Actually, the Apple Remote does not change the volume of the digital optical audio. This is true with any mac running Front Row or any other video software.
If you connect your mac to analog speakers, the remote will work.
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 Review by Walt Mossberg
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, the Apple Remote does not change the volume of the digital optical audio. This is true with any mac running Front Row or any other video software.
If you connect your mac to analog speakers, the remote will work.
Well, games will obviesly come. With 25+ lines of iTunes code related to
TV-games, that's a given. Question is when. And are the games 720p? And will someone pop up the TV soon and find out if it has any 3d-acceleration, or if it will provide simple TIVO-like games at best..?
I think Apple made a mistake by showcasing this thing so heavily. I agree with the folks that see it as a niche device to handle very specific things. I'd probably use it for displaying my Aperture library, for example. It'll probably boost the number of people who download TV episodes. It's testing the waters to see if Apple wants to play in this space.
It's not a media center, it's a bridge. It's a fatter airport express.
There's no reason to have 1080p when there's no 1080p content that it can stream. Even if you're looking for forward compatibility, we're a long way from 1080p downloads. A long, long way...
Maybe I'd be interested if I were a TV junkie, but I'm not. Throw in a disk player and maybe I'd look at it as an alternate to to an HD movie player.
It's not a media center, it's a bridge. It's a fatter airport express.
There's no reason to have 1080p when there's no 1080p content that it can stream. Even if you're looking for forward compatibility, we're a long way from 1080p downloads. A long, long way...
Maybe I'd be interested if I were a TV junkie, but I'm not. Throw in a disk player and maybe I'd look at it as an alternate to to an HD movie player.
Can OS X do this for general audio? One of the frustrating things to me is that the volume keys on my keyboard are useless now that I've gone optical to my amp. I can use the volume slider in iTunes, but that won't adjust my system beep volume or mail chime.
Why? 1080p is after all the highest HD spec and not too widely adopted yet. Most of the people I know who bought a new HDTV in recent years don't have a clue whether their new flat panel TVs are 720p or 1080p. They just know the screen is large and that the picture looks great.
As I see it: the D5 is inferior when compared to a 1Ds Mrk II, but does not mean that the D5 is not a fine camera and perfectly capable of satisfying the needs of most hobbyists. Same goes for the ATV. It is not the most capable media centre device on the market, but it is good enough for the time being. If it evolves at the pace of the iPod, then just imagine where it will be in 5 years time.
Well, games will obviesly come. With 25+ lines of iTunes code related to
I don't expect much beyond Bejeweled and the like. Which actually is a market (casual gamers) that is huge, growing, AND not well served by current consoles.
Also, just to throw this out there: someone on another site (no link, sorry) identified the AppleTV strings in iTunes as an exact clone of existing iPod-related strings. So it's possible a "find and replace" was done on those strings without weeding out a couple useless ones. I don't think this is likely--and EA did mention AppleTV games--but it's something to consider. MAYBE games are not coming.
Yes. He used to be anti-Apple quite often. Now he still gives bad Apple reviews, but they're the minority--he tends to like Apple stuff, as do may of us
That COULD be because he actually honestly finds value in most Apple products. (Related phenomenon: I've always been facsinated by those who say, in essence, "you say you like Macs, but you're biased--you only say that because you like Macs!" As though good reviews of Apple products can only be valid if they come from people who don't like Apple products?)Mossberg also gives good reviews to Apple competitors. And his even his generally-positive Apple reviews raise negatives too.
So while Mossberg may "get" Apple's products in a more positive light than some, that doesn't make him one-sided, nor "in Apple's pocket."
Mossberg does criticize Apple products. Apple sends products to him anyway--and to others who are far more critical. Big media outlets like the WSJ get those kinds of privileges
I'm certainly not suggesting that the
TV should support coaxial output for use with really old televisions, but it should really have an S-Video output. I do have a 15" LCD EDTV (as well as a 20" ACD) that could be hooked up to the
TV, but my aunt recently gave my family her 50" rear-projection TV made in 2000 because the speakers were broken (the picture quality is great for a projection SDTV, and it works fine with external speakers) and it only has S-Video, comp, and coax inputs. Although my ACD and LCD TV offer a better picture, the sheer size advantage of the 50" TV would make me want to use it with the TV depending on what I'm watching, and I wouldn't want to have to hunt down and pay for a converter to make it work.A lot of you seem to be quite confused as to the point of the Apple TV. It is NOT a niche product. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Let's come at it from the other end: Apple wants to be your content provider for ALL media. Music, TV shows, Movies. Not a bad goal, and Apple seems poised to be able to do it.
BUT...
People aren't ready to crowd around their computer monitors for TV shows and Movies. People want to watch these things in the living room with their families. Cable companies have a way to get their content to your TV: cable boxes. Apple needs a box that does the same thing.
THEREFORE
Before Apple has any hope of becoming your standard content provider they need to give people a way to watch that content in the living room. This is why the Apple TV exists.
Many of you say you don't see the point of the Apple TV without more content on the ITMS. I say: how do you expect to get more content without the Apple TV?
And the reason you do this instead of a mac mini, even though the mini-route is more fully featured, is $300 in your pocket and increased simplicity.
Let's come at it from the other end: Apple wants to be your content provider for ALL media. Music, TV shows, Movies. Not a bad goal, and Apple seems poised to be able to do it.
BUT...
People aren't ready to crowd around their computer monitors for TV shows and Movies. People want to watch these things in the living room with their families. Cable companies have a way to get their content to your TV: cable boxes. Apple needs a box that does the same thing.
THEREFORE
Before Apple has any hope of becoming your standard content provider they need to give people a way to watch that content in the living room. This is why the Apple TV exists.
Many of you say you don't see the point of the Apple TV without more content on the ITMS. I say: how do you expect to get more content without the Apple TV?
And the reason you do this instead of a mac mini, even though the mini-route is more fully featured, is $300 in your pocket and increased simplicity.
Eh? I wouldn't expect the AppleTV to have a seperate volume control anymore then I would expect my DVD/VCR to have one. Does that make me insane? TBH, I wouldn't use it, even if it did.
For the market the AppleTV is aimed at, it sounds ideal. I did briefly consider it, but the lack of PVR pointed me in the direction of a MacMini/EyeTV combo.
Good review - all I'm wondering now is when Apple will put movies/TV shows on iTMS in Europe (or at least Denmark).
Seems mighty pointless to own an ?TV when you can't buy video material to stream to it.
But as many has said, it's just a very very expensive cable.. The ?TV basically does the same thing as a cable connected from your TV to your mac. I'd have to watch the power consumption on the mac mini compared to the ?TV before deciding on which product to buy.
Seems mighty pointless to own an ?TV when you can't buy video material to stream to it.
But as many has said, it's just a very very expensive cable.. The ?TV basically does the same thing as a cable connected from your TV to your mac. I'd have to watch the power consumption on the mac mini compared to the ?TV before deciding on which product to buy.
A little snobbish sounding of you. Apple could have included at least a Y/C output which is probably already supported by the underlying hardware.
I'd get one but my TV (yes it is an old ancient Sony Trinitron) does not have the required inputs, and me not owning a modern TV is not from lack of funds. I have a 30" Cinema Display, which is better looking than most HDTVs anyway.
Besides that, 95% of the HDTVs being sold only have a resolution of 1366x768, hardly even close to 1080p. 1080 just gets scaled down. So not supporting 1080p really isn't that big of a deal right now.
I like the device, but Apple was stupid for not putting a Y/C output on it.
-mark
Obviously the people whining about no volume control don't ever hook stuff up using Toslink cables or other forms of digital signaling.
DVD players act the same. And who the hell controls the volume from playback sources going into a receiver anyway?
-mark
DVD players act the same. And who the hell controls the volume from playback sources going into a receiver anyway?
-mark
good concept, transition product
Yeah, so far the product target audience is mostly the geeks who get kicks out of the very fact of gadgets working wirelessly. I myself will wait until they come up with the wireless cable .
But seriously, even if one wants to be a geek, the limiting factor is the lack of content in iTMS: there are almost no movies available, despite all the hype. Whatever titles I searched for were unavailable so I ended up renting the actual DVDs.
A second thing is that the quality of video downloaded from iTMS is enough for regular, standard definition TV, but is not sufficient for HDTV. Sure, I can watch beautiful movie trailers, but that's about it for now.
Anyway, the concept of iTV is good, but it is a transition/revision A product, and at this point the price of iTV (IMO) seems too high for the functionality it delivers. Until then, I will stick with my 30-dollar cable, which, incidentally, allows me to watch anything on the TV screen, including DVDs etc, without tying me to iTunes contents.
Yeah, so far the product target audience is mostly the geeks who get kicks out of the very fact of gadgets working wirelessly. I myself will wait until they come up with the wireless cable
.But seriously, even if one wants to be a geek, the limiting factor is the lack of content in iTMS: there are almost no movies available, despite all the hype. Whatever titles I searched for were unavailable so I ended up renting the actual DVDs.
A second thing is that the quality of video downloaded from iTMS is enough for regular, standard definition TV, but is not sufficient for HDTV. Sure, I can watch beautiful movie trailers, but that's about it for now.
Anyway, the concept of iTV is good, but it is a transition/revision A product, and at this point the price of iTV (IMO) seems too high for the functionality it delivers. Until then, I will stick with my 30-dollar cable, which, incidentally, allows me to watch anything on the TV screen, including DVDs etc, without tying me to iTunes contents.
I ordered an TV instead of buy a Mac Mini. I had planned to use the Mini with an ETV as a DVR and a music server but choose to spend $300 less on Apple TV and do the same. My G4 tower which has plenty of hard drive storage does the recording upstairs in my office and soon will stream recorded TV shows and music to my main TV and audio system. The only downside that I can see is the need to convert EyeTV programs into MPEG 4 or H.264. MPEG 4 does not look as good H.264. But H.264 takes forever to encode at 640 x 480.
TV instead of buy a Mac Mini. I had planned to use the Mini with an ETV as a DVR and a music server but choose to spend $300 less on Apple TV and do the same. My G4 tower which has plenty of hard drive storage does the recording upstairs in my office and soon will stream recorded TV shows and music to my main TV and audio system. The only downside that I can see is the need to convert EyeTV programs into MPEG 4 or H.264. MPEG 4 does not look as good H.264. But H.264 takes forever to encode at 640 x 480.
Because, as others have alluded, if you have a surround receiver, a universal remote, or have already set the preferred volume on your TV speakers, the Apple remote would be useless. Having two variable volume controls would be unnecessarily redundant.
Funny you should say that. My DVD players do have separate volume controls (which I of course never use, except for the one that's been reprogrammed to control that TV as well).
I wouldn't call it a low-end device at $299. There are lots of people who will pay more for something that does a few things well rather than buying something cheaper that does a lot of things only acceptably. Sort of like the $30 blenders that have food processor attachments--they don't blend as well as $100 blenders, and they don't do the processing part as well as even $40 food processors. To each his own, though.
The problem isn't one of connection type--it's one of resolution. If the UI doesn't support analog 640x480 (or 720x480 or the PAL equivalents), then they need to find a way to cut out TVs which would provide suboptimal performance or would refuse to display anything at all. Since it requires a digital TV (or at the very least, one with a DAC attached to the component inputs for digital sources), there's no reason to assume that it degrades its output to analog in any format.
Or they just decided not to waste time supporting analog output given that analog TV will be killed forever in 2009. Sooner or later everyone will have to buy a new TV or an ATSC box with an adapter--there's no need to support a dying market of old technology. Apple has never been one for legacy support; they cut the cord when the market is about to move.
1080P support....
.....for all those that think 1080p is necessary. Here's some fact finding.TV is a new way to watch multimedia content. Most media is not in 1080p at all. Only a very tiny share of the market (HD-DVD and BluRay). 1080p is not part of the broadcast standard at all, so (even worldwide) it will not be supported for a long, long time. 720p for movies is great, a big step of from 480p, and can reach mass market fast if Apple would allow downloads in 720p. It is supported by ALL hdtv's in the market place. If you have Bluray or HD-DVD, for most HDTV's it will downgrade it back to 1080i, or 720/768p (NTSC/PAL). This is seperate from the argument that 1080p on TV's smaller than around 52" can't be noticed by alomst anyone. TV is made to bring iTunes to a large consumer base, 720p and 1080i (contrary to some, 1080i is supported according to Apple) is a perfect positioning. Again, it doesn't need to be niche, it doesn't need to be new, as long as it does the things it does easier and more simple than anything else. (They learned that with the iPod success).
.....for all those that think 1080p is necessary. Here's some fact finding.
TV is a new way to watch multimedia content. Most media is not in 1080p at all. Only a very tiny share of the market (HD-DVD and BluRay). 1080p is not part of the broadcast standard at all, so (even worldwide) it will not be supported for a long, long time. 720p for movies is great, a big step of from 480p, and can reach mass market fast if Apple would allow downloads in 720p. It is supported by ALL hdtv's in the market place. If you have Bluray or HD-DVD, for most HDTV's it will downgrade it back to 1080i, or 720/768p (NTSC/PAL). This is seperate from the argument that 1080p on TV's smaller than around 52" can't be noticed by alomst anyone. TV is made to bring iTunes to a large consumer base, 720p and 1080i (contrary to some, 1080i is supported according to Apple) is a perfect positioning. Again, it doesn't need to be niche, it doesn't need to be new, as long as it does the things it does easier and more simple than anything else. (They learned that with the iPod success).Yes. Personally I cannot wait to spend a month ripping a shelf-full of DVDs just to be able to stream the content wirelessly (as opposed to the serious trouble of moving the disc around in my hand) with STEREO AUDIO and NO SUBTITLES. How's that for an option?
So, the best that you can say is that the iTV won't be obsolete until next year?
I think a lot of people are disappointed that Apple is releasing a new product line, and the first instance is clearly short of state of the art. They expect Apple to lead, not follow. (There are 1080 media center extenders on the market already.)
Yes. Personally I cannot wait to spend a month ripping a shelf-full of DVDs just to be able to stream the content wirelessly (as opposed to the serious trouble of moving the disc around in my hand) with STEREO AUDIO and NO SUBTITLES. How's that for an option?
I never understand people who want to Handbrake their DVDs, let alone their entire DVD collection. I love movies enough to give them my undivided attention for two hours, enjoying them in front of large TV and surround sound, and for that, Handbraking seems totally unnecessary.
How about watching movies on iPod or laptop? No thanks. I have better ways to entertain myself than watching a movie while on the road.
Wish I had an excuse to buy one, but as I only live in one room, and that room is tiny, the 24" iMac makes for more sense for me as a media centre (or a Mac Pro when/if it gets Front Row). But given the option, I can't help but think I'd just fork out the extra £100 quid for a Mini and have all the extra functionality instead
Over 80% of Plasma televisions sold lack the ability to run native 1080i content, and this trend will continue as the prices for 1080i plasmas and LCD's far outpace those which only support 720p, with a few notable exceptions, i.e. the Hitachi Ultravision series. The difference between 720p and 1080i/p is not terribly noticable, I have a 1080p Pioneer Unit, and both resolutions look phenomenal.
Regardless, I don't really understand the limitations placed on the AppleTV, as Apple would make much more money selling Hardware than content and the state the box is in right now seems to be more designed to push the purchase of iTunes content. Although, I don't think it only streams iTMS content, maybe live streaming, but it will read any media that can be catalogued in iTunes, of course, if you use custom QT components to play file formats like OGG and FLAC, you're out of luck as the AppleTV only has the standard fair of codecs.