Except that the Apple web page for the AppleTV states that the ONLY requirement of the TV is that it is WIDESCREEN. All of this talk about analog/digital doesn't matter. It's all about one thing: 16:9 vs. 4:3.
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
Except that the Apple web page for the AppleTV states that the ONLY requirement of the TV is that it is WIDESCREEN. All of this talk about analog/digital doesn't matter. It's all about one thing: 16:9 vs. 4:3.
I have a 1080p LCD flatpanel. I downloaded 1080p and 720p trailers from apple. I had a macmini hooked up to the tv via HDMI at 1080p and 720p and VGA at 720p.
I tested out all of the combinations of source content and connection types. From my observations, the single factor that makes the most difference is the resolution of the SOURCE. Which basically means 1080p content looked a lot better. 1080p content is the way to go, whether you are displaying it on a 1080p display or 720p display.
As it is, the thing's pretty cool, but not really up to what I'd hoped for from all the hype. But then again, it's rare that the actual Apple product lives up to the rumors and hype, just because there's so much speculation going on. Though... lack of DVR functionality and other such things kinda kills it for me at its price, considering I can build a basic HTPC for about the same cost.
What does interest me, and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, is what it will become once it gets reverse engineered. I mean, hell, even the Xbox has been turned into a pretty serious media center, and from the specs on the Apple box I think the hardware is capable of a lot more than that. And if it is indeed running a modified OSX as the article says, which would imply that it's mostly software limited, it prolly won't take too long before someone comes up with a way to enable all sorts of unofficial features.
And I sure wouldn't mind having a tiny media center/DVR/whatever for $299, even if it is unsupported. But of course, this is all just hypothetical, and I wouldn't actually condone such a thing happening in the next couple months, and I wouldn't immediately rush out to buy one just because they were hackable.
What does interest me, and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, is what it will become once it gets reverse engineered. I mean, hell, even the Xbox has been turned into a pretty serious media center, and from the specs on the Apple box I think the hardware is capable of a lot more than that. And if it is indeed running a modified OSX as the article says, which would imply that it's mostly software limited, it prolly won't take too long before someone comes up with a way to enable all sorts of unofficial features.
And I sure wouldn't mind having a tiny media center/DVR/whatever for $299, even if it is unsupported. But of course, this is all just hypothetical, and I wouldn't actually condone such a thing happening in the next couple months, and I wouldn't immediately rush out to buy one just because they were hackable.
Agreed with earlier post, the Apple tiny remote is decent for a laptop. But NOT for a home theater, more like a joke. "Hey, we have this mini remote already made for laptops, let's just toss it in the box to make it sound like a better deal. Ok!"
More evidence that this box is just a thrown-together, overhyped, and very poorly planned and executed piece of junk.
Get a grip... if Apple expects to sell a device that can't in any way REPLACE one of the TOP 3 connection grabbers (cable-box, DVD & game box) then it certainly IS up to Apple to design an EASY way to CONNECT AND USE their new 'connection grabber'.
You say a switcher... (HA YOU MUST NOT BE MARRIED!)
Okay lets add a switcher to the mix...
$299 Apple TV
$150 Switcher (yea you can go real cheap (ala monoprice) but then you run into HDCP compatibility issues) oh and if you want a remote controllable switcher that works reliably expect to pay even more.
$30 extra cables (needed for the switch)
I'm getting near 500 but okay...
1 - pick what device you want to remove from the TV
2 - Connect the switcher
3 - Connect removed device to the switcher.
4 - Connect the AppleTV to the switcher.
Lets assume we don't have an HDCP issues.
Now lets explain to your wife / mom how to get the AppleTV on the TV screen.
1 - Turn on the TV with the TVs remote controller
1a - Turn on the switcher (if required) you may have to get up if its a manual switcher.
1c - Turn on the AppleTV using the AppleTV remote
Don't worry mom you probably won't see or hear the AppleTV but instead you'll either have a blue screen or maybe the DVD screen or maybe the cablebox screen (you'll see whatever the unit was last used for)
2 - put down the AppleTV remote and use the TVs remote control to select input # (whatever number you connected the swichbox to)
3 - put down the TV remote and walk over to the switch box or use the switch-box remote and select input # (whatever you connected the AppleTV to)
If all goes well you should now see the AppleTV menu screen and can return to using the AppleTV remote to play any iTunes video you purchased.
Oh yea if the TV is to loud (or soft) you'll need to find that TV remote again and use the volume buttons on that remote)
Sure this work out just fine!
SO FREAKIN APPLE ELEGANT IT ALMOST SCARRY!!!!
Dave
P.S. Any before you say 'universal remote' you've got two choices the first being a cheap remote that just as complex to use and explain that you'd of been better off just using ALL of the existing remotes you were trying to replace... The second being a really well done universal remote with a nice clean and bright LCD touch screen... Now you wanna tell me how much more THAT it gonna cost the potential AppleTV buyer - if you say anything under 200 bucks you're just kidding yourself...
Don't be a goof!
What Apple NEEDED TO DO was make it so a user could REPLACE AN EXISTING DEVICE that was already using one of those valuable and it would seem limited connections.
How about throwing a dvd player in the freakin thing so I could replace my up-converting DVD player (problem solved) and for an 'upgraded unit for a few extra bucks' they could throw in a DVD-R so people could then replace any existing DVD recorder.
Why don't you list for me home many successful devices that require a quality connection to your HDTV. HD/BR etc DVD Player/recorder, Cable Box or TiVO & A game system.
Thats pretty much it - DVD, CABLE & GAME so TV makers have in most cases built TVs with 3 or 4 HD inputs (at the most)...
Now Apple rolls out a new box that can't in any way replace the functionality of any of the 'top 3 device categories' and yet they expect for it to be a success???
Apple shoulda thought this one out just a wee bit more...
Dave
Oh, but I'm a total goof. Everybody knows that.
rolleyes: yourself!) You're still expecting Apple to solve an industry-wide problem, which is quite out of their reach. If an HDTV owner feels the need to own every video toy available, including the Apple TV, and hook all of them up to the TV simultaneously, then there's nothing Apple can do about it. Even the TV manufacturers can't do much to help a person who demands 6, 7 or ten inputs. Yes, a person might even have to make a choice. Big deal!
And this sucks. they should give free this box for play their content on my tv. m·nop·o·ly
LOL
Totally agree! Seriously guys, what does the CUSTOMER gain from buying an iTV? Absolutely nothing. It's a total sham. You're buying a very expensive box that basically does nothing but a slimmed down Remote-Desktop connection to play Apple's hugely overpriced content. Even more than getting an iTV for free, Apple should be paying us to use this thing.
It looks like a great product to me. I'd mostly be interested in getting my photos and music onto my TV, as well as video podcasts and episodes of TV shows that I currently download because they aren't aired in the UK at the same time as US (Lost, Heroes, etc). We don't even have an option of buying TV content on the iTMS here, and I still think the Apple TV is a good product.
To be honest, I think the Apple TV is a year or so ahead of it's time. A bit like the iPod was. Online distribution is THE future for media - all media. The actual mechanism of how you obtain that and watch it is what Apple are pioneering here. At some point, maybe sooner rather than later, all you media will be delivered down your broadband connection, and guess what : Apple will be the market leader in the kit that gets that media onto your TV, your computer, your iPod, your phone...
You know what, I think Apple TV is a great name. I wonder if we'll see the Apple Mac and the Apple Pod too ?
To be honest, I think the Apple TV is a year or so ahead of it's time. A bit like the iPod was. Online distribution is THE future for media - all media. The actual mechanism of how you obtain that and watch it is what Apple are pioneering here. At some point, maybe sooner rather than later, all you media will be delivered down your broadband connection, and guess what : Apple will be the market leader in the kit that gets that media onto your TV, your computer, your iPod, your phone...
You know what, I think Apple TV is a great name. I wonder if we'll see the Apple Mac and the Apple Pod too ?
Here are the things that keep me from getting this new gadget:
I want a box that will show me a menu of all available programming RIGHT NOW off the internet -- not what's in my iTunes on my PowerMac downstairs. I want to be able to tell it to show me the newest episode of Desperate Housewives RIGHT NOW, on demand, and I want to be able to do that with every program on every channel. Sort of like TiVO, but with instant availability off a server somewhere.
I think it's a cute idea, I just don't see why anyone would buy it to watch the few videos that are available through iTunes? And music -- who wants to listen to an AAC track on their home theater system? The negative effects of AAC or MP3 compression will be quite obvious, and ruin the experience -- this is not the case when listening to the same music using desktop speakers.
All in all, I think the AppleTV will be a big yawn.
- Lack of 1080p support
- No easy way to expand hard drive
- Installed base of video programming too small to make this compelling.
I want a box that will show me a menu of all available programming RIGHT NOW off the internet -- not what's in my iTunes on my PowerMac downstairs. I want to be able to tell it to show me the newest episode of Desperate Housewives RIGHT NOW, on demand, and I want to be able to do that with every program on every channel. Sort of like TiVO, but with instant availability off a server somewhere.
I think it's a cute idea, I just don't see why anyone would buy it to watch the few videos that are available through iTunes? And music -- who wants to listen to an AAC track on their home theater system? The negative effects of AAC or MP3 compression will be quite obvious, and ruin the experience -- this is not the case when listening to the same music using desktop speakers.
All in all, I think the AppleTV will be a big yawn.
I think Apple did the right thing. Everyone has a DVD player why replace something that works? When HD-DVD / Blu-Ray play out, people may buy one of those. People already have a DVR or Tivo (usually comes as an add on to Sat/Cable for the general population) , but the on-line content market from your TV is pretty much untapped.
A few have multimedia PC's or have built up home-brew solutions that are expensive and most likely difficult to use. Here's a cheap device that is geared toward bringing the internet to your TV, is reasonably priced, and something the general population can understand without being much more computer literate than they already are. Apple already has an infrastructure, this was the next logical step.
The only thing that hasn't happened yet is a Google video or Youtube delivery, which will probably happen at some point in the future. I'm sure the video content isn't as far along as they would have liked
I'm sure that if Thread 500 were unlocked, people would still be arguing on how successful the iPod will be, and complaining constantly about it.
In the end, the specs matter relatively little. What matters is how easy or not easy to use it is. People tend to want something simple, not something which can do everything. So it can't do 1080p - not many have that anyway - and it doesn't support a few formats which aren't supported by the iPod either. Big deal. If it "just works", as Apple things almost always do, the device will be a success.
That was why the iPod succeeded - not because of its features or specs, but because of how simple it was. Microsoft and other's things almost always don't (don't make me recount horrors of dealing with Windows, Linksys, etc.).
Now, one might ask, why has Windows succeeded where OS X has not? But this argument is invalid. Mac OS 9 and below was probably (in my opinion, from what I know about it, which is relatively little) not as good as Windows. This allowed Windows to get a user base, which is now really all Windows has going for it. Most people who argue for Windows being better than Mac (not all, necessarily) only do so because they don't use Macs and want to defend what they do use, or work for Microsoft.
Microsoft, however, has failed to get much of a user base with their "media extenders", (I think people find them a bit too difficult to use - if it is like networking anything else on Windows, they will) and therefore, Apple has an opportunity.
If there is any market for devices like "media extenders" and the AppleTV, and the AppleTV is as easy-to-use as it appears to be, then Apple will take that market.
The market for this kind of device would definitely exist if Apple did either or both of the following: allowed the AppleTV/iTunes to play VIDEO_TS folders, or put 720p movies on the iTunes store at a price equal to or not much more expensive than current prices for movies. If the first, everyone can put their library of DVDs onto their computer (much like they would do with CDs for the iPod). If the second, high-definition video will be available easier and cheaper than buying them in Bluray or HD-DVD.
If Apple does either of those, I think it is almost guaranteed success.
People always say that, and I think it's a lame defense of a product. The iPod was the first piece of technology in a new vein of products to be released by Apple. In fact, the only thing preceding the iPod was iTunes. When debuting the iPod Steve Jobs didn't really give any direction to it, but only said "it's going to be a real big hit."
TV WAS given a direction. We know exactly what it's for and who can use it. We know SO much more about the history of TV than we did about the iPod... because the iPod had no history. Well here it is: TV is basically an extension of the iTunes platform for your HDTV.I am not in the camp that says
TV sucks. I'm in the camp that says it isn't for me (yet). The iPod wasn't for me until 4G. I bought one and have been happily using it ever since. Someday I'm confident that TV will also be useful to me. It'll gain capabilities, become more user-friendly, so on and so forth, until one day I will say, "as soon as I replace this circa 1987 Mitsubishi TV, I'm'a buy one of these things."So anyway, the "iPod"/"500 thread" argument is not valid. We know where Apple is try to take us with
TV, whereas we didn't with the iPod. So there. Stop bringing that up.-Clive
LOL
Totally agree! Seriously guys, what does the CUSTOMER gain from buying an iTV? Absolutely nothing. It's a total sham. You're buying a very expensive box that basically does nothing but a slimmed down Remote-Desktop connection to play Apple's hugely overpriced content. Even more than getting an iTV for free, Apple should be paying us to use this thing.
I agree (to a point).
I gain nothing from this. I live in the UK and don't have a huge TV, but in the lounge is a huge 24" iMac. I will just watch things on there
I don't know why people don't just get a Mac mini. It does all this and more.
The ABSOLUTE last thing this device is dependent on is pay per view TV shows. They will have little bearing on success or failure.
Tivos and DVRs do it for free, so why should I pay Apple for it. Now I have paid for some archival stuff that was worth to me. At little more cost than the compiliation TV show DVDs that fly off the shelves. I pay it so I can watch it on flights etc.
Streaming music with a video interface is worth the price, iPhoto shows and movies will be close seconds.
Difference is we have 3 major connection grabber device types...
TV: Cable-box or TiVO or Satellite, TiVO is not unique since it connects INLINE with the cablebox or REPLACES the cablebox if you're talking about the T3.
MOVIE: Be in bluray, hd-dvd , up-converting std def dvd, dvd recorder.
GAME: Xbox, xbox360, PS2, PS3, etc etc etc...
Yea people can and sometimes do have multiples of each device category connected at the same time but it's not all THAT common and if it is then those buyers would be expected to deal with those connection issues.
For most people they either:
INLINE (in the case of TiVO) as in Cable-wire --> cable-box --> TiVO --> TV (only the last device is grabbing a connection)
OR
Replace as in move the upconverting dvd player to the kids room and then connect that uber-cool bluray player (that can play both br and sd dvds) or get rid of the dvd player and replace it with a DVDR.
Apple is totally out on the outs... Many people will be forced into paying for very complex and expensive (and unsupported by Apple) if they want to connect an AppleTV...
Either that or just dump your DVD or GAME or CABLE-BOX (yea this just isn't gonna happen)
Dave
I agree (to a point).
I gain nothing from this. I live in the UK and don't have a huge TV, but in the lounge is a huge 24" iMac. I will just watch things on there
I don't know why people don't just get a Mac mini. It does all this and more.
Two reasons why people don't just get Mac Minis: ease to set up and use, and price. I have no idea what cable's I'd need to use, I don't want to put a keyboard and mouse in my family room, and don't really feel like spending $600+.
With the AppleTV, it is easy to set up (supposedly), and very easy to use (supposedly), and I know exactly what cable I need - one HDMI cable. It costs only $299, which is similar to some other wireless streamers I believe, and has a simple remote.
I agree that you can't use the 500 thread as a defense of a product. But it does show that some people will bash a product for no apparent reason. If you think the AppleTV is not for you, that's fine. But there is no reason to say it "sucks" and is "useless" before it even arrives in anyones home! That is the big similarity to the 500 thread.
I think that the AppleTV is on the edge of a knife - stray but a little and it will fail, to the ruin of the device. If everyone used programs like Handbrake, there would be a very large market for it already. Apple needs to get people to put TONS of movies into iTunes somehow. If they do that, then the AppleTV will succeed. (Or, as someone pointed out, TV shows could help...)
It should, since it is making one single trip on the wireless. Using a G network I have connected two laptops one sharing itunes and the other sucking the movies from the other iTunes library and it seems to work fine. A few times we did notice that the voice and lips did not sync, but it was not frequent. Perfect for dup movies, they don't match either, LOL.
So Apple TV should have little problem with standard content over the G network. Larger videos (different flavos of HD) may really stress it so you may need the N network.
You want it to rub your feet during movies too? Don't blame a device for non-existent software options. Bet you want it to sell for $49.99 too.
Regarding music, you obviously know very little about lossless compression schemes that exist. Additionally, even on a VERY good system, a 512 AAC is difficult to discern from the original without a direct A to B comparison. For fun listening and browsing my entire music collection with constantly popping CDs in and out it is well worth it.
This thread has really disappointed me. I have coexisted peacefully with my Mac buddies here for years, but the ignorance displayed in this thread regarding HT is truly shocking.
Oh, but I'm a total goof. Everybody knows that.
You're still expecting Apple to solve an industry-wide problem, which is quite out of their reach. If an HDTV owner feels the need to own every video toy available, including the Apple TV, and hook all of them up to the TV simultaneously, then there's nothing Apple can do about it. Even the TV manufacturers can't do much to help a person who demands 6, 7 or ten inputs. Yes, a person might even have to make a choice. Big deal!
Gimme a break... Apple could have come up with something to make connecting the AppleTV easy, elegant and inexpensive... I'm no engineer but hows about a 'built in' HDCP compliant HDMI switcher so you can connect say.. Your DVD into the AppleTV and then the AppleTV gets to connect to the TV. If you wanna get really fancy it could even AUTO DETECT the video signal thats coming in from the DVD player and auto-switch to the DVD signal when present and back to the AppleTV signal when you turn the DVD player off (and the signal goes away).
Gee Mr. Wizard that sure sounds like MAGIC to ME!
Dave
So anyway, the "iPod"/"500 thread" argument is not valid. We know where Apple is try to take us with
Thread 500 isn't evidence for a product being good, but it IS valid evidence for MacRumors people shortsightedly bashing products they don't personally need and have never even tried
This is why I say the AppleTV is a niche product (for now), rather than a BAD product.I for one do NOT know where Apple is trying to take us with AppleTV. I find it a much more open-ended product than the iPod.
In the first second I heard that I thought it was kinda lame, but then I realized it's actually pretty smart. On many occasions I've checked out other people's media systems and wondered why the audio didn't sound as good as it should, then when I checked it out I found that they had one device's volume on 23 out of 25 and the other device on 2 out of 25 so that the audio was hissy. Having 2 volume controls in the same signal chain can cause serious degradation of sound quality unless you're really knowledgeable about audio hook ups. And if if you do know a lot about audio hook ups, it's still an unnecessary hassle.
Sorry Dave,
Not buying into your 3 box limit theory. Just doesn't hold water to me. Heck, I don't even have a game player in my system and I have twice as many devices.
Sounds good, however I think I will pass for now. Waiting a little longer for better HD tv's, More HD content, Rev 2 or 3 of Apple TV.
Its cute, but I can effortlesly wait, not loosing sleep over this, now Leopard is another matter.
Its cute, but I can effortlesly wait, not loosing sleep over this, now Leopard is another matter.
