Apple Introduces Updated Apple TV with Netflix Integration, TV Show Rentals

[AZREOSpecialist]

Wow, 3 million in 4 years uh ? In a market as big as Television, which is bigger than PMPs and Cellphones...

Successful. Not.

And how successful are Apple's competitors in this space? The only real competition is going to come from a Google product. Forget the vaporware Boxee Box and WD Live HD Thing From Hell or whatever it's called... Apple is pushing a rental model here, and it only has two studios on board. Apple is going to use this to show the rest of the industry that this works. When more studios hop on board, you can bet the Apple TV will become a major platform for Apple.

What other products can we buy today that offer the simplicity and elegance of the Apple TV? I have a Netflix subscription and would gladly buy this just for that functionality. All Netflix applications suck compared to the Apple TV implementation, even the PS3 and Wii versions are useless because you have to load a friggin' DVD into the machine to run the Netflix software. Total fail in my opinion.

The only thing I wish it had is a wireless keyboard. Using that remote to enter text is going to be cumbersome.

 

[totoum]

That's all fine and dandy but the AppleTV will also stream from your Mac and 1080p over a local network should be fine.

It can't decode 1080p,it's not a bandwith problem


Speaking of bandwith, I was looking at the tech spec and saw this:

"Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format"



So wait , how is it going to stream 35Mbps?

or am I missing something?

 

[KnightWRX]

And how successful are Apple's competitors in this space?

Dunno, but my GF just got home with my 119$ LG BD560C. She had to go to Futureshop and get it priced match to BB's sale price since it was sold out everywhere else.

So I'd say they aren't doing so bad. I'm sure Sony has moved more BD players than 3 million in the last 4 years.

 

[NT1440]

Wow, 3 million in 4 years uh ? In a market as big as Television, which is bigger than PMPs and Cellphones...

Successful. Not.

Its a TV accessory, lets be honest here man. Don't phrase it as if this is an actual TV.

Sales have only been accelerating (3X last earnings report) lately so clearly this WILL be a market at some point.

No one else in this space has done well.

Also, ONE product VS. a RANGE of products, what a great comparison.

Thats just like how Android has dozens of phones, but none of them sell nearly as well as the iPhone.

 

[beofgod]

You were right. Too funny.

I have to agree that many current A/V standards are either misunderstood by novices or are over-hyped. I doubt most people can distinguish between 720p and 1080p on a HD tv viewed at the appropriate distance for the screen's size. I know NO ONE can distinguish between a 720p image and 1080i image; they are fundamentally the same.

Oh your so right you would be amazed at how many people don't even know what the p or the i mean!

 

[KnightWRX]

Because until this point Apple TV was a fringe product. But at $99 Apple will move a lot more units.

You sure ? Because at least for me tonight, Apple just moved a LG unit instead of an AppleTV. Same 119$ price (Canadian price for the Apple TV), all the features of AppleTV, and then some more (1080p, Blu-ray, waaaaaay more codecs/container support).

Its a TV accessory, lets be honest here man. Don't phrase it as if this is an actual TV.

Sales have only been accelerating (3X last earnings report) lately so clearly this WILL be a market at some point.

No one else in this space has done well.

Yes, because netflix enabled BD players just aren't selling. Oh wait...

 

[HiRez]

I'll make it 100% clear here that I'm *not* saying the device is *not* worth £99 (I'm a first gen Apple TV customer, and the new one is nice), but why this price? Answer: they're charging it because they can and we'll pay for it but I just feel ripped off.

Ripped off, but still likely first in the queue. Hate myself

LOL, I have the same feeling before (or even shortly after) most of the Apple products I purchase. But you know what? Looking back, there are very few of them I feel that way about after the fact.

 

[nsayer]

This isn't what I had hoped

I was really hoping to see Apple combine Apple TV, the magic trackpad and iOS and really, really bring multitouch to the TV.

The only use I see for this is if they expand AirPlay so that literally anything that you can show on the retina display can be thrown up on the TV. From what I have read, it looks like AirPlay won't be something open for third party app developers.

 

[Apple of my eye]

So again, are we being selective to bias the win to 720p? Why not choose 60fps for 1080p too? Or why not choose 24 or 30 for 720p?

I can make this kind of math make 320 x 200 look better than your 720p calculations if we want to just choose a big enough frame rate for it.

1920 x 1080 = a picture with a little more than 2 million pixels in it (not scaled up).
1280 x 720 = a picture with a little more than 921 thousand pixels in it.

If you want to compare frame rates for each format, you should compare both of them at 24, 30 or 60, not the highest one in support of "720p is better" vs. the lowest one applied to 1080p. Multiply 24 or 30 or 60 by the above calculations and EVERY TIME 1080p will win, by a big amount of pixels per minute.

If you're doing it to try to justify why Apple (again) chose 720p max for this new TV, you might consider that it can't even do 720p60: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html as part of the eval.

Hi,

Obviously when comparing two resolutions at the same frame rate the higher resolution will be better. I was comparing broadcast standards. In the US the two major formats are 720p60 and 1080i60. Of the two I prefer 720p60. There is no content available at 1080p60. Apple's decision to limit the frame rate of their new product to 30fps is disappointing from a technology standpoint but understandable from a business standpoint. Would people have been willing to pay $200 for a 1080p box? Who knows, but for $99 bucks the Apple TV solves a lot of problems for me and my home theater / computer integration.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.

That becomes the big hope now- that Apple will take the same UI and make it the new "Front Row". Then, a Mac Mini becomes the (hardware overkill, but oh well) TV for me.

 

[KnightWRX]

Hi,

Obviously when comparing two resolutions at the same frame rate the higher resolution will be better. I was comparing broadcast standards. In the US the two major formats are 720p60 and 1080i60. Of the two I prefer 720p60. There is no content available at 1080p60. Apple's decision to limit the frame rate of their new product to 30fps is disappointing from a technology standpoint but understandable from a business standpoint. Would people have been willing to pay $200 for a 1080p box? Who knows, but for $99 bucks the Apple TV solves a lot of problems for me and my home theater / computer integration.

Why do you think a 1080p box would cost 200$ ? A lot of BD players with 1080p support are in the 99$ price range.

 

[NT1440]

Yes, because netflix enabled BD players just aren't selling. Oh wait...

RANGE of products vs. ONE device.

Can we have an honest discussion here for once? Please.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Did you notice that the Apple TV has a Micro USB port on the back of the device. Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking. Grab a USB Flash drive and hook it up to the Micro USB port and use the Apple TV as a storage device or something else to that effect.

Check the specs on Apple site. Just like with the current TV, it says it is for "service and support".

Maybe the hackers will transform it into a more normal USB port.

 

[gdeusthewhizkid]

hmm ill pass

with four devices in my home that can stream netflix from my iphone, ipod touch, ps3 and mb pro. This is a 100 dollars i can keep in my pocket. I may change my mind .. i guess taking the hard drive out makes it worth 100 bucks now. but netflix streaming on my ps3 is simple and so on my mb pro.. I think it's a win for apple for non techies to stream simply to their tv but another update ill pass on .

 

[forbesfilm]

not much better

Dunno, but my GF just got home with my 119$ LG BD560C. She had to go to Futureshop and get it priced match to BB's sale price since it was sold out everywhere else.

So I'd say they aren't doing so bad. I'm sure Sony has moved more BD players than 3 million in the last 4 years.

besides the fact that its comparing two different types of device entirely, there were 2.5 million Blu-Ray players sold in the first 2 years (that includes all makers), compared to 1.2 million DVD players in its first 2 years, i think apple tv is doing modestly well for a new TV accessory product..and you're GF just got home to hammer home your point...how fortuitous...or convenient.

 

[richman555]

This was a good move by Apple. The low point of entry at $99 should entice anyone who is curious. It is essentially a cheaper Apple TV version with no storage. I believe what Steve means by no purchases, is no purchases on the Apple TV. You can still purchase content through iTunes, then stream it to the Apple TV. If you have the disk space, stream away!!!

 

[KnightWRX]

RANGE of products vs. ONE device.

Can we have an honest discussion here for once? Please.

Sure, drop the fallacy of One device vs Range of products, and we'll get right to it. Apple is free to make a range of products that offer choices to people to expand their market if they want.

As for honest : PS3. More units than AppleTV, same functionality, "but wait there's more...". Most Blu-ray players are doing much better than 3 million in 4 years also.

Seriously, even Apple doesn't claim AppleTV is a success. That you would try to say otherwise is just astounding spin.

besides the fact that its comparing two different types of device entirely, there were 2.5 million Blu-Ray players sold in the first 2 years (that includes all makers), compared to 1.2 million DVD players in its first 2 years, i think apple tv is doing modestly well for a new TV accessory product..and you're GF just got home to hammer home your point...how fortuitous...or convenient.

2 different device types ? I bought the LG BD560C precisely because it is a network based streamer. It is a direct competitor to AppleTV, does music, movies, TV shows, pictures, using standard DLNA server. It just happens to also playback DVDs and Blu-rays and supports 1080p.

Yes it's convenient she just got home, she had to shop around for 2 hours to find it coming back from work after I asked her to go pick it up at BB.

She also found it rather convenient to be able to finally eat supper.

 

[aegisdesign]

Hard to believe all the Brits whingeing about the price of the Apple TV. It costs freaking $20 US to have a crappy sandwich and some stale crisps for lunch in London; you think you guys would be used to being gouged.

You'd think you Americans would be used to be gouged by us Brits in London.

"Sandwich and crisps sir?"

"Oh, you're American. That'll be $20 thanks."

You might want to try Scotland next, it's just outside London. I'm sure we can find your ancestors if you pay the right amount. Then you'll have earned the right to walk around in your tartan trousers.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Jobs is right. Consumers want to watch TV and movies - they don't care where they are stored. Why bother with hard drive storage of video content when you can have it in the cloud?

It's funny to read the anti-1080p arguments of how much bandwidth will be hogged/bogged down and then read pro-iTunes rental/cloud arguments to store everything in the cloud and use lots of bandwidth to download it on demand (vs. store at least some of it locally). Which is it? Are we against clogging the bandwidth pipes or for clogging them, because the pipes just carry data streams; they can't tell if is a 1080p data stream or 20 720p files flowing to 20 720p TVs?

 

[NT1440]

Sure, drop the fallacy of One device vs Range of products, and we'll get right to it. Apple is free to make a range of products that offer choices to people to expand their market if they want.

As for honest : PS3. More units than AppleTV, same functionality, "but wait there's more...". Most Blu-ray players are doing much better than 3 million in 4 years also.

Seriously, even Apple doesn't claim AppleTV is a success. That you would try to say otherwise is just astounding spin.

Wow, wanna throw anymore logical fallacies and words in my mouth? Where did I ever say it was a success? If you want to be HONEST, I said moving 3 million devices is RESPECTABLE.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As you have probably read already (on Engadget and elsewhere) Amazon is already offering the same TV shows as ATV (i.e. Fox, ABC) for the same $0.99. Butt the price is to buy the show (as opposed to renting for ATV). As I understand, once you purchased the show, you can stream it unlimited number of times (you own it). Why can't Apple do the same? ABC probably would not offer a better deal to Amazon. Is Apple just being greedy? Do they want to save on not having to provides unlimited streaming?

All of a sudden Roku and Google TV look even more attractive.

For the same reason that Amazon has a lot of music for lower prices than Apple. The Studios watched what happened to their buddies in the music industry when they got themselves under Apple's thumb. They don't want the same thing to happen to them. So they'll support players besides Apple with better deals to give them many channels through which to sell their content.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wow, wanna throw anymore logical fallacies and words in my mouth? Where did I ever say it was a success? If you want to be HONEST, I said moving 3 million devices is RESPECTABLE.

It's not even respectable. It's a big failure. Less than a million units per year, less than 250,000 per quarter.

A fringe product if anything.

This was their chance to revamp it and get it to move. My credit card was ready for a network based streamer. Rather, we got a "Make Apple more money" box. They should just give them out free seeing how it's so tied to the iTunes ecosystem and subsidize them off iTunes purchases.

 

[NT1440]

It's not even respectable. It's a big failure. Less than a million units per year, less than 250,000 per quarter.

A fringe product if anything.

I'd love to be selling anything at 250,000 a quarter.

Can you tell me what BD Netflix player model is doing the same? As in what ONE model is? I'd really love to know.

 

[SiskoKid]

Why do you think a 1080p box would cost 200$ ? A lot of BD players with 1080p support are in the 99$ price range.

Really? There are BD players that stream your media from your computer and possibly your MobileMe account to your TV? Or that will be able to stream from your phone or iPad? Or have access to a movie and television store?

All that for $99?

Please send me a link

 

[richman555]

It's funny to read the anti-1080p arguments of how much bandwidth will be hogged/bogged down and then read pro-iTunes rental/cloud arguments to store everything in the cloud and use lots of bandwidth to download it on demand (vs. store at least some of it locally). Which is it? Are we against clogging the bandwidth pipes or for clogging them, because the pipes just carry data streams; they can't tell if is a 1080p data stream or 20 720p files flowing to 20 720p TVs?

I have tried streaming 1080p content using Vudu on my LG TV and it sucks!!! It is one big slow choppy mess. 720p or less is smooth as silk. Until these kinds of issues are solved, I say leave 1080p to blue ray players and those lucky few with great broadband connections.