Refurb AppleTV is $149 with a decent 500GB or 1TB external harddrive = $249 or less. Easy to use interface, can't beat it.
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 Launches Apple TV 3.0 Software and iTunes 9.0.2
- Thread starter clawanhex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for pointing some out to buy instead of Apple. I'm sure some people will appreciate it. You're kidding yourself if you think people CARE whether or not those companies "subsidize" them or not. Frankly, I think they're overpriced given their old technological age, IMO so I don't WTF you think they're subsidized, but it's immaterial either way since Apple can EASILY AFFORD to subsidize MUCH BETTER hardware if they wanted to become a player in the game. Apple is used to making money from hardware not software, though and they like to claim they make very little money from iTunes, despite having a virtual monopoly on the online digital music market until the past few years since Amazon and other offered DRM free alternatives.
The FACT is that Apple TV is now overpriced. I cannot even believe anyone would try to argue otherwise given if a Mac Mini were 3+ years old and hadn't been updated in all that time, people would be SCREAMING about how outdated it is and that it's hardly been dropped much in price (I know this because it pretty much happened already give or take a few months). Apple TV should be selling for around $150 now with its ancient hardware and TINY hard drive. When you can get a laptop for $299 from anyone BUT Apple and that includes a SCREEN, you start to realize how Apple is milking things.
More importantly, they know if they update the hardware, people are going to WANT more. That is they will want to be able to use the hardware's capability. "Hacking" is not part of the Apple equation. They want to STOP you from hacking things. They don't want you to rip your own DVD or Blu-Ray collection to watch on Apple TV in any form. What they "want" is for you to BUY those movies all over again from the iTunes store. They don't CARE if you don't want sub-DVD quality from SD movies and stereo (pro-logic) soundtracks. They WANT YOUR MONEY. PERIOD. And quite frankly, they believe most Apple users are techno-lemmings that wouldn't know a Mr. Coffee drip maker from a Gaggia espresso maker since they obviously happily buy $700 worth of equipment for $1200 from Apple and then rant and rave online about how PCs suck when they just got "PWNED" by Apple. Yes, that's what Steve thinks of the Mac market. They'll buy anything he sells them at any price he thinks is best. Microsoft has been a real thorn in his side lately as they are trying to educate Mac users on the subject of how much they overpay for mediocre 3-year old hardware. Of course, they are doing it so you will overpay for Windows7 instead, but that doesn't make it any less true.
So what would you do with high powered Apple TV hardware? Apple will not officially accept that you will hack it and play pirated 1080p MKV files on it. There are SOME users that are actually against that sort of thing and Apple must still answer to them what they can actually do with more powerful Apple TV hardware. The answer would be NOTHING since Apple is not prepared to offer 1080p movies to buy or rent. This is partially not their choice (the studios don't even seem to want to let them offer very many 720p low-bitrate movies for SALE or rental by a common Mac so do you seriously think they will suddenly let them rent or sell 1080p movies??? Do you know how much bandwidth it would require to download one and how that would start to diminish some markets with caps?) No, the time is not yet ripe for 1080p online in a legitimate form. I cannot even buy The Matrix in 720P for Apple TV, the one movie I would gladly buy now in 720P and possibly again later in 1080p or whatever. No I'm afraid Apple has some serious distribution issues right now and that's pretty much because Hollywood and even the record companies HATE Apple.
Clearly, Apple isn't willing to do anything else with Apple TV either. In 3+ years, we have finally gotten a menu that can show the radio interface for the same old tired stations that have been available on iTunes for a half a decade? That's it? No browser options. No subscription radio. No weather reports. Not even a CLOCK for goodness sake!!! So what good would MORE power do them? They CANNOT provide 1080p content. They are unwilling to officially help the user provide his own high-bit rate 720P and 1080P content. So the answer is that it wouldn't do any good to HAVE more power from an "official" standpoint since you wouldn't have anything to officially do with it anyway. WE the users, of course want updated hardware so we can hack the heck out of it and watch all those MKV and 1080p things we shouldn't probably be watching in the first place that simply won't work without stripping down to death first right now.
Now if Apple weren't so thick-headed, they could increase Apple TV sales (and perhaps Airport Express sales too) by simply offering one major new feature, subscription based digital radio like Sonos and Squeezebox have available via Rhapsody. They certainly have the music catalog to make this viable and compete for those music orientated sales, but the REASON you do not get this is that Apple is afraid that it would cannibalize music SALES which despite their claims that they barely break even on such sales is actually their bread and butter on iTunes.
This is sad because Rhapsody is now helping to sell a lot of Sonos and Squeezebox units that could be Apple TV units instead. When you compare features, AppleTV plus a "Remote" and server can do a lot more things (stream video instead of just audio) for a lower price. But Sonos and Squeezebox don't sell their units to stream video. They concentrate on AUDIO and that means offering people MUSIC around their house in the way they might want to hear it and that increasingly is becoming the Netflix streaming model of pay a flat price and listen to all the music you want instead of having to "own" and "store" everything out there you might want to hear. In other words, a lot of people are wiling to pay just as much to get a unit to do one thing WELL instead of a bunch of things half-arsed. Apple has not quite figured this out yet, which is ironic given its own history. But one only needs to look at how it's lost the graphical industry by its own refusal to provide timely updated modern hardware in favor of jamming crap into a monitor case and using sub-par hardware so the whole thing doesn't overheat.... So now people use PCs to do things like Photoshop instead. How long will it be before Apple drops the ball on the iPhone and end up giving that market to someone else because of something like say their abusive dismissal policies regarding applications where people put hundreds if not thousands of man-hours into app only to have Apple reject it after the fact and make it worthless. That's the kind of things that will take yet another market Apple innovates in and then hands it over to someone else to do properly. This is usually caused by Steve's need for power/control and overt greed.
Oh yeah...On more thing. There is STILL no visualizer to watch while listening to music on Apple TV. And why is it I can view lyrics for songs on my iPod Touch for music that is synced to it, but not in the "Remote" application for controlling Apple TV? For that matter, why aren't songs that have lyrics attached to them displayed on Apple TV while it's playing? There's just wasted space all over the place. Why have "lyrics" in iTunes is almost nothing can view them? The iPod Touch does it right for its own synced music. They pop right up when you touch the artwork background in the middle and you can scroll them down easily at a touch. It amazes me how someone at Apple can have a good idea like that for one product and then it gets completely missed by another product like "Remote" which otherwise attempts to appear like the SAME INTERFACE.
While the PS3 and Xbox360 don't have a spiffy UI like the Apple TV, they are far more capable.
They can at least play 720p content with a bitrate above 5Mbps, and they can play 1080p content with actual blu-ray bitrates.
And the Xbox360 has the neat option of being an extender. It's not that difficult to through an HDTV tuner in a Windows PC and having it record HDTV and stream it to your Xbox360. No buying half-baked poor quality TV shows from iTunes at $3 a pop for "HD".
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=735
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136472&Tpk=wd tv Live
The WDTV Live is a heckuva cool little device, and at $130, a lot better of a deal than the ATV, IMO.
We use the previous gen WDTV (without the network capability) and the 1080p is quite nice, and the menu is quite serviceable despite not being as fancy as Apple's. For what they cost, who cares!
I can't wait to get one of thee WDTV Lives in, and connecting it to my RAID 1 NAS with all of my movies on it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136472&Tpk=wd tv Live
The WDTV Live is a heckuva cool little device, and at $130, a lot better of a deal than the ATV, IMO.
We use the previous gen WDTV (without the network capability) and the 1080p is quite nice, and the menu is quite serviceable despite not being as fancy as Apple's. For what they cost, who cares!
I can't wait to get one of thee WDTV Lives in, and connecting it to my RAID 1 NAS with all of my movies on it.
fpnc said:
Of course customers don't care if products are subsidized or not (as long as they don't have to support that subsidy through high-priced, payed subscriptions). That's never been what I've claimed. It's just that when doing a cost analysis that affects a product's bottom line you have to look at all factors. Saying that an Apple TV should be cheaper because you can buy an XBox 360 for nearly the same price is fine for the consumer but that doesn't mean that Apple can produce such a product and still make a decent profit. Apple executives even touched on this at a recent analyst briefing when they said that one of the difficulties in the consumer media space was having to compete with subsidized products and services.
I do think, however, that an improved Apple TV will be released within the next year. It will have somewhat better specs and will probably be about the same price but it isn't going to have a Blu-ray disc player or DVR functionality. And, as you note, it won't allow you to play your MKV files or ripped DVDs/Blu-rays (at least not without re-encoding them into a QuickTime-compatible H.264 format).
Further, while it should be fairly easy for them to include full 1080p decoding (i.e. 1080p source material) I'm really uncertain as to whether they will even try to officially support that. In any case, I would like to see 30fps 720p and if Apple can somehow enable that with a software upgrade to the existing Apple TV then that might be Apple's next small step in bringing wider HD compatibility to the iTunes Store and Apple TV. They also need to support higher bit rates than today's 5Mbps (perhaps something approaching 7.5Mbps if they enable 30fps 720p). Note that I'm talking about bit rates for streaming/purchased content from the iTunes Store, not just some arbitrary bit-rate limit in the hardware).
People bringing up the game consoles (PS3, 360) is actually pretty ironic, as I came in here to post what I think would help Apple TV truly take off in terms of the overall market:
Games.
Or, in more detail, an App Store, of which games would be a (major) part.
Apple has called Apple TV a "hobby".
Apple TV fans have called it a "media extender" by which to get media from a Mac to your TV.
Apple TV detractors have called it a (not-so-good) "media center".
It's doesn't have to be ANY of those things. It can be more than a hobby. And, IMHO, it should NOT be either a "media extender" nor "media center".
Firstly, the idea of it being "dedicated" to getting media off of your Mac was asinine to begin with, and thankfully Apple decided to let the device get stuff off iTunes internally with the 2.0 update. The idea of a "Mac media extender" simply diluted the market, IMHO.
Secondly, the idea of a "media center" in and of itself is not really true and besides the point, really. It can be...if one wishes it to be...but simply being a central hub for your media isn't gonna sell it to the mass consumer audience out there.
And, again, it needn't be a hobby because it can be so much more if Apple simply takes their heads out of their butts and realize what Apple TV really is:
An giant iPod...for the living room.
You can hook up both to the TV. You can watch your vids, view photos, stream from your media library on PC/Mac. So what, is really the difference?
IMHO, the key difference is that Apple understand what the iPod is, but they don't understand what the Apple TV is; they don't understand that the Apple TV is really part of the iPod line, even though they, ironically, place it under the iPod family on their web store.
So, y'know...treat it like the better selling iPod family out there today:
The iPhone and iPod touch.
When did sales for iPhone/touch take off?
When the App Store opened.
Why?
Because it extended the usefulness of that product line beyond those who simply wanted a phone or iPod. At that point, more than any other, iPhone/touch became a mobile platform - a mobile computing, creativity, and entertainment platform.
So do the same thing with Apple TV.
Manufacture a new Apple TV, with stronger hardware. Give it the 1080p support that current Apple TV owners want, as that seems to be the biggest "I'll wait" selling point for some prospective buyers.
But don't stop there. Extend the usefulness of the device. Open up an official Apple TV SDK. Open up an Apple TV specific section of the App Store. Allow 3rd parties to fill in the gaps where Apple does not want to.
For instance, people seem to want Hulu on Apple TV.
Well, Hulu is apparently working on an iPhone/touch app. CBS has TV.com. Showtime already has an app. While some experience issues when even trying to watch full episodes, I think that speaks more to the issues with WiFi streaming and the limited RAM available on iPhone/touch than it does the idea itself. Apple will obviously allow 3rd parties to develop such things, so why not on Apple TV, which could probably use it more (and better due to ethernet)?
If Apple fears them aping sales of iTunes content, make the 3rd parties provide SD content only...with ads. And, hell, on Hulu when a video starts playing in SD there's usually a little pop up asking if you want to rent it in HD from Amazon. Surely Apple could use Hulu support via an app to bring more iTunes sales of HD tv episodes.
So right there the usefulness is extended. It can be even furthered due to other types of applications being developed.
Want a weather app? Someone will develop it.
Want to use your Apple TV to, I dunno, quickly view a spreadsheet? Someone will develop it.
Quickly edit a photo or, dare I say, a home movie you shot? There'd be an app for that too.
And, of course...games.
Sony and MS are bullying in on Apple TV territory with video rentals and media extension capabilities, so why not return the favor? No, it probably won't get the latest Ninja Gaiden game or Metal Gear Solid, but Apple could hone in on the casual adult gamer market as they do with iPhone/touch. Hidden object games are pretty popular, even on PC, so why not put up an open SDK and app store and let hidden object developer/publishers like Big Fish Games have at it? Surely
And Apple could, in fact, build up from iPhone/touch rather than building down from Macs. For 1080p support, an ARM processor and PowerVR GPU (alongside the PowerVR VXD and VXE video decoder and encoders) will suffice, better still if they're multicore, even better still if it weren't SoC but on separate dies with their own access to RAM. It would provide the same sort of foundation available on iPhone/touch, allowing current devs to simply "spec up" their apps for the Apple TV platform. And it would cost Apple less overall using ARM and PowerVR than it would using Intel CPUs and NVidia or AMD/ATI GPUs. As an added benefit, they could use Apple TV with ARM and PowerVR GPUs as a sort of "test run" for what future iPhone/touch devices will use (as mobile platforms will eventually go multicore themselves).
Put that together, slap a $199 price tag on it, and maybe package it with that touch screen and accelerometer remote that this site had a rumor about not so long ago, and it would be a better product to sell to a wider audience.
Games.
Or, in more detail, an App Store, of which games would be a (major) part.
Apple has called Apple TV a "hobby".
Apple TV fans have called it a "media extender" by which to get media from a Mac to your TV.
Apple TV detractors have called it a (not-so-good) "media center".
It's doesn't have to be ANY of those things. It can be more than a hobby. And, IMHO, it should NOT be either a "media extender" nor "media center".
Firstly, the idea of it being "dedicated" to getting media off of your Mac was asinine to begin with, and thankfully Apple decided to let the device get stuff off iTunes internally with the 2.0 update. The idea of a "Mac media extender" simply diluted the market, IMHO.
Secondly, the idea of a "media center" in and of itself is not really true and besides the point, really. It can be...if one wishes it to be...but simply being a central hub for your media isn't gonna sell it to the mass consumer audience out there.
And, again, it needn't be a hobby because it can be so much more if Apple simply takes their heads out of their butts and realize what Apple TV really is:
An giant iPod...for the living room.
You can hook up both to the TV. You can watch your vids, view photos, stream from your media library on PC/Mac. So what, is really the difference?
IMHO, the key difference is that Apple understand what the iPod is, but they don't understand what the Apple TV is; they don't understand that the Apple TV is really part of the iPod line, even though they, ironically, place it under the iPod family on their web store.
So, y'know...treat it like the better selling iPod family out there today:
The iPhone and iPod touch.
When did sales for iPhone/touch take off?
When the App Store opened.
Why?
Because it extended the usefulness of that product line beyond those who simply wanted a phone or iPod. At that point, more than any other, iPhone/touch became a mobile platform - a mobile computing, creativity, and entertainment platform.
So do the same thing with Apple TV.
Manufacture a new Apple TV, with stronger hardware. Give it the 1080p support that current Apple TV owners want, as that seems to be the biggest "I'll wait" selling point for some prospective buyers.
But don't stop there. Extend the usefulness of the device. Open up an official Apple TV SDK. Open up an Apple TV specific section of the App Store. Allow 3rd parties to fill in the gaps where Apple does not want to.
For instance, people seem to want Hulu on Apple TV.
Well, Hulu is apparently working on an iPhone/touch app. CBS has TV.com. Showtime already has an app. While some experience issues when even trying to watch full episodes, I think that speaks more to the issues with WiFi streaming and the limited RAM available on iPhone/touch than it does the idea itself. Apple will obviously allow 3rd parties to develop such things, so why not on Apple TV, which could probably use it more (and better due to ethernet)?
If Apple fears them aping sales of iTunes content, make the 3rd parties provide SD content only...with ads. And, hell, on Hulu when a video starts playing in SD there's usually a little pop up asking if you want to rent it in HD from Amazon. Surely Apple could use Hulu support via an app to bring more iTunes sales of HD tv episodes.
So right there the usefulness is extended. It can be even furthered due to other types of applications being developed.
Want a weather app? Someone will develop it.
Want to use your Apple TV to, I dunno, quickly view a spreadsheet? Someone will develop it.
Quickly edit a photo or, dare I say, a home movie you shot? There'd be an app for that too.
And, of course...games.
Sony and MS are bullying in on Apple TV territory with video rentals and media extension capabilities, so why not return the favor? No, it probably won't get the latest Ninja Gaiden game or Metal Gear Solid, but Apple could hone in on the casual adult gamer market as they do with iPhone/touch. Hidden object games are pretty popular, even on PC, so why not put up an open SDK and app store and let hidden object developer/publishers like Big Fish Games have at it? Surely
And Apple could, in fact, build up from iPhone/touch rather than building down from Macs. For 1080p support, an ARM processor and PowerVR GPU (alongside the PowerVR VXD and VXE video decoder and encoders) will suffice, better still if they're multicore, even better still if it weren't SoC but on separate dies with their own access to RAM. It would provide the same sort of foundation available on iPhone/touch, allowing current devs to simply "spec up" their apps for the Apple TV platform. And it would cost Apple less overall using ARM and PowerVR than it would using Intel CPUs and NVidia or AMD/ATI GPUs. As an added benefit, they could use Apple TV with ARM and PowerVR GPUs as a sort of "test run" for what future iPhone/touch devices will use (as mobile platforms will eventually go multicore themselves).
Put that together, slap a $199 price tag on it, and maybe package it with that touch screen and accelerometer remote that this site had a rumor about not so long ago, and it would be a better product to sell to a wider audience.
I think you'd have a tougher time selling a giant iPod for the living room, especially with this "tablet" coming around in 2010.
I have an extremely tough time thinking people would play games on an ATV. Not when you're adding even more comparisons to the console market. People don't buy the iPod touch or iPhone to play games. They wouldn't buy an ATV to play games. They buy the device for its core function, an iPod, an iPhone, and an iTunes media center respectively.
Yes it could use widgets, apps, those types of things. Additional content would be much welcomed. I don't think you could have an official Hulu app or support for an ATV, I'm pretty sure they allow it on mobile devices and computers, but not something predominately hooked up through a TV (hence the block on the PS3 browser).
But either way the point is pretty straight forward from everyone, it needs more content. iTunes alone isn't worth the money.
Not really.
The difference between Apple TV and the mobile iPods is that Apple TV has "HD" support. One could have HD support for iPods (in fact, one could using the 3Gs iPhone, but Apple won't "unlock" that capability), sure, but it really wouldn't be as conducive to downloading HD content. Also, far larger amount of internal saving of media.
When Apple TV was announced, there were rumors of game support. When the App Store opened, more rumors.
And, remember, most PC gamers nowadays don't play "deep" games anymore. You still see FPS and RTS on PC, sure, but the PC game market is far more driven by casual games. Flash style games, hidden object games, puzzle games, etc. I think Apple TV having an app store with game support could enhance the product quite a bit.
Of course, people don't buy an iPhone/touch to do those things...but once they have the product they do, in fact, buy the games. The reasons for owning an iPhone or iPod touch are to have a phone with extended media capabilities (the iPhone, after all, is still part of the iPod product line) or a portable media player, but both having the capability to be a portable computing device of sorts.
Games, and apps of all sorts, extend and enhance that family of product.
You say that it'll be compared to the game consoles. Maybe...in the (erroneous) way that iPhone/touch is compared to portable game systems are compared, but that doesn't negate the value of adding such capability.
It won't be THE reason to buy the product, but an additional reason.
It needn't have stuff like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry or Borderlands or any of that stuff. Things like the Big Fish Games library, Tetris, Bejeweled, Peggle, etc. would more than suffice. If indie devs, the sort that fill the iPhone/touch App Store, get in on it (and there's no reason to think they wouldn't) all the better: more original games tailored for the more casual audiences.
Again, not THE reason to buy, but an additional enhancement to the product.
People would buy for the HD content, the ability to better stream their own media library, etc., and they might wind up buying some apps, which can range anywhere from quick photo editing apps, internet radio apps, internet TV streaming apps, productivity apps like spreadsheet editors and/or viewers, and, yes, games.
People didn't buy their iPhone/touch devices for games, no...but once they bought the devices, and once they found the App Store, they bought apps of all sorts, including games...in droves.
Games are apps in terms of the App Store - they're a category of apps.
I don't see why you couldn't have support for that sort of thing, especially since the line between TV sets and computer monitors has blurred over the years.
If it's about ads, then add the ads in.
That's where the open SDK and app store would come in. Specifically for Apple TV.
It allows Apple to extend the capability of the device, draw more eyes into iTunes, and all at little to no real cost to them as a company. The dev costs would be on the 3rd party developers, not Apple, after all. They can thus "use" 3rd party support to bolster their own bottom line.
You're talking about extras...fine, great, the more CONTENT available the better. ATV is a one trick pony...its not that good at that trick either and its because iTunes lacks content and ATV lacks versatility.
The market just isn't there right now for this type of device, especially at $200+. Tie in Netflix and I think you got a whole different story...or simply up the content in iTunes, or even add a subscription system. But really there just needs to be more content available in HD.
Couldn’t you just as easily call the “Zune/XBOX Video Marketplace” content “half-baked” and “poor quality?” It’s exactly the same price as iTunes if not more (of course you’ll have to convert their prices from Microsoft Points) and around the same bit rate/quality.
At least with iTunes, you can use the TV show and movie content you purchase on other devices. The same can’t be said for the 360.
Also, using the 360 as an Extender is a pain the arse. I do it daily. It’s no different than having to run a Mac 24/7 to feed the Apple TV except you lose the entire Media Center interface if your network stalls or disconnects.
The only reason I put up with it is because it offers live TV streaming/recording and my HDTV doesn’t have clear-QAM support.
Then there’s the whole Netflix/Internet TV ‘channels’ that are in Media Center on your Windows 7 PC, but don’t work with extenders.
Not to mention, the only Media Center Extender that’s been remotely successful is the 360 (with the rest being blacklisted with each new version of Windows).
I don’t know what the answer is. There’s no runaway hit in the media center (generic) category. They all have their limitations.
All I know is I just want one box that does it all.
Well, yeah, Microsoft's content is low quality too. Not as bad as Apple's, however. Even though VC-1 has been beaten by H.264 in quality tests, Apple's H.264 encoder seems to be surprisingly low quality. If you use x264 to encode a video at the same bitrate and resolution as iTunes "HD", the x264 encoded video looks much better, with no compression artifacting at all. But anyway, all purchased online content at this point isn't even close to recording it yourself or optical media.
Yeah.. on an iPhone or an iPod. And not all movie content will play on all iPods, since Apple locks the pre-2007 iPods out of playing rented content for no reason other than forcing upgrades.
Well, then make sure you have a non-Apple branded router. Don't want it dying after 18 months after all, like those Time Capsules tend to do.
Netflix quality is awful anyway. The selection is even worse than the quality. Better to stick to blu-ray and DVD rentals from Netflix. I've been a Netflix subscriber since well before they brought out the streaming junk. I've used it only a couple of times. Once when it first started and then a couple of times this year after they switched to Silverlight to see if the quality had improved at all. Even the HD Netflix on the Xbox360 is poor quality, despite my 10Mbps connection.
Thats true. But that doesn't change the fact that the Xbox360 as a Media Center Extender or not is a more capable media machine than the Apple TV and in far more homes.
Since someone else has mentioned the Western Digital TV Live I though I'd do an expanded price comparison between the Apple TV and this new WD media player. This is not an attempt to build functionally equivalent systems. That really can't be done since there are features in both of these units that are closed to the consumer. Further, each product has its own hits and misses (a little more on that later). In any case, I own both an Apple TV and a WD TV Live so I have some experience with both.
The point of this price comparison is to show how Apple is ripping people off with the high price of the Apple TV.
Let's try this, we'll do our best as a consumer to build a mythical WD TV Live that has the near equivalent hardware of the Apple TV. We start with the current configurations and retail prices:
Apple TV -- 160GB hard drive, 802.11n WiFi, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out, RCA stereo audio out, optical audio out, IR remote: $229.
WD TV Live -- <no hard drive>, <no WiFi>, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out (with included 3.5mm to RCA adapter cable), composite video and stereo audio out (with included 3.5mm adapter cable), optical audio out, two USB ports, IR remote: $150.
However, these products can be found for less.
Refurbished 160GB Apple TV direct from Apple with one year warranty and free shipping: $189 (this is about as close as you can get to a significantly-discounted, like-new Apple product).
Amazon discount price for WD TV Live: $120 (but not presently in stock).
In any case, we'll keep with the full retail prices and add some equipment to match the two units. To be useful the WD needs access to a hard drive, we'll start with that.
Western Digital 2.5" 160GB Scorpio Blue: $59 (Amazon price, an internal drive which wouldn't do a consumer much good with the stand-alone TV Live, but we're just "building" a mythical product).
-- estimated retail subtotal --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB hard drive ($59) = $209
Next we add an 802.11n WiFi adapter: $30 (on Amazon but sold and shipping from a photo discount store in Brooklyn -- actually a pretty good price for a name-brand external adapter).
-- estimated retail total --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB HD ($59) + 802.11 WiFi ($30) = $239
--- final answer? --
Apple TV: $229
WD TV Live + HD + WiFi: $239
Okay, so it wouldn't cost Western Digital $89 to add a hard disk and internal WiFi to the TV Live. However, we're comparing the end retail prices so the above should at least be a rough guide to the consumer's cost. In any case, we'll do a SWAG like the following.
WD TV Live ($150) + built-in HD ($49 end-user cost) + built-in WiFi ($20 end-user cost) = $219
Finally, proof that Apple is ripping people off by at least ten bucks!
I'm not gong to do a feature comparison but each unit has its own strengths and weaknesses. The primary advantage on the WD TV Live is support for 1080p source playback (as has been noted over and over again, the Apple TV is limited to 24fps 720p). However, the Apple TV also has advantages. Perhaps the biggest plus on the Apple TV is support for one-click, pay-for-view movies (rent) and pay-to-own (sort of) movies and TV shows. The WD TV Live lacks support for either (at least not without some extra effort by the user or some question of legality). The fine print on the TV Live box says it, "Does not support protected premium content..."
So there we have it. An apple and an orange and Apple is asking more for their apple.
The point of this price comparison is to show how Apple is ripping people off with the high price of the Apple TV.
Let's try this, we'll do our best as a consumer to build a mythical WD TV Live that has the near equivalent hardware of the Apple TV. We start with the current configurations and retail prices:
Apple TV -- 160GB hard drive, 802.11n WiFi, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out, RCA stereo audio out, optical audio out, IR remote: $229.
WD TV Live -- <no hard drive>, <no WiFi>, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out (with included 3.5mm to RCA adapter cable), composite video and stereo audio out (with included 3.5mm adapter cable), optical audio out, two USB ports, IR remote: $150.
However, these products can be found for less.
Refurbished 160GB Apple TV direct from Apple with one year warranty and free shipping: $189 (this is about as close as you can get to a significantly-discounted, like-new Apple product).
Amazon discount price for WD TV Live: $120 (but not presently in stock).
In any case, we'll keep with the full retail prices and add some equipment to match the two units. To be useful the WD needs access to a hard drive, we'll start with that.
Western Digital 2.5" 160GB Scorpio Blue: $59 (Amazon price, an internal drive which wouldn't do a consumer much good with the stand-alone TV Live, but we're just "building" a mythical product).
-- estimated retail subtotal --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB hard drive ($59) = $209
Next we add an 802.11n WiFi adapter: $30 (on Amazon but sold and shipping from a photo discount store in Brooklyn -- actually a pretty good price for a name-brand external adapter).
-- estimated retail total --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB HD ($59) + 802.11 WiFi ($30) = $239
--- final answer? --
Apple TV: $229
WD TV Live + HD + WiFi: $239
Okay, so it wouldn't cost Western Digital $89 to add a hard disk and internal WiFi to the TV Live. However, we're comparing the end retail prices so the above should at least be a rough guide to the consumer's cost. In any case, we'll do a SWAG like the following.
WD TV Live ($150) + built-in HD ($49 end-user cost) + built-in WiFi ($20 end-user cost) = $219
Finally, proof that Apple is ripping people off by at least ten bucks!
I'm not gong to do a feature comparison but each unit has its own strengths and weaknesses. The primary advantage on the WD TV Live is support for 1080p source playback (as has been noted over and over again, the Apple TV is limited to 24fps 720p). However, the Apple TV also has advantages. Perhaps the biggest plus on the Apple TV is support for one-click, pay-for-view movies (rent) and pay-to-own (sort of) movies and TV shows. The WD TV Live lacks support for either (at least not without some extra effort by the user or some question of legality). The fine print on the TV Live box says it, "Does not support protected premium content..."
So there we have it. An apple and an orange and Apple is asking more for their apple.
I just did a random sample within several different genre on the Apple TV and it looks like something between 10 and 20 percent of the movies are available in HD. I looked at over 100 movies (randomly) and quite a few were available for HD rental.
Further, the HD subsection has about 225 movies listed for HD, but that's a limited list since there are a lot of HD movies that do not appear under the HD subsection.
It's difficult to know exactly how many movies are available on the Apple TV (in total). There is no way to get a complete and exhaustive list but I'd estimate that they are well into the multiple thousands of movies (for example, I think there may be around 3000 movies under the drama genre). Thus, if we assume a total of 10,000 movies (sum from all genre) then you could estimate that their might be somewhere between one and two thousand that are in HD (the vast majority, however, only being available for rental at between $3.99 and $4.99).
There are a fair number of recent and well known movies that are in HD, but it also looks like a pretty high percentage of the HD content is what I'd call shovelware, either very old (classics and others from the 1930s and 1940s) or definite grade "B" movies. I'm actually kind of pleased with the collection of classic movies that are in HD, but I suspect that the source could be in such poor condition that the HD treatment will be a mix blessing.
By the way, I've been giving the new 3.0 firmware quite a workout and it has been pretty solid thus far. Frankly, I'm amazed at the depth of the content available now on iTunes. I was downloading some of the free HD TV pilots and previews and watching and downloading podcasts (of which there are many) directly from the Apple TV and it all worked seamlessly over my wireless network. However, I did have one instance where I saw a few mild video pauses/skips in one of my music videos after I had started an HD download in another section of the Apple TV interface. I actually had several things queued for download when this happened and it looks like the Apple TV pauses those downloads whenever it detects that you are actively using the Apple TV.
-- estimated retail total --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB HD ($59) + 802.11 WiFi ($30) = $239
--- final answer? --
Apple TV: $229
WD TV Live + HD + WiFi: $239
Okay, so it wouldn't cost Western Digital $89 to add a hard disk and internal WiFi to the TV Live. However, we're comparing the end retail prices so the above should at least be a rough guide to the consumer's cost. In any case, we'll do a SWAG like the following.
WD TV Live ($150) + built-in HD ($49 end-user cost) + built-in WiFi ($20 end-user cost) = $219
Finally, proof that Apple is ripping people off by at least ten bucks!
So there we have it. An apple and an orange and Apple is asking more for their apple.
Are you an accountant for Bears Stearns or perhaps AIG? You had to tweak and stretch your numbers to devlop your "proof" the apple is "ripping off" people by a mere 4%. Incredible comparison. I hope your time was worth it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
...And looking at it purely from a cost standpoint can easily miss the point. For example, if we take WD live at $150, for under $100 RETAIL more we can add 1Tb of storage to that box. Yes, the total would be a little more than
TV 160gb, but then another big TV wish would be fulfilled with (choice of much-bigger-than-160gb) external storage capacity.I almost could care less about the pricing: I'd probably pay $500+ for my next-gen
TV fantasy, even if that meant just getting the 1080p full bandwith hardware under the Apple UI "as is". The "cost" that matters to me would be the inability to playback home movies shot at 1080, rendered at 1080 in Apple's iMovie, imported into Apple's iTunes, rejected by the weakest link in the chain, so they can't actually make it to my 1080 HDTV. Sure, I can hook the computer to the TV, but that misses the point of buying a bit of hardware dedicated to pumping what can play in iTunes to the TV. Sure, I can hook the camcorder to the TV, but that involves a lot of trouble the Apple video ecosystem (iMovie, Quicktime, iTunes) pretty much solves... except of course TV "as is" which can't manage the flow.Just getting 1080 HD home movies onto my HDTV via an elegant, novice-friendly solution like
TV would be worth a few hundred more in cost. Mac-mini (and these non-Apple platforms) lacks the TV non-techie-required user friendly interface. So instead, I have to accept half-width, half-height (960x540) resolution (handicapped 720p stutters too much), until such a time that I either find a better box option from someone else, or Apple gets around to delivering the upgrade they so obviously can. While some might not appreciate that "cost" as having much value, I certainly do. As such, I'm able to appreciate that others have next-gen
TV wishes that don't matter much to me, but matter just as much to them. While I'm a massive Apple fan, this is a situation where I can't just accept that Apple knows best. They are WRONG if they believe TV "as is" is the way forward.Since someone else has mentioned the Western Digital TV Live I though I'd do an expanded price comparison between the Apple TV and this new WD media player. This is not an attempt to build functionally equivalent systems. That really can't be done since there are features in both of these units that are closed to the consumer. Further, each product has its own hits and misses (a little more on that later). In any case, I own both an Apple TV and a WD TV Live so I have some experience with both.
The point of this price comparison is to show how Apple is ripping people off with the high price of the Apple TV.
Let's try this, we'll do our best as a consumer to build a mythical WD TV Live that has the near equivalent hardware of the Apple TV. We start with the current configurations and retail prices:
Apple TV -- 160GB hard drive, 802.11n WiFi, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out, RCA stereo audio out, optical audio out, IR remote: $229.
WD TV Live -- <no hard drive>, <no WiFi>, ethernet, HDMI out, component video out (with included 3.5mm to RCA adapter cable), composite video and stereo audio out (with included 3.5mm adapter cable), optical audio out, two USB ports, IR remote: $150.
However, these products can be found for less.
Refurbished 160GB Apple TV direct from Apple with one year warranty and free shipping: $189 (this is about as close as you can get to a significantly-discounted, like-new Apple product).
Amazon discount price for WD TV Live: $120 (but not presently in stock).
In any case, we'll keep with the full retail prices and add some equipment to match the two units. To be useful the WD needs access to a hard drive, we'll start with that.
Western Digital 2.5" 160GB Scorpio Blue: $59 (Amazon price, an internal drive which wouldn't do a consumer much good with the stand-alone TV Live, but we're just "building" a mythical product).
-- estimated retail subtotal --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB hard drive ($59) = $209
Next we add an 802.11n WiFi adapter: $30 (on Amazon but sold and shipping from a photo discount store in Brooklyn -- actually a pretty good price for a name-brand external adapter).
-- estimated retail total --
WD TV Live ($150) + 160GB HD ($59) + 802.11 WiFi ($30) = $239
--- final answer? --
Apple TV: $229
WD TV Live + HD + WiFi: $239
Okay, so it wouldn't cost Western Digital $89 to add a hard disk and internal WiFi to the TV Live. However, we're comparing the end retail prices so the above should at least be a rough guide to the consumer's cost. In any case, we'll do a SWAG like the following.
WD TV Live ($150) + built-in HD ($49 end-user cost) + built-in WiFi ($20 end-user cost) = $219
Finally, proof that Apple is ripping people off by at least ten bucks!
I'm not gong to do a feature comparison but each unit has its own strengths and weaknesses. The primary advantage on the WD TV Live is support for 1080p source playback (as has been noted over and over again, the Apple TV is limited to 24fps 720p). However, the Apple TV also has advantages. Perhaps the biggest plus on the Apple TV is support for one-click, pay-for-view movies (rent) and pay-to-own (sort of) movies and TV shows. The WD TV Live lacks support for either (at least not without some extra effort by the user or some question of legality). The fine print on the TV Live box says it, "Does not support protected premium content..."
So there we have it. An apple and an orange and Apple is asking more for their apple.
The thing is, you're assuming anyone buying this device needs the wifi adapter and hard drive at all.
I, for one, don't. It'll stream everything over gigabit ethernet from my RAID 1 NAS downstairs, which is 1TB. So for me, it's $120. I'm not saying the ATV is a rip-off, but the WD TV is certainly a great alternative, given the flexibility in drives, ethernet or wifi, etc.
Exactly. Extend the usefulness of the device and it will have more that entices more consumers.
I think the market is there for this type of device, it's just that Apple, and every other company selling devices of this sort, don't really "get" how to take it to the next level and open it up to a more mainstream consumer market and that this particular device isn't all it could or should be. It's not really the device of the basic idea of the device (digital content device) but really the current implementation of it that just...sucks. It needs MORE, as you and I agree.
One way to do that would be the subscription system idea. I'm absolutely all for that, and wonder why Apple hasn't gotten into that market yet. Why let Netflix have all the "fun"? Moreover, why let MS and others have the subscription based model for their MP3 players and not get in on that sort of thing?
I've always wondered why Apple so fears the idea of having a rental subscription system. I don't think it would cannibalize sales on iTunes. Rather it would open their business up to a broader market - those who don't currently buy a lot of stuff off of iTunes, and maybe even those who don't own Apple products and use other devices and services that do offer rental subscriptions. There are people willing to have their music and movies on the basis of rental subscriptions, and there are those who wish to actually buy and own their music and movies (and while we can argue DD vs. physical all we want, the fact is that DD available on iTunes is basically buy to own). There may be some slight crossover between those two consumer groups, sure, but it's not like everyone in the latter market of consumers will suddenly join the former group and not buy anything anymore just because a rental subscription is offered. So offer it already, Apple. Let those who want it use it, and those who want to buy and own do that as well.
So, yeah...absolutely...rental subscription in addition to the current for purchase model.
Throw in streaming content in there as well, although, really, that fits more into the idea of opening an SDK and letting 3rd parties such as Hulu, Showtime, CBS, etc. have at it if they wish, which they do as they're currently doing it on iPhone/touch (and, under my proposal, a new Apple TV hardware would have much more in common with the iPod line internally than it does the current Apple TV or the Mac computer line). The rental subscriptions provided by Apple themselves can offer it too in the same way that Netflix does (lower quality streamed content).
The streaming stuff would be low def or standard def (if that, because, tbqh, I've read that most people who watch stuff on Hulu nowadays do so in the low def quality). Little pop up windows would appear as advertisements for the higher def quality version of whatever you're watching available for purchase on iTunes. Apple can, again, use 3rd parties in the way people use connections to get a better job, house, car, etc. than they can get on their own.
Then let the 3rd parties add in stuff like productivity, creativity, etc. apps, and, yes, games into the mix.
Treat the "giant iPod" like the current bestselling line of iPods, and add in some stuff offered by the competition (like subscription based rentals). Make the platform better, and more people will buy into it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
While I didn't quote your entire post, there is certainly a lot of wisdom in it. Wouldn't it be great if Apple would assign a team dedicated to
TV and maximizing content and content options for TV, empower them to do a great deal of what you've quoted? Could you imagine what would happen if Steve demanded that whole market become Apples and charged this team to make it happen?As I've posted a few times, this big market- I think bigger than the markets for iPhones and iPods- is Apple's for the taking. If only they had the will to choose to do so. Soon!
I will still never understand how people feel justified to feel a company is "ripping them off" if everyone who purchases the product loves it and feels they paid a reasonable price. Moreover, if someone were to sell that device for even 10% less than the purchase price, someone on eBay or Craigslist will gladly snap it up. Ripping someone off, is when a company sells you absolute junk for any price, or something generally inferior to what they convince you you were purchasing (cheaply made, or different feature set than advertised).
Charging what the market will bare for your product is capitalism. The recent move towards finding out what the manufacturer may, or may NOT have paid for its parts and labor... is interesting... but as a trend, its irrelevant. I personally don't want to relish in the notion that the company whose products I'm buying... is making next to nothing on them. Not a recipe for longevity unless its a loss leader strategy.
~ CB
Charging what the market will bare for your product is capitalism. The recent move towards finding out what the manufacturer may, or may NOT have paid for its parts and labor... is interesting... but as a trend, its irrelevant. I personally don't want to relish in the notion that the company whose products I'm buying... is making next to nothing on them. Not a recipe for longevity unless its a loss leader strategy.
~ CB
Well calling it a giant ipod throws me off because its basically a nettop computer and should be able to handle WAY more than any ipod/iphone can.
But yes, people would buy it if the device was marketed right and had the right features. Right now though, I don't think people are buying into the concept.
Streaming content needs to have HD offerings. Quality is based heavily on your connection. I stream Netflix over XBL and the quality there is really good (even when its not HD - theres an indicator that tells you HD). Hulu is the same, the quality is there if the bandwith is there. But most people would rather have steady uninterrupted playback then try HD. That doesn't mean you can't offer it. The biggest reason why it has to be there is XBL will have INSTANT 1080p streaming movies over XBL. You couldn't come into this market and ignore that, along with the fact that every console also offers (or soon will offer) Netflix.
But yes its pretty straightforward, there just needs to be more. And with the success of netflix, having your own, or using their subscription model would be a wise idea. They also have the media content to back it up...
Yet another inexplicable effect Apple has on people (specifically the eternal Apple haters that infest this board). See, an iPod is a "ripoff," where a Zune, at the exact same price, is a "good value" because it comes with a $1 AM/FM radio tuner chip.
And why do these people care what I spend my money on? Would they be outraged if I bought a $5 burger at Five Guys instead of a $1 burger on the McDonald's Value Menu? Of course not.
Their irrational thinking applies only to Apple. They hates itsss, you see.
i think people are pretty rationale when they refuse to pay $5 for the same burget at Five guys that you can get for $2-3 at McD's.
Yet another inexplicable effect Apple has on people (specifically the eternal Apple haters that infest this board). See, an iPod is a "ripoff," where a Zune, at the exact same price, is a "good value" because it comes with a $1 AM/FM radio tuner chip.
And why do these people care what I spend my money on? Would they be outraged if I bought a $5 burger at Five Guys instead of a $1 burger on the McDonald's Value Menu? Of course not.
Their irrational thinking applies only to Apple. They hates itsss, you see.