Apple TV Details and Specs

[CoreWeb]

I have no qualms with the device itself. Nor am I whining about, so please don't give me the "you don't have to buy it" speech. I know that and I can make my own decision. And I know I don't have to buy it, etc. Also don't tell what is and is not for me and what you think I should do. My post is in no way like the others here.

I think it is meant for someone like me. But, I will not buy iTunes content at this point because of the quality. If they offered high quality downloads on par with what I buy in the store I would get down with it. I am a major geek and I would buy it because it looks cool and i could stack it up. Although I won't but still.

Also, I don't have a TV right now. I don't need something that big as I have no interest in a home theatre right. I did have a mini hooked up to my 1080P that I had before, but still. I don't have enough video content to warrant such a thing.

I wasn't giving you the "you don't have to buy it" speech. I was reflecting on how it actually was not for everyone and I probably should not buy it.

People on these forums seem to be awfully black-and-white. Sith-like, if you are into Star Wars. To them, the product is either the device that will save the world, or the worst device ever made. "Lame" "stupid", or "great," "perfect", "the people who don't buy are losers."

I think that it will be good for the average consumer, and some of the upper level consumers as well. But not necessarily for me. The only thing that makes it more practical than a Mac Mini for me is the price. (The Mac Mini is 2x as expensive, after all).

But, I don't have money for AppleTV either, as it is...

 

[3282872]

What if someone has all their DVDs and CDs ripped and put into iTunes, doesn't have a 5.1 sound set up, and has a 720P TV. Then it would replace all those devices.

Then they're missing roughly 50% of the theare experience. Most AVR's has 5.1 and even 6.1 or 7.1 surround sound. TV still won't replace DVR units or DVD players, so it's just a nifty little gagdet to show off to all your friends.

 

[localoid]

...
The right transcoding algorithm combined with the right AAC parameters could, in principle, be capable of reconstructing a high-fidelity surround mix from 448kbps AAC or less. And this is not including any design improvements or new perceptual coding schema succesors to AAC.

In short, there's no fundamental hardware gap here... Just a software one.

...

Isn't one of the features of Intel's High Definition Audio chipset the ability to do real-time Dolby Digital Live encoding, *if* the manufacturers of the motherboard/devices takes the hardware/software steps needed to *implement* it?

 

[surferfromuk]

well it'll be interesting to see some youtube video clips of people playing tubesock'd youtube video's on their TV's via it...

It'll be a nice way of 'sharing' those clips, sat in the lounge on the sofa with family members instead of convincing them to 'come to the compputer and stand around the screen watching a 2" square pixellated window...


I'm guessing that's not going to need Dolby or HDTV!!

 

[FleurDuMal]

I have no qualms with the device itself. Nor am I whining about, so please don't give me the "you don't have to buy it" speech. I know that and I can make my own decision. And I know I don't have to buy it, etc. Also don't tell what is and is not for me and what you think I should do. My post is in no way like the others here.

I think it is meant for someone like me. But, I will not buy iTunes content at this point because of the quality. If they offered high quality downloads on par with what I buy in the store I would get down with it. I am a major geek and I would buy it because it looks cool and i could stack it up. Although I won't but still.

Also, I don't have a TV right now. I don't need something that big as I have no interest in a home theatre right. I did have a mini hooked up to my 1080P that I had before, but still. I don't have enough video content to warrant such a thing.

I'm with you there. If I actually had a living room and a TV to put in it, if Apple had at least DVD quality downloads with 5.1, I'd snap up an AppleTV (depending on the range of films and shows on offer, that is). That, however, is only a matter of time. It's obvious that Apple is moving in that direction. All we have to do is wait. I think all we're waiting for are hard drive prices to fall even further.

 

[CoreWeb]

What if someone has all their DVDs and CDs ripped and put into iTunes, doesn't have a 5.1 sound set up, and has a 720P TV. Then it would replace all those devices.

Come to think of it... has 5.1 even taken off that much? In home theaters, yes, of course, but in standard family/living rooms? What percentage of the consumers who own HDTVs actually own 5.1 surround systems? So, that group wouldn't care about that issue.

And as most HDTVs aren't 1080, that doesn't matter either.

Meaning that the AppleTV was probably designed properly even if it does lack 5.1 and 1080.

 

[3282872]

That's was exactly my point! That's what apple wants, and even though this apple tv is limited, people will buy it and start getting movies via iTunes because apple is making it EASY for them to watch the movies on their "HD" tvs

Again, apple tv is nothing more than infrastructure to support iTunes movie sales.

BINGO, someone else finally gets the marketing ploy. Most people don't realize that they're spending $299 on a device to buy sub-DVD quality movie's. It's completely RIDICULOUS and yet everyone is eating it up rofl.

 

[Padriac]

I don't currently have a 1080P set. I did though, a Westinghouse lvm-37w3. That is not my point though.

Yes I can listen to my CD that I bought, however I want to buy content. I don't want CDs. I buy them, rip them, and chuck them in the closet. They serve no purpose for me other than extracting the music. No tell me this, why would I pay the same amount for an inferior quality track on iTunes when I can buy a CD for the same price?

While this is really an issue with the iTunes Store and not the Apple TV, I'm with you there. While I get Apple only currently offereing barely/sub DVD quality video, I can't for the life of me understand why they are sticking with 128 AAC for music. I too refuse to buy from iTunes for this reason, although I would love to for the convenience. I do support emusic as their VBR mp3 files that average 256 are high quality enough for me (I personally think lossless is a bit overkill for most listening situations). Also, no DRM is a big plus.

Anyway, my point was why not use the Apple TV to access all your ripped CDs? (which is exactly what I plan on doing.). My entire music library on my home theater via an elegant interface... sounds good to me.

Same with videos. Why buy a low res movie when I can get it on DVD or Blu-ray/HD-DVD? Sure it may cost more, but heck the quality is worth it.

My assumption is that they needed a device that could play high-def video before they justify selling it. If they don't offer 720p downloads within a year, I will honestly be perplexed.

 

[3282872]

Come to think of it... has 5.1 even taken off that much? In home theaters, yes, of course, but in standard family/living rooms? What percentage of the consumers who own HDTVs actually own 5.1 surround systems? So, that group wouldn't care about that issue.

And as most HDTVs aren't 1080, that doesn't matter either.

Meaning that the AppleTV was probably designed properly even if it does lack 5.1 and 1080.

Roughly 65% of North American theatre home owners use 5.1 surround sound, and growing. So yeah, there is a market. In my home, I just bought a Pioneer Elite Pro 50" 1080P Plasma for $10,000 and got a second Pioneer 50" 720P unit free, additions to my 42" Pioneer in my bedroom and 42" Panasonic in a guest room. I've been using 5.1 and 6.1 surround sound for years, make since the '90's, and just ebout everyone else I personally know utilizes 5.1 surrround sound. More importantly, why ignore a technology that is only growing and has plenty of market potential? Just making excuses for TV's limitations?

 

[WilliamLondon]

Dude, you need to get over this "internet content rules" thinking. This "little box" as it stands today will NOT replace all those components ROFL. Seriously? No way, no how. Not until it has at LEAST 5.1 surround sound, 1080P and playback of non-Apple content. Sure, it's a cute little thing that may get "ooo's" and "owwww's" at your next little cocktail shin-dig, but for now it's a $299 paper weight.

Dude, how about a little vision here? You think it has to do everything day 1 - fine, wait until v2 or v3 - but mark my words, it will replace all those devices you list, and it's starting now.

 

[Avatar74]

Isn't one of the features of Intel's High Definition Audio chipset the ability to do real-time Dolby Digital Live encoding, *if* the manufacturers of the motherboard/devices takes the hardware/software steps needed to *implement* it?

Granted it might be even more efficient to do this in hardware and that may be in store for future iterations of AppleTV... but there's a question of what the cost impact would be versus a software transcoder.

I'm just stating that for now it is possible to facilitate it through a software update.

 

[surferfromuk]

I can't for the life of me understand why they are sticking with 128 AAC for music.

This definately needs to be a 'download' preference in iTunes. Those to 'whom it matters' will find it - everyone else won't care to change it or even look for it...

 

[Krevnik]

Because encoding Xvid or X.264 wont kill your cpu, like H.264 does. What happends in two years when theres a new much better codec, that Apple don't like to much. Do you have to buy something new?

You put XviD, DivX or x264 into an MP4 container, and an iPod/iTunes combo will usually play it unless it uses some of the rather advanced features of the MPEG-4 spec that is part of 'Extended' or 'High' profile.

 

[suneohair]

Anyway, my point was why not use the Apple TV to access all your ripped CDs? (which is exactly what I plan on doing.). My entire music library on my home theater via an elegant interface... sounds good to me.

That is a waste of $300 (for me of course). Even if I had a TV and decent audio system. Plus I live in a little studio. But of course it is different for everybody. I personally don't need it, and while I like the idea there are things I would need before I bought one of these (assuming I did buy a TV and nice audio equipment).

For my apartment Front Row is fine, and I don't even use that.

 

[3282872]

Maybe this will help:

Exactly. Imagine all those devices being replaced by ONE device. If Apple claims that the TV will revolutionize home entertainment, then why ADD more crap onto of already piles of devices? It seems most people don't swallow the argument that crappleTV could wirelessly stream DVD's playing in a Mac or PC, but why not at least have a Blu-ray or HD DVD player built into the unit then? It's cause APPLE WANTS YOU TO BUY MORE ITUNES SUB-DVD QUALITY MOVIES. It's money people, yours, and they want it rofl.

 

[surferfromuk]

I think maybe we need to think more in terms of 'family homes'...

and in that respect I actually think the 'many computers to one' streaming is a killer feature that has really been overlooked on this device...

How many homes have multiple devices now - all with seperate media...now all accessible as a common resource...this feature alone could really make it shine...
You know this

 

[3282872]

Dude, how about a little vision here? You think it has to do everything day 1 - fine, wait until v2 or v3 - but mark my words, it will replace all those devices you list, and it's starting now.

Fine, v2 or v3, if they have enough capabilities to replace DVR's (assuming they're still growing in the future market as they presently are, who knows, maybe Apple will sell enough television shows online to replace DVR systems but those shows usually don't go on sale in iTunes until a few days after they air), top set quality DVD players and full surround sound capabilities, it's not worth it to the general home theatre connaissieur.

 

[CoreWeb]

Dude, how about a little vision here? You think it has to do everything day 1 - fine, wait until v2 or v3 - but mark my words, it will replace all those devices you list, and it's starting now.

I wouldn't be quite so bold in my assessment... I'd say that a device LIKE the AppleTV will eventually replace all the other devices. But not necessarily the AppleTV, being realistic.

 

[3282872]

I actually think the many to one streaming is a killer feature that has really been overlooked on this device...

How many homes have multiple devices now - all with seperate media...now all accessible as a common resource...this feature alone could really make it shine...

Thank you, I mean really, thank you. I have been SLAMMED for saying the same thing by every one on here. It's nice that someone else has the same thoughts regarding the potential for a device such as the TV. It could potentially replace most home audio/video equipment, allowing movie and music playback in one device hooked up to an AVR and HDTV.

 

[abrooks]

Hook the Apple TV into the TV via component, no advantage or disadvantage of HDMI at the moment.

Now assuming the receiver of the theatre system can take an input either hook the Apple TV up to it via optical or analog RCA.

That should sort your problems.

Currently waiting for my Apple TV to arrive (hopefully tomorrow) but was hoping I could get some knowledgable help here.

In the past week I have bought a Samsung 42 inch Plasma (comes with 2 HDMI Jacks) --- and I want to hook up my Apple TV (HDMI), Comcast Digital Cable Box (HDMI), and Phillips Home Thearte system (HDMI) ---

http://reviews.cnet.com/Philips_HTS6...6.html?tag=sub

So I have three devices with HDMI capability but only 2 HDMI ports on my Samsung HD TV. To complicate things, I want the audio from the actual TV, and Apple TV to come out of the Phillips system all the time, NOT the standard Samsung TV speakers.

What is the best way to accomplish this?

Thanks guys

 

[CoreWeb]

Fine, v2 or v3, if they have enough capabilities to replace DVR's (assuming they're still growing in the future market as they presently are, who knows, maybe Apple will sell enough television shows online to replace DVR systems but those shows usually don't go on sale in iTunes until a few days after they air), top set quality DVD players and full surround sound capabilities, it's not worth it to the general home theatre connaissieur.

Aren't some TV shows now on iTunes BEFORE they air? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[balamw]

Aren't some TV shows now on iTunes BEFORE they air? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Definitely true for Andy Richter's new show which is available on iTunes and nbc.com before it airs on NBC.

B

 

[suneohair]

Hey is the Apple trailer site down for anyone else in Front Row?

 

[3282872]

Aren't some TV shows now on iTunes BEFORE they air? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, the ones studio exec's know won't succeed. Any one remember "Aquaman" and "Conviction"? Those were free pilots, and they literally couldn't GIVE them away. Course the shows were so bad they were canelled or never even aired.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Come to think of it... has 5.1 even taken off that much? In home theaters, yes, of course, but in standard family/living rooms? What percentage of the consumers who own HDTVs actually own 5.1 surround systems? So, that group wouldn't care about that issue.

And as most HDTVs aren't 1080, that doesn't matter either.

Meaning that the AppleTV was probably designed properly even if it does lack 5.1 and 1080.

Come to think of it, I can think of very few families that have or had 5.1, and I don't have any friends with it now (but I'm a student, so that makes sense). The only people I can remember who have 5.1 were the type of blokes (they are always blokes) who get erections telling you how expensive their media set up was. And then they'd only go and watch some awful action move on it.