WannaGoMac
macrumors 68030
I was tempted to get a e-450 fusion HTPC ... but with Apple TV maybe getting apps I rather have a device and use Plex 🙂
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 Reportedly Set to Open Up Apple TV to Third-Party Developers at WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was tempted to get a e-450 fusion HTPC ... but with Apple TV maybe getting apps I rather have a device and use Plex 🙂
chirpie
macrumors 6502a
I believe it is 256MB.. Although maybe the 3rd gentv has 512MB?
EVerything I've read says AT3 is 512. But yeah, 256 was AT2.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-TV-3-Has-512MB-RAM-259397.shtml
foodog
macrumors 6502a
You have a point.
The mp3 player manufacturers turned out OK, Nokia is still cranking out phones like mad and Blackberry is the picture of health.
charlituna
macrumors G3
Agreed. Personally I don't think any of the hardware will be discussed beyond how it impacts the software.
The three main focuses will be iOS 6, Mountain Lion and perhaps this Apple TV SDK if it is real. Plus some more iCloud stuff like new APIs to work with the other software. Like if there is a new Maps App that is all in-house perhaps there will be iCloud syncing for dropped pins, tagging favorite routes and/or areas to avoid etc. Stuff like that is what I think they will talk about.
The hardware will just happen. Site goes down Sunday night, comes back around noon on Monday post keynote with all the keynoted info as well as the new hardware. Or they might give a quickie 10 minute rush through of the new hardware. The broad strokes with 'more information about the details will be on the website shortly and you'll be able to buy these new systems next week'.
So if this happens, how will they differentiate AppleTV with a rumored TVset? That will be interesting to see.
charlituna
macrumors G3
I think the only way they would do that is if it can also be used as a basic display. A revamped Retina quality Cinema Display with HDMI etc to could hook up your Blu-ray, your Mac Mini/Pro, your old Xbox etc. Maybe even enough kick it could handle 3D (the 'disney' style being the first they would look at of course)
Could be very exciting news. I have said all along that I am more interested in Apple revolutionizing the subscription system rather than inventing a display which will be like all the others.
Apple TV with app based channels done at a reasonable price could be an awesome way out of my cable subscription.
Apple TV with app based channels done at a reasonable price could be an awesome way out of my cable subscription.
Ahem. Sports. This is at least 10+ years in the making. Not overnight. Sorry, I totally agree with you (and in fact, I've "cut the cable" too), but the reality is... this is 10+ years in the making.
Beyond sports? HBO.
There reason HBO does not have a stand alone app is because they are literally a part of Time Warner and DEEPLY in bed with the cable/satellite industries.
None of this is going to happen any time soon.
w00master
steve-p
macrumors 68000
And just like the small print always says: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
if Apple were to release an iTV it would obviously run the same OS as the
People go where the apps are, apps are built where the people are. If you start out at zero it's kinda tough to get either one.
That makes sense. After I posted my question, it also occurred to me that it would actually make sense for Apple to keep the AppleTV on the market even after they've released a TV set. No reason to ignore the sizable chunk of the market that might want the AppleTV experience without replacing their current TV.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not finding fault with your post, but my point was more about the reasoning that iTunes is not loaded with everything video is the industry's interest in not getting dominated by Apple like their cousins in the music industry are. Basically, they don't want to make the same mistake of allowing one company to dictate terms like pricing. So they'll go out of their way to support other channels for video... often at better pricing than the same can be had via iTunes.
I wonder if "I cracked it" and this rumored App store model is Apple finally capitulating that the video industry is never going to do the deals with Apple to allow Apple to replicate how it attained domination over the music industry. Maybe this app store waited this long while Apple tried everything to talk the video industry into an iTunes-dominated concept. Then, when that failed, Apple finally realized the way forward would be to go with the app model. Sure the latter means lots of video might flow to the box from sources other than iTunes but 30% of those revenues will taste quite sweet.
Then, if apps do for this box what they did for the other iDevices, flash forward a year or two when this box is heavily entrenched in many homes. At that point, iTunes evolves a bit more and Apple has much greater leverage in trying to woo the Studios into providing more video content for the iTunes store (and maybe some kind of Apple subscription offering). 30% via app revenues now, potential music-like domination later. Same destination... just via a different path.
Piracy issues are certainly on their minds too but that would argue for making everything available everywhere at great prices. And for the hard-core pirate, a "great" price can never compete with free.
Last edited:
Just my guess
1. iOS6 rel
2. OSX ML rel
3. TV SDK rel (and will sell ATV HW platform to TV mfgrs to integrate it into their TV later this year)
4. new MBA, MBP (MB ?)
5. new MacPad
I always love
1. iOS6 rel
2. OSX ML rel
3. TV SDK rel (and will sell ATV HW platform to TV mfgrs to integrate it into their TV later this year)
4. new MBA, MBP (MB ?)
5. new MacPad
I always love
mdelvecchio
macrumors 68040
Yes, but I have a LOT of h.264 in MKV, so its a major conversion job that I'm trying to avoid 🙂
foodog
macrumors 6502a
No its not, but the insanely high cable bills makes them ripe for them going the way of Blackberry.
----------
If Apple can land ESPN content that will remove a big hurdle to a lot of people that currently cannot cut the cord to the cable company.
charlituna
macrumors G3
Never happen. Why? Because Apple has their own content solution and Cable is direct competition to that. They want to eliminate the need for Cable not help you keep it around.
Not to mention the patents they would have to license for the tech to do that. No way are they going to get into that bag of hurt.
----------
That's kind of the point. They can't do it because they aren't showman and aren't trying to be. They could find a showman but they don't want that either. They want folks talking about the products not the presenter. Because it's the products that make the money.
----------
You save money on the box but you still have to have the service for such apps to work no matter which box you are on.
Tinmania
macrumors 68040
Maybe you just need to pull away from the TV for a few minutes and look around: many people are indeed fed up with cable and satellite providers. But it's much worse than that for the industry in its current form. People are starting to tire of TV in general.
http://www.videonuze.com/article/is-the-cable-ratings-drop-off-the-tip-of-the-ott-iceberg-
Michael
bbeagle
macrumors 68040
That would be big - but something UNIQUE would make the Apple TV really take off.
Like some live reality show like Big Brother or Jersey Shore where the users could actually INTERACT with the contestants/stars on the show. Much like webcam sites work, but with actual hollywood stars, and an actual story and plot where people did not have to interact but COULD.
Or a football game where you could actually be the coach for a play or two and make the offensive play call from your couch.
And where the interface is only possible on an Apple TV type device, and would take too long to upgrade all the users of a Time/Warner or Comcast type system.
If some type of NEW thing is created and is ONLY available on the Apple TV, this would be the start of something that would really scare the Time/Warner, Comcasts of the world.
(AND THIS CAN BE DONE WITH AN APP, AIRPLAY and an IPAD VERY SOON if Apple opens up the Apple TV to apps)
This. The success of the iPod + iTunes has not been duplicated with other industries. Apple plugged into the mp3 hardware/software niche at exactly the right time. Even the iPhone's dominance is held in check by the expensive carrier contracts required. Consider the design of the Apple TV ... it's more an accessory than a front-and-center product. I'm not sad at all that Apple can't create a proprietary foothold; this works in favor of the consumer.
charlituna
macrumors G3
A point you made like 3 pages after what I was responding to and quoting.
We are on a different playing field than the labels were when the deals you are referring to were made. At that point Apple was the only game in town. The choice was take Apple's rules or don't play. No one held a gun to anyone to make them agree. They saw potential value even under Apple's rules so they said yes. it was only after it took off that they wanted control and so they bargained for it and got it and now the labels set the pricing on iTunes etc.
When the nets and studios entered the game the field was a lot different and they had way more favorable cards. Which is they have and still do control the timing, the pricing etc. They are the ones that hold back things like Game of Thrones until weeks after the home video release. They are the ones that decide what is and isn't available in HD etc. Not Apple. If Apple was the one with the power everything would be 1080p, all seasons, right off the OTA, globally available etc. And easily half the price it is now. Because that's what would make the sales. But they aren't and never have been
d21mike
macrumors 68040
For the cord cutters that feel they will save a lot of money by just getting internet and streaming the content from someone else.
I was curious so I check the prices of basic TV and Internet and the bundle. I did this quick so could be a problem with my analysis.
Here is the link so you can check:
http://www22.verizon.com/home/shop/shopping.htm
15/5 Internet ONLY ==> $54.99
TV Only for 210 Channels ==> $64.99
Bundle BOTH together ==> $79.99
So an extra $20 per month for 210 Channels of TV.
I think what most have been saying is that when you DROP TV you can not DROP High Speed Internet. They will just raise the price of Internet if you ONLY want Internet or they will impose CAPS. I do not understand the big complaints about getting the TV Content from the current providers of Broadband.
My complaint has always been with the hardware. DVR's and other STB's that you have to RENT for every single TV instead of getting an Apple TV for a one time cost of $99. To me this is where the big savings will come from.
I was curious so I check the prices of basic TV and Internet and the bundle. I did this quick so could be a problem with my analysis.
Here is the link so you can check:
http://www22.verizon.com/home/shop/shopping.htm
15/5 Internet ONLY ==> $54.99
TV Only for 210 Channels ==> $64.99
Bundle BOTH together ==> $79.99
So an extra $20 per month for 210 Channels of TV.
I think what most have been saying is that when you DROP TV you can not DROP High Speed Internet. They will just raise the price of Internet if you ONLY want Internet or they will impose CAPS. I do not understand the big complaints about getting the TV Content from the current providers of Broadband.
My complaint has always been with the hardware. DVR's and other STB's that you have to RENT for every single TV instead of getting an Apple TV for a one time cost of $99. To me this is where the big savings will come from.