The problem with 1080p isn't the unit or Apple it is the internet provider's bandwidth, infrastructure and your internet connection.
1080p won't be a viable option for the
tv for a looong time unfortunately.
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 TV Details and Specs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem with 1080p isn't the unit or Apple it is the internet provider's bandwidth, infrastructure and your internet connection.
1080p won't be a viable option for the
tv for a looong time unfortunately.
Excellent term - more eager mainstream customer. I like it.
Personally, the thing that I was most disappointed with was that the aTV doesn't support ATSC HDTV streams. Maybe I'm just too optomistic. The aTV has a max bit rate of 5MB/sec for h.264 material. ATSC calls for a max rate of 19.2 MB/sec for MPEG-2 material. I wonder if the aTV has enough horsepower for max ATSC streams?
Does anyone know if it's harder to decode 5MB/sec h.264 or 20MB/sec MPEG-2?
ft
Which one of those components do you use to watch content that's from your computer?
Please explain. If the aTV can output 1080p, the bandwidth would only be a problem for distributing the files.The problem with 1080p isn't the unit or Apple it is the internet provider's bandwidth, infrastructure and your internet connection.
1080p won't be a viable option for the
There are sites that offer 1080p material (legally) that doesn't take too long to download. Right now, a 480p show from iTS takes about 5 minutes to download at my house (cable modem). A 1080p show would probably take maybe 45 minutes (rough guess). That's not too bad. Set it download overnight and sync to the aTV when I'm asleep.
I'm not suggesting that Apple offer Blu-Ray/HD DVD quality 1080p material. I'm don't even really want the iTS to offer 1080p material. What I'm looking for is the ability to play 720p/1080i material recorded from my TV source.
I do concede that it's pretty unlikely that Apple will ever offer that ability since it would directly compete with the iTS.
ft
The problem with 1080p isn't the unit or Apple it is the internet provider's bandwidth, infrastructure and your internet connection.
1080p won't be a viable option for the
That will also be true of OTA (especially non cable/non satellite FTA) content as well. Satellite (Sky) in the UK is only using 720p and 1080i for those very reasons, and the BBC is complaining that without additional reserved spectrum space they might struggle to provide OTA 720p content within the next few years.
Granted the situation might be different in the US, but mainly only in terms of the speed of adoption of 720p/1080i content, not the actual technology to make 1080p broadcasts a mainstream reality. My guess is that for the next 5 years we are probably going to be limited to small clips such as trailers or special broadcasts at 1080p or have to rely on 1080p from BRD or HD-DVD. And with true 1080p Plasmas (even quality LCDs) still costing 1000s more than 720p HDTV the market for such broadcast content is going to be low in any case, therefore the need for Apple to compete is minimal. For the vast majority of current HDTV adopters, 720p is going to be good enough.
Personally I'd wait until Apple up-res their existing iTune Store movies to 720p before dismissing whether or not it is inadequate. And why would Apple aim for the top at the first shot anyway when they cans ell something which will keep 90% of their market happy with a 720p device, get people hooked to the paradigm then charge them for an upgraded device in a few years time which provides full HD, at a time when bandwidth constraints might be further along being addressed.
For those that are compaining that their eyes are so special that they DEMAND only the best possible image and therefore have to have the best possible 1080p experience..... buy a BRD or a Denon DVD-5910CI to go with your Pioneer PDP-5000EX and stop complaining that a $300 device is not absolutely state of the art.
Do you use an Airport for your wireless router? I think the AirPort Utility may show you the clear-text key used for your network encryption.
You are probably not having trouble with satellite spectrum in the UK, most likely just OTA spectrum. Satellite transmissions broadcast in the microwave spectrum and you can literally fit thousands of 1080p channels in between microwave bandwiths.
The primary reason for the current 1080i limitation is the satellite receiver electronics. Most satellite broadcasters multiplex all of their content, broadcast the multiplexed signal, and then the receiver demultiplexes the data and rebuilds the signal. Most of the receivers on the market today could only demultiplex a limited capacity at a limited speed.
Directv is releasing a next generation receiver this summer in the US and it will allow the demultiplexing of hundreds of 1080p channels. Supposedly they already have 150 new 1080p channels ready to go and will start broadcasting from the new satellites that were put up a year or two ago.
My Pioneer BDP-HD1 connects easily into my existing home network, playing movies, music and photos from my Mac to my Pioneer Elite Pro 50" 1080P flat panel. Bingo.
TV what?http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069741_290062577,00.html
Wow, I was about to be really shocked if anyone found my post offensive. But I guess you were referring to the other guy. I was just saying that for my money, I wouldn't buy Apple TV for the reason I listed, but not at all saying others shouldn't or would be foolish to buy it. People are so sensitive around here if you say anything negative about an Apple product. Jeez... Thanks Stella for the support
People are incredibly sensitive around here if you even THINK about pointing out one flaw in an Apple product. I'm a HUGE apple fan, will NEVER go back to PC's, but c'mon, this Apple TV thing is a JOKE. Even the Apple sales rep's at the SoHo store in NYC were laughing at it. ROFL Sad.
With a suggested retail price of $1,500.00, I'd very much hope that it'd easily do the tasks that you listed.
You're really trying to compare that to an Apple TV?
You're really trying to compare that to an Apple TV?
Are you kidding?
Hahahahahhahahahaha WHATEVER get a clue, there are tons of Apple employees who have been reading up on this thing for months, and with as much publicity and fanfare as Apple has been giving crappleTV you would expect them to be flying off the shelves. Only ONE was sold the first day of availability in the SoHo on the afternoon I visited. Sorry to tell ya, that's not a success story, first day or not.
It links to my Mac system and does everything the CrappleTV does INCLUDING playing 1080P Blu-ray discs, so yeah, for $1500 I'd take that piece of equipment over a $299 paper weight ANY day. You're swallowing Apple propaganda so readily you're not seeing the forest from the trees. This device is simply a way for Apple so sell sub-DVD quality movies and videos for the same price as a store bought $14.99 DVD just because it's from iTunes. This is not anything special, no matter how you slice it. I'd rather buy a Blu-ray player that has Apple TV added features installed rather than adding another peripheral device to a growing tower of home audio electronics.
I'm glad that you were able to lighten the load on your shelf of peripherals by replacing multiple devices (your Blu-Ray DVD player + a box that gives you AppleTV-like features) with just one peripheral, but the price-tag of your "simplicity" is $1500.00.CJD2112 said:
For most of us, $1500.00 for any piece of equipment (other than a HDTV) isn't a choice we can afford to make.
That's a pretty simplistic view.
For me, the device frees up the space and weight of a $750 Mac mini from my peripheral shelf (that's been hooked up to my TV for the last year, doing very little more than running Front Row). Others have HTPCs that are much larger and louder that my mini. Even others have had to string cables across their living room floor to their main Mac each time they've wanted to display stuff on their TV. The AppleTV is a welcome addition to some folks equipment rack. (or in my case, Target TV stand).
My roommates have already used the Apple TV more in the last two days than I think they EVER did the mini. Why? Because they understand the AppleTV. They don't have to try to remember how to mount a volume to the mini and where exactly they had to copy their files so that they'd show up in Front Row. With the AppleTV, they simply leave iTunes running on their laptops (back in their rooms), plop down on the couch, and start watching.
And FWIW, the quality of the content that they're watching is quite a bit higher than what you get when you buy a DVD from the iTunes Store, and it's not like they sat around ripping the files themselves, if you know what I mean. To each their own.
Obviously with your $1500.00 combo Blu-Ray DVD player + AppleTV-like device, the AppleTV has no value for you. But why you post like it's not a great fit for some others, or has no practical use besides watching iTS-purchased DVDs, makes no sense to me.
I cant believe nobody has brought up mythtv in this thread.
All someone has to do is create an itv or frontrow-esque theme for MythTV and then the AppleTV is completely irrelevant. You can build a MythTV box for ~400bucks and even get preconfigured systems from https://monolithmc.com/~monolith/ but they are expensive.
All someone has to do is create an itv or frontrow-esque theme for MythTV and then the AppleTV is completely irrelevant. You can build a MythTV box for ~400bucks and even get preconfigured systems from https://monolithmc.com/~monolith/ but they are expensive.
I had the same problem with mine. I rebooted my Airport network and my cable modem and my password was accepted.
I suppose a little bit of my unconscious resentment may have been towards Apple's marketing strategy. Apple seems to play
TV up as though it is the answer to wireless entertainment, when the truth is it's simply a way for Apple to sell more movies on iTunes. While I am optimistic that internet content will transform and advance home entertainment, I do not agree with Apple using that an as excuse to simply push sub-DVD quality movies at in store DVD prices. Further, ripping an entire DVD collection in an acceptable iTunes format would take weeks for the average home user, so TV isn't about wireless movies and shows home owners currently have, it's more slanted to videos that consumers may buy through iTunes, and the quality of those video's is not something worth investing $9.99-$14.99. Further, I bought a 12' DVI Monster cable for roughly $100 that connected my Mac to my Pioneer Plasma as a Mac Display before the purchase of my Pioneer Blu-ray player (those cables come in DVI to HDMI for individuals whose flat screens don't have DVI/PC inputs). Using such a cable is MUCH cheaper than an TV as it allowed playback of any video content from my PC onto my monitor and didn't restrict my media content in any way. True, not exactly a wireless solution and it doesn't play music in my stereo, but my system has a digital optical out that goes right into my AVR, allowing DVD's from my Mac to play onto my HDTV with 5.1 surround sound (again, this was before I broke down and spent a fortune on the Pioneer Blu-ray player, and yeah, expensive as all hell lol, that was a painful purchase as I'm certain those prices will tumble soon but I just had to have it lol ).Bottom line, I'm a HUGE Mac fanatic. Hell, I'll arm wrestle any PC/Windows user any day
. However, Apple's shameful ploy in selling TV's as the next iPod for home video entertainment is shameless, as it really is an Apple marketing device to sell more iTunes content.
I had been using an Elgato EyeHome for the past several years until it up and died a couple months back. While the interface was a little clunky and it stuttered here and there, it didn't take long for me to appreciate the analogy to the iPod. My kids loved having access to the "jukebox" of movies when they settled in with their bowls of popcorn, I loved not messing with DVDs and having my iTunes on my stereo while I vegged on the couch, and visiting family and friends marvelled at accessing photos, home movies, and the other content through such an intuitive TV interface. Never did anyone who saw this from 2-3 years back up until a couple months ago say "Gee whiz, that's cool but the sound isn't 5.1 and doesn't it burn your retinas to watch any of this on your antique standard-def Sony Wega? Blech!"
As a fairly tech-savvy yet still everyday normal person who generally enjoys watching movies for their content, story, and entertainment value, rather than perseverating on whether I am being virtually immersed in sound + vision indistinguishable from reality, the EyeHome provided a new paradigm for content delivery in my house, which we have grown very accustomed to. When the EyeHome died, I replaced it with a mac mini, even knowing the aTV was coming soon because my "home theater" just couldn't be without such a a device. Now I've got the much more elegant Front Row interface (still on my standard TV) and we enjoy using it even more, friends and family are wowed more than ever. I think when regular people who've been filling their iTunes libraries with music, TV, and a few movies for the last couple years realize they can now plug, play, and view all that stuff on their TVs with such ease, the last thing they are going to care about is 720 vs 1080, stereo vs 5.1, DivX, etc etc etc.
This thread #289547 doesn't have the catchy, easy to remember title as the now famous Thread 500, but thanks to everyone for participating and making it a great reference for future "I told-you-so-ers", however the aTV turns out.
found this post from when I first got the EyeHome
As a fairly tech-savvy yet still everyday normal person who generally enjoys watching movies for their content, story, and entertainment value, rather than perseverating on whether I am being virtually immersed in sound + vision indistinguishable from reality, the EyeHome provided a new paradigm for content delivery in my house, which we have grown very accustomed to. When the EyeHome died, I replaced it with a mac mini, even knowing the aTV was coming soon because my "home theater" just couldn't be without such a a device. Now I've got the much more elegant Front Row interface (still on my standard TV) and we enjoy using it even more, friends and family are wowed more than ever. I think when regular people who've been filling their iTunes libraries with music, TV, and a few movies for the last couple years realize they can now plug, play, and view all that stuff on their TVs with such ease, the last thing they are going to care about is 720 vs 1080, stereo vs 5.1, DivX, etc etc etc.
This thread #289547 doesn't have the catchy, easy to remember title as the now famous Thread 500, but thanks to everyone for participating and making it a great reference for future "I told-you-so-ers", however the aTV turns out.
found this post from when I first got the EyeHome
Further, I bought a 12' DVI Monster cable for roughly $100 that connected my Mac to my Pioneer Plasma as a Mac Display before the purchase of my Pioneer Blu-ray player (those cables come in DVI to HDMI for individuals whose flat screens don't have DVI/PC inputs). Using such a cable is MUCH cheaper than an
Agreed, but that's still quite expensive for a cable! I suppose you must pay a bit for the name "Monster" as well, but I'd rather go down to the local electronics store where I buy all my circuitry components and pick up all those types of cables for a tenth of the cost.
As you say though, definitely a cheaper solution to the ATV!
... However, Apple's shameful ploy in selling
When you go out to a real movie theater, do you end up viewing the whole experience as a being simply "shameless" marketing ploy to sell popcorn and soft drinks? Just wondering...
Bottom line, I'm a HUGE Mac fanatic. Hell, I'll arm wrestle any PC/Windows user any day
When you go out to a real movie theater, do you end up viewing the whole experience as a being simply "shameless" marketing ploy to sell popcorn and soft drinks? Just wondering...
I do think it's probably the other way around...iTMS has been successfully selling TV shows for quite awhile and movies for a few months. I expect their margins on the hardware device are much better than on digital downloads. The strategy has been to fill everybody's iTunes with video content that they now will buy a $299 device to watch away from their computers. Naturally this will feed back and encourage more content purchase from the iTMS, but begins to tie people (for better or worse) into the seamless aTV/iTunes/iPod media ecosystem. When aTV v2 comes out, people will buy it just like they have upgraded or added additional iPods.
Apple was quite up front and forthright in the past that they were selling music online in order to drive iPod sales...I don't see why this new paradigm for video content is any different. They're selling movies and TV shows (at likely minimal profit) in order to drive aTV sales (big $$$).
You don't need to have the same huge markup up digital goods as you would need on real good to make up for the high costs of transportation, storage, labor and handling, and other costs.
My cable company is offering to practically "give" me a DVR for $1 a month. But since that box allows for purchase of content it's a no brainer to figure out their (real) motivation for "giving" me this box.
Price the cost of building a PC with what the Apple tv contains and you'll find you can't build it for what Apple is selling it for. Sure Apple can buy components cheaper than you or I can, but for $299 they're not making much profit on each unit. Yes, Apple does makes a good profit on hardware overall, but that's because they are selling many, many high-ticket laptops (with good markups), which makes up for the next-to-nothing they make on lesser numbers of inexpensive units they sell like the mini.
I didn't say there was anything "evil" or wrong about a company offering products/services and making money from its efforts. I'm self employed, so I'm a capitalist.
Personally, I'd rather enjoy seeing iTunes causing the major labels to rethink how they market their (so called) music which in reality is crapola.
But if you think anyone's making big profits off the sale of a $299 unit you're barking up the wrong tree. The retailers selling it probably make more profit from selling "Monster" brand cables (they're "better," wink wink, than anything else you can buy) to go along with it than off the unit themselves.
Of course I'm not privy to Apple's bookkeeping but they've demonstrated a history of luring customers with great software (Mac OS, 99c songs, iLife) which requires the purchase of (equally great) hardware (Macs, iPods). I think it's likely they're following that same model of success.
One thing I've never seen broken down is the amount of change Apple keeps from a TV show or movie download. I recall seeing the 99c songs broken down, and of course most of the money goes back to the record company and ostensibly the artists, with Apple only retaining a few cents on each sale to maintain the iTMS infrastructure. You're right that digital goods don't have the high overhead associated with a boxed product, but that still doesn't mean Apple is making much on each video downloaded. I have to believe that most of that $1.99 per show or $9.99 per movie is going back to NBC, Columbia, Fox, Paramount, etc...not Apple.