Apple TV a 'Dud' says Fortune Mag

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by keysersoze, May 30, 2007.

  1. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    The pictures are really funny, and they do have a point, it'll be interesting to see what happens with it.
     
  2. pigbat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    #3
    lol I really think Apple missed it on this one by not having DVR capabilities. I know, they want to sell content blah, blah, blah. I think they could've successfully done both.
     
  3. markfc macrumors 6502a

    markfc

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Location:
    Prestatyn, Wales, UK
    #4
    It doesn't require a HDTV, just one with component inputs.

    I love my AppleTV, fortunemag can go......you know!
     
  4. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    for apple, and for me too, only market speaks, personal opinion can go to trash can
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #6
    Rather unfair comparing it to the Zune. Its not even brown.

    I have always felt that the :apple:TV was too early for its intended audience as their is no HD content to download and most homes don't yet possess the necessary bandwidth. The lack of composite or s-video does seem rather petty (or arrogant). Repackaging a base Mac mini would have been a smoother move, IMHO.

    I guess Apple sees :apple:TV as a kind of Airport Express for video and in that respect it is but without content it really lacks a purpose at the moment.
     
  6. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #7
    I also believe that Apple's arrogance got in the way of this product. It was too early to release it aswell. If MS is sending HDTV content to XBOXs, why isn't Apple-the power house of online media- doing the same?

    The AppleTV is too over priced for what it does period, and Fortune Mag has it right on this one. Although the comparisons I didn't like.
     
  7. RichP macrumors 68000

    RichP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Location:
    Motor City
    #8
    The article does make some good points, and I feel appleTV would be a better product if it had some better/other function. It SHOULD be able to order stuff from itunes, and for $30 more they could have put in a a DVD-ROM drive so you could replace your DVD and CD player. Heck, make a $500 dollar one that can play blu-ray and you are set.

    Ive wanted an AppleTV since it came out, and, although its pretty cheap compared ot some apple stuff, I just cant figure out what I would really do with one.

    Wish someone would hack "Backrow" and install it on a Mac Mini with DVD playback.
     
  8. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #9
    Fortune is the first source that I look to for reviews of consumer devices. :rolleyes:
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    I'm open to seeing what Apple's long term strategy is. I don't think the current device is hugely impressive, but I probably would not have bought a first generation iPod either.
     
  10. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #11
    I would agree, I don't really think :apple: tv is all that impressive either. I think this is a product that will advance, and as it does, we'll see it become more impressive.
     
  11. Passante macrumors 6502a

    Passante

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    on the sofa
    #12
    It works for me

    My wife is thrilled to look at photos on our TV. So much so that she actually watches them without my help. Its also made watching EyeTv programs a breeze.

    I don't think its about HDTV. Its about getting access to your media where you want to watch it.
     
  12. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #13
    That's pretty much what I'm thinking too.

    I think that Apple's setting themselves up early in a young market that they appear to want to compete in, just like they did with the iPod back in 2001.

    I don't think many people here would have purchased a first-generation iPod, either (had they have been of purchasing age in 2001). It was considered too expensive by a lot of people, and lacked many of the features of other MP3 players on the market. Sound familiar? :)

    If the 1G AppleTV's not for you, then it's not for you. But I wouldn't rule out that one of the next few releases will make you bite.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Exactly. Apple TV is the first generation in a new product category. Maybe it will succeed, maybe it won't -- but trying to predict which way it will go is a pretty foolish business. And the volume control. Forget the volume control. It doesn't need one, any more than a DVD player needs one.
     
  14. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #15
    I know it is costly at $300, but I actually looked at the :apple:TV not for video, but as an interface to my iTunes music library, primarily because of its TV interface. I have a Roku SoundBridge ($200) that works just fine for the purpose, except that the only way to navigate is by using the Roku's front panel display, which is too small to read from the couch. I wanted something that would let me browse my music collection on my TV screen, so I immediately thought of the :apple:TV. Unfortunately, it has no setting for a 4:3 aspect ratio, so my menus would look funny on my tv. Ultimately I chose to use the DLO Homedock Deluxe and my iPod Nano, mostly because of the (IMHO) stupid decision to only support widescreen (I do have component inputs, but not ws). Apple just lost a sale.
     
  15. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #16
    Then why in blazes doesn't it have a 4:3 setting? That alone leaves me out for the next several years at least.
     
  16. notjustjay macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #17
    Well, Apple of course has a history of being very forward-looking (e.g. removing the floppy drive from all their Macs). I'm sure they are expecting there to be a big trend away from 4:3 devices very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally left off any 4:3 setting as a way to encourage the adoption of 16:9 devices (in the same vein as leaving the floppy drive off the computer to force the adoption of other technologies...)
     
  17. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #18
    At least when they left off the floppy device you could go buy a usb floppy without breaking the bank. After just paying nearly $3000 for a projection tv in 1999, I have no intention of shelling out for a 16:9 device anytime soon. Although hdtv's are selling well now, it will take a long, long time to make much of a dent in the installed base as a whole.
     
  18. mashinhead macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    #19
    I'm the only one against firmly for the non dvr inclusion. I think that was the right choice. But I do agree with him on the lack of volume control on the remote, and the lack of DVD drive, and direct download.

    but then he likes the brown zune.

    I like the way zune looks, but brown... don't know. I'd have to think that one over.
     
  19. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #20
    Absolutely True. Since day 1 with my setup I've not used the TV's internal speakers, instead opting to turn them off, allowing sound only to come from the receiver speakers. Yeah, it's another device that has to be powered, but it's totally worth it.

    I don't mind the lack of DVR or DVD, though I would have liked direct download. I might pick one up someday in the future.
     
  20. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #21
    Maybe I'm one of the few but the Apple TV is just what I want.I've encoded a LOT of HD music videos and my 2 other Mac's libraries are right there in the living room for me.Fortune needs to get some new cookies.
     
  21. Bigewilson macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    #22
    Decisions Decisions

    First consumers haven't had time to save up for a HDTV to go for a :apple: TV with yet. My Dad for one cann't conjure up a reason to buy an Ampro super res projector without: a. movies to watch in high def, or b. movies he wants to watch, which don't alway come out as summer blockbusters. High def movies/TV aren't the norm yet. The :apple: TV in my humble opinion is there simply to offer a future plan around an 800 dollar blue ray device, and to give those early birds something to do with it before it's truely needed.
    Another problem for the middlers or laggers is it may be computer buying season soon, i.e. to get the new system for free and have something state of the art to use it on.
     
  22. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #23
    It's a beginning like the first iPod.

    It is quite capable in its current form but the product will only improve.
     
  23. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #24
    I think the perfect device would be a combination of a Mac Mini with an :apple:tv. It would be a DVD player. It would be a DVR. And It would have all of the functions of the :apple:tv. In addition to that, you could use OS X apps such as mail and Safari. Add in a wireless keyboard and a pointer similar to a Wiimote to use as a mouse.

    And keep the price tag around $500.

    Nah. I'm just dreaming.
     
  24. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #25
    So what kind of ATSC tuner are you going to be running in 18 months? ;)

    Okay, not quite 18 months: the cutoff date for the legacy analog NTSC broadcasts is February 17th, 2009...but that's now less than 20 months from today.


    True, but that's because most homes today have more than just one TV set: there's the "hand me down" and 3rd & 4th TV sets stashed up in the kid's bedrooms that count towards that installed base number. Personally, I'd expect that there's going to be at least one ATSC-tuner equipped TV in 50% of US households within the next 18 months. That's all that's needed to afford a market for the :apple:TV

    In counter-balance, a lot of people will continue to get their feeds from Cable (even where OTA ATSC is both a better signal and free), so the real question will be how Cable makes their transition.


    -hh
     

Share This Page