Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple iTV Impressions and Details
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AidenShaw said:
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
Contrary to what many people are saying here, I don't think PVR is Apple's stratedgy. PVR woud have to be based on a subscription model, and Apple has shown us for years now that it won't have it that way.
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
Windows Media Center does not have a subscription model - the channel guide is free.Clive At Five said:
All you have to do is enter your zip code and cable provider when you set it up.
Quality.. DVD.. HD.. Input vs Output... etc...
It has HDMI output.. One way or another, it'll output HD (720p?1080p???)
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
It has HDMI output.. One way or another, it'll output HD (720p?1080p???)
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
granex said:
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Missing the Point .....
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Counterpoints...
I'm not claiming either is right or wrong, but people here are simply saying that they want a choice that iTV does not offer.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....Drewnrupe said:
- What if someone wants to watch TV while the PC is down, or software updates are being applied? Independent of location, there can be advantages to having a dedicated media center system.
- What if you don't have the cable/antenna connections to the office? (I know people who use Airport solely to get the network from the TV room cable drop to the PC in the office - they can't run coax or Cat5 for various reasons)
- An HTPC can be power-optimized for its purpose - saving much energy over using a general purpose PC as the media center.
- Some people *do* want a PC in the living room (I have a 45" 1080p LCD panel on a WMCE, sometimes it's handy to grab the bluetooth keyboard, switch to the 2 foot UI, and check something)
- The Quadro in the WMCE really puts up a superb 1080p picture - not sure that I'd want to compress the signal and send it over wireless...
I'm not claiming either is right or wrong, but people here are simply saying that they want a choice that iTV does not offer.
AidenShaw said:
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Drewnrupe said:
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
AidenShaw said:
granted - a dedicated computer would have distinct advantages, and is still an option. I would still argue that the best location for this is not sitting beside the television. Even if you do locate the dedicated computer besie one TV you still face all the same issues in watching from elsewhee in the house.
I am sure this may be a problem for some , but I woudl think for most people it is summountable - my cable company charged $20 to come out and run a new line to the office for me. If this is a problem for some people it shoudl be tackled as a seperate problem - letting this difficulty drive a whole concept is letting the tail wag the dog.AidenShaw said:
Sorry you have lost me now HTPC ?AidenShaw said:
And that is great, clearly if you want a PC in the living room then you should have one, and probably the iTV concept is not idela for you - unless of course you also want to be able to view the media stored on the PC in the living room while laying in bedAidenShaw said:
AidenShaw said:
I take all your points, and for some maybe the ideal location for a central storage point of their media IS in the living room , my real point though was that it should be a single point wherever you put it. Then the iTV units are the distribution to any other locations that you want to watch or listen.
It is clear that peolpe may want slightly different configurations for their specific requirements or preferences / priorities, but i would have thought that need is only served BETTER by iTV limiting itself to specific function which you can either add to your system or not dependign on your needs.
If you have decided to locate your full media center in the living room you have really already given up on teh idea of having everythin in one bob anyway - so why through more into the iTV than it needs to do its job - which is distribution.
Drew
I hope they weren't pulling our leg when they said that movies are going "World-wide" in 2007. Let's hope that means TV shows, and bloody stores too. Cause quite frankly Apple needs to get their act together with this European stuff already!! I thought this was meant to be a global economy? It seems these days, and before these days too, that all Apple cares about market wise, is the UK and the US. I like both of those places myself, and I wish them look with Apple related stuff in the future. I think us Irish, and all other European countires needs a little more than look right now. To be realistic, and personally I can only speak for my country. Ireland needs at least "4" fully fledged FLAGSHIP Apple stores. One in Belfast, one in Dublin, one in Waterford (where I live, the fastest growing city in Ireland), and one in Cork, "HERE" as of right now with the current economic state of the country and the current populous. They need to start by putting an Apple store in Dublin this year, and roll out the other "3" stores in 2007. The whole situation with Apple and Europe seems at this stage to me to be a joke. It's actually hard to believe that a company on such a rise like Apple seems to be ignoring most European counties... It's a disgrace! And is inexcusable IMO. Get your bloody act together Apple. I'm not joking when I say, someone at Apple needs a good kick up the arse!!
It's a disgrace! And is inexcusable IMO. Get your bloody act together Apple. I'm not joking when I say, someone at Apple needs a good kick up the arse!!greenstork said:
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
Apple in Europe and Elsewhere
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.Clive At Five said:
Mac Fly (film) said:
What are you, an adolescent? Did you not read my reasoning?
And of course it's easier to say it since I'm in the U.S. but I've never bought TV content from the iTS. It doesn't mean that much to me. Thus I'm an unbiased source.
-Clive
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph.
)Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.whooleytoo said:
All sounds very intriguing.
B
whooleytoo said:
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.