu Plus, which I don't think they will allow.

Still its really a great easy to use cheap hardware, only problem I still see is not 1080p, but I guess that will be the case for sometime.

 

[Sol]

If your stereo system has a DAC. Otherwise you have to purchase one to get better-than-tv-speaker sound. The old TV had a quite nice built-in DAC.

Excuse me but are you saying that anything less than optical out is tv-speaker quality? With all due respect, RCA out is not inherently bad quality and to claim that is a gross exaggeration. That is like saying that all VGA monitors looked like crap because they did not use all-digital DVI connections. They are different technologies that basically do the same thing.

 

[OllyW]

Excuse me but are you saying that anything less than optical out is tv-speaker quality? With all due respect, RCA out is not inherently bad quality and to claim that is a gross exaggeration. That is like saying that all VGA monitors looked like crap because they did not use all-digital DVI connections. They are different technologies that basically do the same thing.

I don't think that was the suggestion, just that the optical output is now the only option for connecting to an amplifier unless you have a receiver with HDMI inputs.

 

[Undecided]

TVs with apps

Suddenly, I'm more interested in what options my TV itself offers - direct access to Amazon, Netflix, hulu, etc.

 

[The Man]

As a current Apple TV owner, I would totally understand this if the move to an A4 architecture came with any sort of benefit -- like iOS and apps.

However, for a reason I cannot begin to fathom, Apple switched to the A4 and then cloned the current (hideous, awful) interface, with no apps. So the software is incompatible with old Apple TVs, and there is no interface/app enhancement to compensate.

Positively lame. If the Roku box had any decent, local way to stream iTunes media from my computer, I would take a mallet to my Apple TV and not shed a tear.

Mighty Jobso says that Apple could open an App Store for the TV when the time is right. I think this will happen when more people have an iPod touch.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_37/b4194030216774.htm

And the new Apple TV is just getting the hardware in place. And with a switch, they could add new functionality, while still not requiring the use of extra hardware like an iPod touch if you don't want to. But probably, if you want new functionality, you use your iPod touch. Anyways, I hope the new Apple TV hardware is powerful enough, with at least 1Ghz CPU and good GPU, that we can expect to do games and stuff on it together with our iPod touch, or touch remote.

 

[bobbytomorow]

OK, fair enough. Still, there's no reason (beyond greed) that they couldn't have allowed it to be upgraded.

Agreed

Its a slap in the face, its not like these devices are legacy...or I guess they are now...fail

 

[potatis]

I don't think that was the suggestion, just that the optical output is now the only option for connecting to an amplifier unless you have a receiver with HDMI inputs.

That's what I meant. The TV no longer has RCA jacks, which means you can't connect it to regular amplifiers.

 

[Sol]

That's what I meant. The TV no longer has RCA jacks, which means you can't connect it to regular amplifiers.

Well the better-than-TV-speakers wording seemed like a comment about analogue output. Not that I am some kind of RCA cables zealot

It would have been better if Apple used the same analogue and optical output that the iMacs and Airport Express use. The optical output is a waste of space because digital audio goes through the HDMI.

 

[Cleverboy]

Agreed
Its a slap in the face, its not like these devices are legacy...or I guess they are now...fail

Completely different processor. Different OS. There are LOADS of reasons.

But there is also every reason why customers who are spoiled on Apple's endless free upgrades (I'm one of them) would hope that Apple should spend weeks to port and test HTTP Live Streaming to the version of the Mac OS that Apple TV runs. If HTTP Live Streaming (for Apple's Music Event) couldn't stream to non-Snow Leopard Macs... why should Netflix (using HTTP Live Streaming), be a slam dunk?

Moreover, why should Apple create a whole new product cycle (including testing and bug fixes) for themselves on a device that's almost 3.5 years old?

They have a solid case for cutting the cord. Adding Netflix support to the existing Apple TV (mine too) would be an irrational act from pretty much every perspective. As Netflix matures and improves, people will continue to feel abandoned if Apple doesn't support it as much as they will the NEW platform Apple TV is based on.

~ CB

 

[OllyW]

The optical output is a waste of space because digital audio goes through the HDMI.

It's not a waste of space if you've got an old receiver that hasn't got any HDMI inputs.

 

[mstur]

Mine keeps freezing all the time.

Have you tried to replace the HDD ?
I replaced the 40 GB drive with a 64 GB Transcend SSD. It was not easy, but I have a friend who is a certified Apple technician.

The AppleTV is now faster and quieter...

 

[Sol]

It's not a waste of space if you've got an old receiver that hasn't got any HDMI inputs.

Granted but if Apple was being considerate to those people why not to all the people with amplifiers that have no digital inputs?

 

[gmpirate]

I see your angle. You do have a point but then look at Apple bank account. $50 billion dollars? And they skimp on support? There must be a better balance than that. Other companies do not have that much cash. Maybe that's because they take better care of their customers?

Ok, let me get this straight. Apple has $50 billion because they don't take of their customers, and other companies don't because they do. Guess Apple better be careful or they are just going to wind up with too much money and no customers. Wait, I think I'm confused. What's the purpose of a company?

 

[OllyW]

Granted but if Apple was being considerate to those people why not to all the people with amplifiers that have no digital inputs?

It would mean fitting a DAC, keeping it digital takes up less space and keeps the cost down. It's probably the same reason why they've also dropped the component video outputs.

 

[marksman]

Read the post again and you will understand why your question has no bearing.

I read it again, and you are wrong.

If someone recently bought an apple tv, does it not do what they bought it to do?

If it does not, why did they not return it?

 

[Sol]

It would mean fitting a DAC, keeping it digital takes up less space and keeps the cost down. It's probably the same reason why they've also dropped the component video outputs.

You make it sound like the DAC component would not fit in the new Apple TV. All iPods have them and it would not be much trouble to make room for one.

 

[steve-p]

You make it sound like the DAC component would not fit in the new Apple TV. All iPods have them and it would not be much trouble to make room for one.

Presumably it's the connectors that would take up space, as the DAC is probably a single chip. But then the new Apple TV didn't have to be quite so small anyway. I doubt many people decided against the original on the grounds it was too enormous.

 

[Sol]

Presumably it's the connectors that would take up space, as the DAC is probably a single chip.

That is why they should have used the mini-jack output that is on the Airport Express; depending on what cable is plugged into it, it can output an analogue or a digital signal.