Apple TV Review by Walt Mossberg

[TheManOfSilver]

I may be playing devil's advocate here, but when was the last time Mossberg gave an Apple product a bad review?

Don't get me wrong, I usually agree with him, but does anyone else think he comes across to the general public as an unabashed fanboy?

 

[DaveGee]

Many of us fully understand the problem, but what we can't understand is your assertion that it's somehow Apple's problem to fix, and not the responsibility of, say TV manufacturers. I've asked that question at least once already. You apparently chose to ignore it. You really should not get so annoyed with how others discuss this issue if you're going to sidestep points that you don't want to address.

Fair enough and I think I did address this but here it is again...

TV makers seem to (for the most part) provide connections for 3 connections (in some way shape or form) when you buy a 'mid-priced' TV (as in the tv that tends to sell the most).

My thinking (they don't come right out and say this) is the REASON they came up with THREE connections is due to the fact that there are THREE main categories of connection using devices.

1 - Being a cable box (tivo etc)
2 - Being a movie playing tv/recording device (dvd/dvdr/laserdisc/etc)
3 - Being a game system of some type

Since most all of the big proponents of the Apple TV proudly shout THIS IS NOT (nor should it even try to) replace a DVD player (I say it should) nor does it (nor should it) try to replace a TiVO and clearly this box isn't gonna be a replacement for an xbox360 and the like...

Okay now here is where I feel this SHOULD be Apples responsibility.

I have a device that plays movies and want to now have a device that can record... I go out and buy a recorder. Guess what that recorder still has the ability to PLAY my DVDs so I simply get rid of my DVD player and REPLACE it with my DVD recorder... NO NEW CONNECTIONS NEEDED.

I have a cable box connected to my tv but now I want to have a TiVO... I buy the TiVO and UNPLUG the cable-box from the TV and plug it INTO the new TiVO and then I simply connect the TiVO to the TV. NO NEW CONNECTIONS NEEDED - in fact if it didn't have that functionality and instead required you to have your cable-box AND the TiVO both connected to the TV the TiVO wouldn't have succeeded.

I have an xbox but now want a better quality game system.. I unplug the xbox and then plugin the xbox360. The xbox360 can play both the old xbox titles as well as the new 360 titles. NO NEW CONNECTION NEEDED.

Now I'm not a gamer but I do remember the speculation that went around when the 360 was announced and the idea was floated that the 360 would NOT play any of the older xbox games. People went NUTs... Why would that be if they owned the games they owned the old hardware too... right?! Well fact was they new dern well they weren't in a position to keep both the old xbox and the new 360 connected at the same time. After doing some reading... The fact that not ALL of the old xbox games work on the 360 is still an issue for quite a few ppl.

Okay so it would seem that for all of the successful hardware that you can connect to the TV always in some way shape or form provides the functionality of a current device so you can ditch the old device and have a space to connect the new device....

Apple TV doesn't think it needs to... I guess they don't... People here seem almost gleeful that it doesn't have any features such as a DVD player but I still think it will substantially hurt their sales because they don't.

Dave

 

[WilliamLondon]

no divx, no avi, no mpg2, no deal. sorry apple, you messed up.

Thanks for that comment, but I think you're being short sighted. I agree wholeheartedly about the DivX/AVI argument - nearly all my vids are divx, so it's going to be a pain in the arse to re-encode them. BUT, aside from this relatively minor inconvenience this thing is so exciting and marks such a shift in media consumption.

 

[Peace]

Which Discussion to Argue In ?

Gee..

Should I use this discussion to argue the TV

 

[WilliamLondon]

three things for AppleTV to get a big foot on the entertainment room.

1) 1080p support
2) 5.1 audio
3) cool, new universal remote.

on the side, I would love a seamless integration between AppleTV, iTunes and Elgato software and hardware to use it as DVR. That would be crazy cool.

1) ridiculous - not the mass market by any means
2) agree
3) ridiculous again - why is it up to Apple to create a clunky new remote to control all the other hardware?

As for your other comment I agree up to the point you want it to be a DVR - seamless integration, yes, but then you add the silly DVR comment. You've got a DVR, it's called a computer - that's where your content sits, and that's where it should originate, imnsho.

 

[WilliamLondon]

This thing could have been so cool, but the final product is just a waste of time. There are so many more things that it canNOT do that you would expect it to than it CAN do. I'm sticking with my Airport Express.

Enjoy watching those videos on your television via that Airport Express.

 

[tribulation]

You've got a DVR, it's called a computer - that's where your content sits, and that's where it should originate, imnsho.

Arggg
Ok from what I have figured out in these 12 pages of comments is:

1) The people [like me] that do NOT want their TV/home theater COMPLETELY dependent on their Mac. That's not saying the streaming features shouldn't/couldn't be added IN ADDITION TO a self-sustaining iTV box. The people in this category are the people [again like me] that don't want to have their Mac(s) on 24/7 and/or run into the other room to turn it on every time they want to watch TV; also they do not want to waste their CPU resources, HD, etc. We believe the iTV should be able to function by itself more the most used features, which it is currently not.

2) The others that think the iTV is useful and contradict all the things I said in #1, which I'm not going to retype.

If the iTV was more like #1 and could function as something useful by itself firstly, then as a side-benefit be able to get stuff from my Mac, I'd most likely buy one. Does this sound like the just of it so far?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Fair enough and I think I did address this but here it is again...

Okay, so here's where your argument falls down, IMO. First, all of the devices you cite have unique functions. The Apple TV has a unique function. It wasn't designed to substitute for any of the other boxes you own. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you like what it was designed to do. Second, it makes absolutely no sense to me to refer to the backwards compatibility of the Xbox with the previous generation of Xbox. The Apple TV is the first generation of the Apple TV. Were you complaining about the first generation of the Xbox gobbling up an HDMI connector? If not, why not?

The TiVo is also not an apt comparison, since it requires and shares the cable-in, much like a VCR (remember them?), so it lends itself to a pass-through installation, which almost nothing else does. The Apple TV does not have video in, because it doesn't need video in. It's wireless.

Finally, if you were to go out and buy a new Blu-Ray player, you'd be faced with precisely the same dilemma you complain about so bitterly with the Apple TV. Given the limited number of HDMI inputs on your TV, you'd be forced to decide between it and some other device. To make matters worse, you'd need to keep two disc players hooked up so you wouldn't lose the ability to play your library of DVDs.

It's a mess. Apple may be contributing to the problem, but they didn't create it, and short of turning the Apple TV into something it wasn't intended to be (an HDMI switcher box), then I don't see how they solve it. Will that lead to some people deciding not to buy an Apple TV? Probably, but everybody who competes for the limited space at the back of the TV is in the same boat. We can only hope that the TV industry gets smart and begins to offer sets with the number of HDMI connectors people actually need. This appears to be happening some already. Not even a year ago it was difficult to find any HDTVs with more than one HDMI connector. Now many have two or more.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Arggg
Ok from what I have figured out in these 12 pages of comments is:

1) The people [like me] that do NOT want their TV/home theater COMPLETELY dependent on their Mac. That's not saying the streaming features shouldn't/couldn't be added IN ADDITION TO a self-sustaining iTV box. The people in this category are the people [again like me] that don't want to have their Mac(s) on 24/7 and/or run into the other room to turn it on every time they want to watch TV; also they do not want to waste their CPU resources, HD, etc. We believe the iTV should be able to function by itself more the most used features, which it is currently not.

Then don't buy it just because it doesn't brew coffee too, and watch the revolution pass you by.

 

[DaveGee]

Finally, if you were to go out and buy a new Blu-Ray player, you'd be faced with precisely the same dilemma you complain about so bitterly with the Apple TV. Given the limited number of HDMI inputs on your TV, you'd be forced to decide between it and some other device. To make matters worse, you'd need to keep two disc players hooked up so you wouldn't lose the ability to play your library of DVDs..

It's not a mess (or it WASN'T a mess till Apple) - people could sustain one of each of the categories of equipment I listed above with a TV that supports 3 HD inputs without giving up anything...

As for getting a bluray means forgoing my DVD collection... Well, i dunno where you're looking but BR plays Std-Def DVDs as well as it's new format and so HD-DVD with its competing format...

The more I read I'm getting the feeling I'm debating with someone who isn't very well informed but instead I'm just debating with someone how simply refuses to admit when Apple makes a mistake... which is fine if that's what your doing... but I'm not going to continue this any longer since its quite clear I'm not speaking to someone on the same level as I...

Dave

 

[whatever]

End of story...

1 - Most HDTV in the home have 3 or less Comonent and/or HDMI connections.

2 - Most people have a Cable Box (using input #1) and some type of up-converting DVD player using input #2 with connection #3 going to a game box (if you have kids in the house)

Game over Apple looses....
Dave

Let's return to the real world for a moment.

Anyone connecting a DVD (not HD-DVD or BlueRay) player into their system using HDMI is kind of stupid. There is absolutely no reason or advantage to do this. It's like putting high octane level gasoline in a lawn mower. Sure it will work, but there's no advantage.

So that free's up one connection.

The only game system that really should be connected via HDMI is the PS3, to bad they're not selling well.

I've actually spoken to many people about HDMI and they urge their customer to stay away from it.

 

[ftaok]

I've actually spoken to many people about HDMI and they urge their customer to stay away from it.

Why? Why are they pushing against HDMI? What would they suggest consumers use?

ft

 

[tribulation]

Then don't buy it just because it doesn't brew coffee too, and watch the revolution pass you by.

Taking advantage of new useful technology and footing the bill for a company's R&D are 2 very different things. If you want to pay $299 + infinite iTunes bills for TV humorously limited TV/Movie offerings, by all mean -- please do

Don't get me wrong, TV-on-demand sounds excellent. If widespread use was available, Apple would be in the perfect spot to excel. But trying to push a single technology (VOD) at a very high price, low customer ROI is not going to work.....which is why so many of us are arguing that a much more acceptable move would have been to include some sort of interim functionality. Which would allow Apple to push their new tech on us and get everyone used to it and hooked for the future, while allowing us to actually use it in the current real world.

 

[DaveGee]

Let's return to the real world for a moment.

Anyone connecting a DVD (not HD-DVD or BlueRay) player into their system using HDMI is kind of stupid. There is absolutely no reason or advantage to do this. It's like putting high octane level gasoline in a lawn mower. Sure it will work, but there's no advantage.

So that free's up one connection.

The only game system that really should be connected via HDMI is the PS3, to bad they're not selling well.

I've actually spoken to many people about HDMI and they urge their customer to stay away from it.

Point #1 : Never heard of an up-converting DVD player eh and yea, I keep saying HDMI but what I'm really saying and referring to are the HDTV compatible inputs found on HDTVs... be them DVI or HDMI or COMPONENT ... Not svideo or composite...

Point #2 : Whoever those 'many people' you've been speaking to are you really have to ditch em and fast cause they simply have no idea what they are saying. :lol:

Dave

 

[WilliamLondon]

Taking advantage of new useful technology and footing the bill for a company's R&D are 2 very different things. If you want to pay $299 + infinite iTunes bills for TV humorously limited TV/Movie offerings, by all mean -- please do

Don't get me wrong, TV-on-demand sounds excellent. If widespread use was available, Apple would be in the perfect spot to excel. But trying to push a single technology (VOD) at a very high price, low customer ROI is not going to work.....which is why so many of us are arguing that a much more acceptable move would have been to include some sort of interim functionality. Which would allow Apple to push their new tech on us and get everyone used to it and hooked for the future, while allowing us to actually use it in the current real world.

Day 1? Is that reasonable expectation when this is such a huge change from historic media consumption?

And let me just say one more thing... bittorrent.

 

[bankshot]

However... what's a guy got to do to make Apple add VIDEO_TS or DVD ISO support to Front Row?

A while back, some kind soul on this forum pointed me to DVD Assist which does exactly that. It worked as advertised on my Macbook, and has me seriously thinking about getting a Mac mini at some point to catalog/watch all of my DVDs. Unlike the AppleTV, the Mac mini + DVD Assist solution allows me to preserve DVD menus and -- more importantly -- multichannel audio.

It's a shame that AppleTV can't do for DVD movies what iTunes did for CD music -- the MP3 era, and specifically iPod+iTunes, revolutionized how we manage and listen to our existing music. I can't remember the last time I carried around a clunky CD and played it in a CD player. Just buy it, rip it, and put it in storage. It's time for the same kind of revolution with our existing DVD video content. And shamefully, this won't happen -- not with the AppleTV, and not with any other mass market commercial product -- but I kind of understand why.

Directly allowing users to rip DVDs like iTunes does for CDs would never fly with the movie industry because they got a nice little US law passed called the DMCA. Breaking the DVD encryption is technically illegal under the DMCA, so Apple won't touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'll bet Apple would love to include this functionality because it just makes too much sense, but the legal/political reality is they can't. And while AppleTV is kind of neat, there's no way I'm either (a) repurchasing my video content in a form that AppleTV can use, or (b) ripping DVDs in Handbrake and losing all the DVD features. That makes it exactly useless to me, unfortunately.

Really, really too bad. Let's hope the future changes things so that Apple can unlock a feature like this with a software update. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[FleurDuMal]

A while back, some kind soul on this forum pointed me to DVD Assist which does exactly that. It worked as advertised on my Macbook, and has me seriously thinking about getting a Mac mini at some point to catalog/watch all of my DVDs. Unlike the AppleTV, the Mac mini + DVD Assist solution allows me to preserve DVD menus and -- more importantly -- multichannel audio.

It's a shame that AppleTV can't do for DVD movies what iTunes did for CD music -- the MP3 era, and specifically iPod+iTunes, revolutionized how we manage and listen to our existing music. I can't remember the last time I carried around a clunky CD and played it in a CD player. Just buy it, rip it, and put it in storage. It's time for the same kind of revolution with our existing DVD video content. And shamefully, this won't happen -- not with the AppleTV, and not with any other mass market commercial product -- but I kind of understand why.

Directly allowing users to rip DVDs like iTunes does for CDs would never fly with the movie industry because they got a nice little US law passed called the DMCA. Breaking the DVD encryption is technically illegal under the DMCA, so Apple won't touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'll bet Apple would love to include this functionality because it just makes too much sense, but the legal/political reality is they can't. And while AppleTV is kind of neat, there's no way I'm either (a) repurchasing my video content in a form that AppleTV can use, or (b) ripping DVDs in Handbrake and losing all the DVD features. That makes it exactly useless to me, unfortunately.

Really, really too bad. Let's hope the future changes things so that Apple can unlock a feature like this with a software update. But I'm not holding my breath.

Would DVD Assist work across a network (ie using a Mac Mini under the TV and having all the media stored on a Mac Pro)?

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's not a mess (or it WASN'T a mess till Apple) - people could sustain one of each of the categories of equipment I listed above with a TV that supports 3 HD inputs without giving up anything...

As for getting a bluray means forgoing my DVD collection... Well, i dunno where you're looking but BR plays Std-Def DVDs as well as it's new format and so HD-DVD with its competing format...

The more I read I'm getting the feeling I'm debating with someone who isn't very well informed but instead I'm just debating with someone how simply refuses to admit when Apple makes a mistake... which is fine if that's what your doing... but I'm not going to continue this any longer since its quite clear I'm not speaking to someone on the same level as I...

Dave

Yeah, right. You consistently ignore more than half of what I say, then claim to be on a higher level. That is so rude.

DVD compatibility is not part of the Blu-Ray standard. This requires a dual-pickup mechanism. Some manufacturers will offer them, some won't, and at what price, and for how long, we don't won't know until it happens. We're currently facing the exact same problem with video tapes.

 

[bankshot]

Would DVD Assist work across a network (ie using a Mac Mini under the TV and having all the media stored on a Mac Pro)?

Yep. I specifically tested it playing ripped VIDEO_TS folders that reside on my Power Mac G4, connected over the network. Seemed to stream ok using both wired gigabit ethernet and wireless-g (which surprised me a bit). Just connect to the shared folder on the remote machine and follow the instructions with DVD Assist to point it to the movies there.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Yep. I specifically tested it playing ripped VIDEO_TS folders that reside on my Power Mac G4, connected over the network. Seemed to stream ok using both wired gigabit ethernet and wireless-g (which surprised me a bit). Just connect to the shared folder on the remote machine and follow the instructions with DVD Assist to point it to the movies there.

Hmm...interesting. There must be catch. Things never work as perfectly as they sound.

 

[BigHat]

Point #1 : Never heard of an up-converting DVD player eh and yea, I keep saying HDMI but what I'm really saying and referring to are the HDTV compatible inputs found on HDTVs... be them DVI or HDMI or COMPONENT ... Not svideo or composite...

Point #2 : Whoever those 'many people' you've been speaking to are you really have to ditch em and fast cause they simply have no idea what they are saying. :lol:

Dave

Dave,

Seriously, you really have chosen to ignore the quite rational challenges to your very ill-formed assertions. It's pretty clear you need to stand up to be heard clearly on this issue. I hope you know more about Macs than you do about HT.

 

[tribulation]

Day 1? Is that reasonable expectation when this is such a huge change from historic media consumption?

And let me just say one more thing... bittorrent.

I think it is unreasonable of them to assume that the vast majority of people will just dump their whole way of thinking about TV and fully embrace their "revolutionary" new way (which I have said so many times, will fail unless they can provide subscription services with packages equal to current cable TV offerings). I know you are going to say that this 'is not that kind of device' -- but it IS that kind of device; Apple's main objective with this is to sell you iTMS content. The $299 retail price is just a bonus for them, I believe that their overall objective with this is to get and build an ongoing revenue stream of iTMS content. Viewing photos and listening to music is a nice side-feature, but hardly a major selling point for that much money -- some of you might buy it solely for this, but it's not going to fly off shelves for that purpose alone.

So in the meantime, since the infrastructure (faster broadband mainly) and content strategy just *isn't* there and will take time (years most likely) to get worked out; they need to have a strong selling point to actually get it into as many houses as possible.

If they were able to sell huge numbers of these things, they would have a major advantage to negotiate the "revolutionary" content options they're going to need to create to succeed long term. If Apple could say they have an installed base of 50 million iTVs users potentially just *waiting* for new content options with REASONABLE fees and features (live channels or equivalent, monthly packages for many of these "channels", movies on demand, etc etc etc), they'd have the studios begging to join....

But that obviously can't happen unless people actually buy the iTV. And with its current offering, there's little incentive for most TV watchers to get one. Again, photo sharing is nice, but hardly a feature worth $299 (my tivo does it anyways and it was free with a year's subscription totaling much less than $299.....but I won't bother to get into that). Sure, the iTV will sell. But my prediction is that it after a couple months, sales will fall sharply unless something truly revolutionary is added to the device.

When the average, uninformed user is in Best Buy looking for the next best thing for his/her TV watching, I have a hard time believing that anyone in their right mind would choose an iTV over a Tivo-like device -- and this is exactly the audience that Apple is trying to target. Of course exceptions exist and there will be people that buy it for one reason or another, but not in the numbers that Apple needs or is hoping for.

For some reason, they chose to not even include some type of bonus relatively rare feature like checking email or web browsing. On a hi-def TV, these would both work fine. Heck they could have even monopolized it with only .mac email accounts. Oversights like that just go way beyond my comprehension.

 

[WilliamLondon]

I think it is unreasonable of them to assume that the vast majority of people will just dump their whole way of thinking about TV and fully embrace their "revolutionary" new way

I think you're right in the sense that people don't/won't wake up and change their habits in such a conscious way so quickly. But, it's happening, and it's major. For the first time people are online more than they watch television, and it's due to content. People now read news and consume media online more than in print. These are such HUGE indicators that a revolution is going on, and the computer is at the core/heart of it all. I find that hugely fascinating, but also as a consumer, hugely exciting in that all this content I have stored on my computer will be available on my television in my living room. Apple has a reputation of innovating, but not really inventing, and that's what this device is all about.

 

[68134]

"In its usual secretive fashion, Apple refuses to say if or when this direct-to-the-Internet capability will be expanded. But we fully expect Apple to add the capability to stream or download a variety of content directly from the Internet, and that this new capability will be available on current Apple TV boxes through software updates."

OK, given that Walt is tight with Steve, is it just me or is he leaking information? Especially since he specifically says through software updates...

 

[whatever]

Why? Why are they pushing against HDMI? What would they suggest consumers use?

Originally Posted by DaveGee
Point #1 : Never heard of an up-converting DVD player eh and yea, I keep saying HDMI but what I'm really saying and referring to are the HDTV compatible inputs found on HDTVs... be them DVI or HDMI or COMPONENT ... Not svideo or composite...

Point #2 : Whoever those 'many people' you've been speaking to are you really have to ditch em and fast cause they simply have no idea what they are saying. :lol:

ft

Before I start, I do not claim to be an expert in HDMI and I've discovered that there are many different views on this technology. For the last couple of months I have buying new equipment for my home theater and my original plan was to go all digital (which meant HDMI).

This is when I first learned of many of the problems found in HDMI 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.2a. Everything I've read and everyone I talked to said that the promise of HDMI is welcome, but it just wasn't there yet. Basically, any device with HDMI before 1.2most likely won't work well with other HDMI devices (so that eliminates any device that came with HDMI before 2006, most DVRs, Cable and Satilite boxes and sadly Verizon's FIOS (according to early reports the FIOS boxes uses HDMI 1.1!)).

Now these weren't sales people that I was talking to, but actual Home Theater installers. When I told them my plan, they strongly recommended that I run a Composite RGB HV cable (I also ran HDMI).

Currently my TV/Monitor and A/V receiver supports HDMI 1.3(maybe 1.3a, I'm not sure), my HD Digital Cable/DVR Box supports HDMI 1.0 and I don't know what my future Apple TV's HDMI is.

The funny thing is the main reason I want to go with HDMI is because the spec doesn't just support audio and video, but because it support the Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) channel, which means (if implemented properly) I can point my A/V receiver's remote at my TV in on room and communicate to the A/V receiver in my media closet in a different room.

Oh yeah, can anyone name the first consumer HDMI device? It's the Sony PlayStation 3.