Apple Provides Sneak Peak Of Media Center

[airamerica]

Stuck in the UK

Well, from this side of the pond (UK) it seems that Apple has got a lot of work to do.

1. As good as iTV looks, we still don't have any Movie OR T.V. content on the iTunes Store - to play via this system.

2. The 'iTV' name is already taken by the biggest independent television network in the country.

3. In most cases our broardband is maxed-out at 5mbps (in many cases outside London less) - making movie downloads a real pain.

However, I'm sure this isn't the finished article - come on apple!

AA

 

[awhitaker]

What will this have that a Mediagate MG-35, Mediagate MG-350HD, TViX M3000-F, and the TViX HD M5000-A don't have? I'm really hoping the iTV will have an internal hard drive capability, be able to play various supported formats like the one's mentioned above do, and be wireless like the MG-350HD is. The big selling point for the iTV for me over the above mentioned media centers are that it will be easy plug and play with an Apple, that it will be able to play various audio and video formats, it's easy to use interface like Itunes. I want to be able to rip my DVD's, my home movies, and any internet content and be able to easily play it on my big screen using the iTV. And I want HD not near DVD quality. The others already offer a lot of this, but take longer to set up.

 

[ftaok]

I'm guessing they're interlaced.

-Sean

That's a faulty assumption. The current (or old) TV shows are 320x240 progressive. There's no reason to assume that the new shows are anything other than 640x480 progressive.

 

[greenstork]

Is there really that much difference between 640 and 720? Seems funny to say one is "not pretty" but those extra 80 lines (and no difference in the other dimension) make it acceptable.

Yes, there really is that much difference between HD TV and SD TV. And it's not the difference between 640 and 720, it's the difference between 480 and 720, or the vertical lines of resolution.

 

[Peace]

I'm really surprised nobody has caught on to the (imho) obvious implication of the "codename" for this device.."iTv"

Let's see...iTv...

Elgato

EyeTV

iTv

Elgato

EyeTV integrates with Front Row

iTv integrates with Front Row


It's my opinion that Apple is in negotiations to purchase Elgato..

This device WILL morph into a true set-top box..

Watch!

 

[beaster]

That's a faulty assumption. The current (or old) TV shows are 320x240 progressive. There's no reason to assume that the new shows are anything other than 640x480 progressive.

Well, if that's true, then they wouldn't be "near" DVD quality, they'd be significantly better than DVD quality. DVD = 480i, i.e. 720x480 interlaced, or 172,800 pixels (720x480/2) on screen during any given second. 640x480 progressive gives 307,200 pixels in that same second. Why would Apple advertise something as "near" DVD quality when it's actually significantly better than?

-Sean

EDIT: Was typing too fast - that should say "during any given 1/60th of a second" and "in that same 1/60th of a second".

 

[ftaok]

Yes, there really is that much difference between HD TV and SD TV. And it's not the difference between 640 and 720, it's the difference between 480 and 720, or the vertical lines of resolution.

I don't want to speak for milo, but I think he's actually talking about the difference between 640x480 (iTMS) and 720x480 (DVD and Amazon).

Or maybe not.

 

[sbarton]

Only Disney

Saw some posts elsewhere that questioned the lack of support from the major studios. I really don't think this is going to be an issue. IMO, the big reason for Apple showing off iTV so early was to show the "studios" what they will be missing out on.

If the major studios like Universal sit it out for much longer, then I predict you'll see iTunes 7.1 which adds support for DiVX encoded material from ANY source. After that, the whole thing will blossom just like the iTunes store vs Music labels battle did.

 

[Philsy]

Interesting comments here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5342408.stm

 

[ftaok]

Well, if that's true, then they wouldn't be "near" DVD quality, they'd be significantly better than DVD quality. DVD = 480i, i.e. 720x480 interlaced, or 172,800 pixels (720x480/2) on screen during any given second. 640x480 progressive gives 307,200 pixels in that same second. Why would Apple advertise something as "near" DVD quality when it's actually significantly better than?

-Sean

OK, I think you're a little off here (or it could be me).

DVDs are 480i or 720x480i. iTMS may be 640x480p. You have to take into account both spatial and temporal resolution. A DVD will display 720x240 pixels every 1/60th of a second. Assuming iTMS stuff is 480p, then it would be displaying 640x480 pixels every 1/30th of a second.

So over the course of a second, 720x480i pushes out just over 10 million pixels. 640x480p will push out 9.2 million pixels over that same second. That's pretty close.

 

[Clive At Five]

As far as the comment about making it needlessly complex, no, putting an HD in the machine wouldn't make it more complex. For users who intend to use it with their existing networks, they can ignore the HD. For users who intend to use it as their sole media access point, it simplifies the situation as it means they don't have to set up a seperate server. In terms of the hardware, it strikes me as quite likely the machine will have some kind of storage, if only a limited amount of flash enough for buffering, storing settings, and containing the OS, so the hardware itself should not become any more complex though including an HD.

I wasn't suggesting at all that it was too small for a HD. Considering the impressive capacity vs size of the iPod HD, I could easily see it possible to shove 80 - 160 GB in there, granted if they were slow RPM microdrives.

Let's assume this is true, that Apple does put a decent HD in there to make it a "sole media access point," as you call it. How would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content. or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.

Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod.

Option 2, if this is the case, why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.

I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac although streaming from the net is slower than within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.

So, that's why I *think* (notice that word ) there will be no HD in the TelePort.

-Clive

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?

no the flying pigs were storming around already. because of Intel CPU's and Windows being able to run natively on macs.

 

[BigHat]

I'm Buying One

I amazed by the some of the stupid posts here. Did you watch the presentation?? If so, how could you be asserting that it doesn't have HDMI and DOES have composite video?? God !!!

I concur with the poster earlier that asserts that the audience for this piece of the show was the movie industry. There are TONS of unknowns about "iTV" or whatever they end up naming it. Why not just hang back and see what develops instead of condeming it? You look like idiots.

Maybe some of you are financially strapped or just cheap, but I'd buy it right now, movie video capabilities unknown, just to get an on-screen display of my iTunes library and iPhoto files. Right now I use a laptop to direct a desktop iTunes library to stream to the optical output of an Airport Express located behind my home theater. For me, this required no additional expeditures beyond the Airport Express and works pretty well. Of course, the video display is missing. I'll pay $299 just to get that. Everything else is device performs will be "gravy."

 

[babyj]

A lot of people are commenting that the main reason for this and other Apple media playing products is to generate sales through the iTunes store.

I've never read or heard of anything to suggest that Apple make a big profit from iTunes, quite the opposite in fact. Its often referred to as a loss leader which is backed up by the quotes of percentages that Apple pay out on every sale.

Apple want everyone to own an iPod, an iTV connected to every tv screen and a few Macs in every house. Its hardware where they make their profit, not on media. Though having the best media store means more people buy their hardware, which in turn results in more companies making their media available on iTunes, which means a better media store which means more hardware sales etc etc.

 

[ftaok]

So, that's why I *think* (notice that word ) there will be no HD in the TelePort.

-Clive

Clive,

You got me thinking. Suppose the iTV will only be intended as a streaming device. What's to say that they don't put in a small (laptop sized 2.5") drive in there at say, 20 GB, for the sole purpose of providing a streaming buffer.

You have your movies sitting on the hard drive of the connected Mac (or PC) and you use Front Row to access it. It starts to build a buffer in the iTV hard drive and after 30 seconds, the movie starts to play. 20 GB should be plenty of space for even 2 hours of HD movie encoded with h264.

The hard drive used in this manner doesn't need to be a speed burner. Just reliable. However, if it is set-up this way, it would probably need some specialized hardware design to decode h264 and other video formats. If the connected Mac is to decode the signal prior to streaming, you'd probably want a bigger hard drive for performance. Plus, the network bandwidth needs would be greater.

ft

 

[beaster]

OK, I think you're a little off here (or it could be me).

DVDs are 480i or 720x480i. iTMS may be 640x480p. You have to take into account both spatial and temporal resolution. A DVD will display 720x240 pixels every 1/60th of a second. Assuming iTMS stuff is 480p, then it would be displaying 640x480 pixels every 1/30th of a second.

So over the course of a second, 720x480i pushes out just over 10 million pixels. 640x480p will push out 9.2 million pixels over that same second. That's pretty close.

480p = 720x480, 60 frames per second = 720 x 480 x 60 pixels/second.
480i = 720x480, 30 frames per second = 720 x 480 x 30 pixels/second.

So you made an incorrect assumption that iTMS would be displaying "640x480 pixels every 1/30th of a second." It'd be every 1/60th of a second if it actually is 640x480p.

-Sean

 

[babyj]

Clive,

You got me thinking. Suppose the iTV will only be intended as a streaming device. What's to say that they don't put in a small (laptop sized 2.5") drive in there at say, 20 GB, for the sole purpose of providing a streaming buffer.

You have your movies sitting on the hard drive of the connected Mac (or PC) and you use Front Row to access it. It starts to build a buffer in the iTV hard drive and after 30 seconds, the movie starts to play. 20 GB should be plenty of space for even 2 hours of HD movie encoded with h264.

The hard drive used in this manner doesn't need to be a speed burner. Just reliable. However, if it is set-up this way, it would probably need some specialized hardware design to decode h264 and other video formats. If the connected Mac is to decode the signal prior to streaming, you'd probably want a bigger hard drive for performance. Plus, the network bandwidth needs would be greater.

ft

Wouldn't the iPod software be able to do that, maybe with a bit of an upgrade?

Wouldn't 1gb of nand memory as used in the Nano provide a big enough buffer?

 

[Peace]

Some folks need to learn the difference between Progressive Scan and Interlaced Scan.

 

[p0intblank]

It amazes me how many ignorant people post here. Why can't you look at this logically and say "You know what, Apple is trying something new and I'm going to support them." I mean, come on, people! What is your deal? It was a sneak preview. Relax... I for one am excited about "iTV" and what it brings. Why can't you just support Apple for what they are doing?

This thread reminds me of the discussion everyone had when the 1G iPod was originally introduced. Posters were screaming things like "MP3 player? You're late, Apple!" and "We don't need another freakin' MP3 player, Apple. What are you thinking?!"

The same exact thing is happening in this thread. Not to sound rude, but please stop your bitching. Wait until Q1 2007 to see if its worth crying about. And it probably will be, because nothing pleases you these days.

And I will say this again... I support Apple for doing this. I'm interested to see where "iTV" goes.

That is all.

 

[Clive At Five]

20 GB should be plenty of space for even 2 hours of HD movie encoded with h264.

The hard drive used in this manner doesn't need to be a speed burner. Just reliable. However, if it is set-up this way, it would probably need some specialized hardware design to decode h264 and other video formats.

20 GB??!! Dude, I thought 2 GB would do it for an entire movie. (can someone look this up?) And in all reality it would only need to cache half an hour's worth at a time, like the iPod. Either way, as long as the cache is <5 GB, I think it would be much more cost (and space) effective to use solid state.

As for your second comment about decoding h264, that sould really just be a simple software algorithm and shouldn't require any significant hardware to do it. (unless someone else close to the encoding business can explain otherwise)

-Clive

 

[Macnoviz]

few, all 15 pages read, let's see

Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?

You have Windows ?!

i dont' want to burst your bubble, but joe everyman doesn't own a mac, he owns a dell he bought fot $499 on teh intarweb super special.

apple sells things to gadgeteers and "artists"

aside from the ipod - they don't sell anything in quantity - and this isn't going to be an exception.

May I remind you that the dell he bought will be able to use the iTV ? As long as it has iTunes, it works (i don't know about Linux, but they're not the kind of people looking for the easy consumer solutions)

I'm not sure what the fuss or confusion is, this is just a box that allows you to stream media from you Mac to yout TV and thats it. As it uses FrontRow I assume iTunes and iPhoto will have to be open on your host Mac and set to allow access.

I've been doing this for years with a chipped xbox which is far more flexible or you can buy a cheap network DVD player, this product is nothing new.

see my sig for a similar reaction upon the introduction of the iPod



Apart from these responses, I think that the I/O says a lot.

HDMI would be overkill for a device that can only handle DVD quality (and I haven't heard of flatscreens that have only HDMI) (PS, in Belgium, and I think the rest of Europe, too, all televions have at least SCART, which is basically a huge plug for component video, so no probs about the lack of S-Video/composite)


USB can only mean that it will be expandable, in the least spectacular case, some iPod thingy, in the best case, everything 3th party developers can come up with)


And for the name, let's see, it's from Apple, consumer product fits in the iLife digital hub, comparable to iPod, smells like another i- coming up.

And it's a box to hook up on your TV, so, logically:

iBox


no, wait...

 

[Mr. Pippin]

Reflections on possible functions

Overall, looks like a product with a lot of great possibilities.

1. USB connection? Probably so you can directly attach your iPod for listening on your stereo.

2. I wish it had firewire so you can use this to view Camcorder videos, etc. Yes, new camcorders have USB 2.0, now, too.

3. The coolest thing I would LIKE to see is Apple provide a way to copy my current DVD collection to my system and use this to view it on my TV. My expectation if they DID would be that they would wrap fairplay around the end image. Still, I would buy one right now alone based on if that function were to exist.

Number one problem with DVD's to date is that that the library management you get with music has been held back by Hollywood and the DMCA. I don't consider MCE a good solution, either.

 

[ftaok]

480p = 720x480, 60 frames per second = 720 x 480 x 60 pixels/second.
480i = 720x480, 30 frames per second = 720 x 480 x 30 pixels/second.

So you made an incorrect assumption that iTMS would be displaying "640x480 pixels every 1/30th of a second." It'd be every 1/60th of a second if it actually is 640x480p.

-Sean

I stand corrected. However, when playing a quicktime movie trailer, the frame rate is displayed at 24 or 30 fps. So maybe the iTMS selections are 480p30, which would be close to DVD quality.

 

[ftaok]

20 GB??!! Dude, I thought 2 GB would do it for an entire movie. (can someone look this up?) And in all reality it would only need to cache half an hour's worth at a time, like the iPod. Either way, as long as the cache is <5 GB, I think it would be much more cost (and space) effective to use solid state.

As for your second comment about decoding h264, that sould really just be a simple software algorithm and shouldn't require any significant hardware to do it. (unless someone else close to the encoding business can explain otherwise)

-Clive

Well, I was thinking in terms that the smallest hard drives that you can get these days are around 20 GB. But yeah, you're right. Flash memory would be sufficient.

As for the h264 decoding, I do think it's more intensive that just some simple software. My G3 iBook won't do h264 smoothly at all. I hear that G4's choke on h264 as well. Supposedly, the Core Solo isn't that great with 1080p h264 material. Of course, this all depends on the quality of the encoded files, but for what we're talking about (h264 HD files), you'd want at least 720p30 and I would think that you'd need some hardware to help with that task.

 

[Chundles]

My 1.2GHz iBook handles any H.264 around 480p just fine, it chokes on the higher HD resolutions though. 640x480 plays just fine at 1.3mbps.

This thing is soooo getting a USB port somewhere on it to plug in an iPod and will boast on-screen navigation for all the iPod's content. That'd be sweet for people like me without all the top technology. Rip some DVDs to the iPod then plug the iPod into the iTV and use the remote to navigate.

Of course, Apple could just get off their arse and update the 5G software to output the interface to a TV via the Universal Dock. If it did that I'd probably start whinging now to get one for my birthday.