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 Shipping Tuesday, March 20th?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When you are sitting 6-7 feet away, does it matter?
The image is blurry, but that is due to the scaler using a very 'soft' method of stretching (I think it is a simple variant on bilinear filtering, which is cheap to do in hardware). The more the image stretches, the softer the image, but if you don't stretch as much, then the image isn't as soft.
Also, you can do tricks to avoid scaling, such as placing the extra pixels behind the TV's bezel, and only scaling to 1280x720 sources that aren't already 720p. What this does is get the cheaper panel, while at the same time avoiding the use of scaling for 720p material.
So, even with lots of manufacturers sometimes using the exact same panel in the TV, the TV quality can vary depending on what scaler chip they use, and how they put together the TV itself.
It also depends on what the AppleTV can handle.
This, from http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html, doesn't tell us much.
However, the Australian Apple store says:
http://www.apple.com/au/appletv/specs.html
Note: I've put in the line breaks... hard to tell where each spec ends.
Now, the Aussie site simply doesn't mention 720p. I don't know why. But if 640x480 is limited to 1.5Mbps, a similar limitation would be horrendous for 720p (it'd really only be good quality for slide shows!). Apple's 720p movie trailers are at approx. 6.5Mbps.
Anyone know how accurate the bitrate figures above are? or have an update on those figures from somewhere else?
That's exactly what I say to the 1080P gear heads. If you can't see the pixels on a 720P set, isn't it good enough?When you are sitting 6-7 feet away, does it matter?
That's exactly what I say to the 1080P gear heads. If you can't see the pixels on a 720P set, isn't it good enough?
Hey, I am one of those people with a 1080p panel.
Granted, mine is rather large, and I do see the difference between a 720p broadcast, and a 1080i broadcast with it... but I also like using it as a large PC monitor (very sharp display) when playing WoW.
Oops.
I don't disagree with the statement that "720p is good enough" though. For me, I would not buy a 1080p panel smaller than about 40", as it is a waste.
Apple Australia Shipping Dates Updated
Not sure if someone has already posted, however the online Australia Apple Store has changed it's shipping date from "Mid March" to "5-7 Bus Days"....
Not sure if someone has already posted, however the online Australia Apple Store has changed it's shipping date from "Mid March" to "5-7 Bus Days"....
1) Slingbox and other streaming media systems CAN play DVD movies on Media Center PC wirelessly, so it wouldn't be a stretch to incorporate iDVD to play wirelessly through
TV, just a matter of software.2) This isn't about MONEY, but simplification. Eliminating a top set DVD unit from your home entertainment system and utilizing the DVD player on a Mac or PC would make perfect sense, especially as internal Blu-ray DVD drives are currently available on the market for much less than stand alone top sets.
3) As I (and generally most movie lovers) have hundreds of DVD's, it would be a great deal of HD space. Currently I have about 1000+ DVD's in my collection stored in Case Logic books. If the point of ripping your movie collection is to have instant access to them wirelessly from your Mac or PC, then it would be a lot of physical HD space to have an entire collection at your instant fingertips. 1,000 DVD's would translate to at LEAST 4,000 gig. As a 750 gig Seagate Ultra (not Serial) ATA drive is roughly $400 at Bestbuy, you're talking at least $1,000 JUST for movie storage. Doesn't make much sense (not to mention the hours in ripping DVD's). Why would I want to rip hundred's if not thousands of DVD's onto a hard drive, then spend more time compressing them so they fit and quite possibly losing quality in compression?
In the end, it would make PERFECT sense to allow live wireless streaming of DVD's and Blu-ray DVD's through a unit such as
TV to a HDTV. As Jobs always states, it's about simplicity. The point is to make the Mac the ENTERTAINMENT CENTER. By definition, an ENTERTAINMENT CENTER should play music, movies, etc. to any TV/Media receiver. Would it not make sense to elimimate redundant equipment such as a top set DVD player next to an HDTV and only have an TV with an AVR?FURTHER, would it not make perfect sense to have the
TV built in with a DVR, thus eliminating the cable box altogether? Assuming your HDTV has a Cable Card slot (which most HDTV's have since 2005), you wouldn't need a Cable Box unless you're using it's digital video recording capabilities. If the TV had that, then you would only need the TV and a good AVR next to your television, thus eliminating all that extra equipment. Again, simplicity right?Think different.
Is this Whitney? You on crack again gurl? lol
Um, yeah, and that cost you HOW much? I googled prices for a 2 Trillion byte HD, they start at about $1,000. As I have WELL over 1,000 DVD's in five case logic books, it would cost me a hell of a lot of money (and time in ripping). Pointless...
Um, yeah, and that cost you HOW much? I googled prices for a 2 Trillion byte HD, they start at about $1,000. As I have WELL over 1,000 DVD's in five case logic books, it would cost me a hell of a lot of money (and time in ripping). Pointless...
Hey, I am one of those people with a 1080p panel.
Granted, mine is rather large, and I do see the difference between a 720p broadcast, and a 1080i broadcast with it... but I also like using it as a large PC monitor (very sharp display) when playing WoW.
Ditto on that. I just dropped $10,000 on a Pioneer Pro Elite 1080P 50" Monitor (and got a second Pioneer 720P 50" for free during a promotion Pioneer had through this month). What sold me was watching "Ice Age 2: The Melt Down" in 1080P High Def. When 2 million pixels are coming at you, believe me, it makes a difference. Plus the monitor just looks like sex
.
Ditto on that. I just dropped $10,000 on a Pioneer Pro Elite 1080P 50" Monitor (and got a second Pioneer 720P 50" for free during a promotion Pioneer had through this month). What sold me was watching "Ice Age 2: The Melt Down" in 1080P High Def. When 2 million pixels are coming at you, believe me, it makes a difference. Plus the monitor just looks like sex
you pay a lot for sex...
someone over on the apple support discussion forums has reported that they have received their shipping notice w/ delivery by march 22, he reported that he ordered w standard shipping.
this is a good sign.
this is a good sign.
What about the SONY Blu-ray internal DVD drives already on the market? I have seen them at Bestbuy for roughly $699...
Wouldn't having a unit such as
TV that allows wireless streaming of DVD's and Blu-ray DVD's as well as iTunes content, a built in DVR to replace set top Cable Boxes with HDTV's that have Cable Card capability AND how about a DVI output for wireless Mac/PC monitor use, allowing your HDTV to become your Mac Desktop???1) Wirelessly play DVD's (and Blu-ray DVD's) from your Mac/PC
2) Wirelessly stream iTunes content to HDTV (including Music eliminating Airport Express stations)
3) Wireless Mac Desktop on HDTV through a DVI port
4) DVR capability of television content, eliminating Cable Boxes for HDTV's with Cable Card capability
This would allow the Mac/PC to become the entertainment hub of the home, eliminating DVD players and Cable Boxes with the only need of an
TV and a good AVR surround sound system and HDTV. So simple.
FURTHER, would it not make perfect sense to have the
Think different.
Think different(ly)... indeed...
Now, tell me again why I want a DVR if I can get on-demand content a-la carte without paying for 900 channels of BS out of which I maybe watch 2-3 programs a day, if that?
DVR's have very low market penetration for several reasons. One of these is the atrocious user interface of most DVR's. Say what you will about technological illiteracy but I'm a techno-junkie and frankly I find the design of most DVR UI's ergonomically inept.
Again... I'll say this: If I can buy whatever content I want, and leave the rest, why do I need a DVR? Now think about this carefully... because it's a loaded question...
Some will respond that they want to be able to catch the programming on their cable subscription.
Yet others will argue that they like the ability to record multiple programs off the subscription service for which they're paying a sizable fee.
Even still, others will rationalize that they don't want to ditch cable/dish because there's a wide range of programming across which they can surf.
If I can order the programs I want, watch them when I want, and store and access them on a system more powerful than any DVR in existence, a system that most consumers already have in their homes (it's called a computer)... why do I even need cable/dish?
The problem here should be obvious... people are trying to find reasons to rationalize a bad business model upon which they've become hopelessly (and mindlessly, some might argue) dependent without realizing they can throw out the baby AND the bathwater in this case.
The DVR is really a band-aid solution by the industry to try to fill the demand for what it is market surveys show that consumers really want... Instant access to programming of their choice. The interesting thing about the DVR is that it's the industry's way of trying to put a band aid over your eyes... in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you won't come to the glaringly obvious realization that you don't need to subscribe to 900 channels of crap.
And the DVR is failing because consumers, as dumb as they can be, do not live in a vacuum.
The big difference between AppleTV and previous efforts to launch solutions that bridge the average consumers existing computer network seamlessly with their living room isn't just the ease of set up/installation, or the user interface... It's the fact that Apple really believes in this product.
I have been waiting for tomorrow for at least ten years since I first wrote a research paper on the future of internet distribution of audio and video content. Apple understands that this is a huge revolution and they're treating it like one.
When the Media Center PC was launched... I don't remember much hype at all about it. It was sort of a "me too" add-on thrown out there to say "yeah you want to do this... ok" *slap-tape-nail-drill* "Here."
Apple has done their homework and timed the introduction of AppleTV so perfectly it would almost be absolute genius how they predicted the timing of technological convergence... that is, if they weren't the ones largely responsible for driving it.
Step by step Apple has been taking the hub strategy to heart... Instead of a "me too" product they've been driving the standardization of almost every essential component of technological convergence. To wit, here's a list of products they either invented and/or first made standard and where they fit in the historical evolution of the hub strategy that Apple themselves didn't seem to understsand until Steve Jobs came back, wrangled it in and gave a sense of direction:
0. Quicktime - 16-bit audio and 8-bit video support
1. Ethernet - facilitates network communication with the hub
2. CD-ROM - multimedia input/output
3. Newton - Flirtation with disaster? or Flirtation with appliances?
4. Firewire - audio/video/image
5. USB - audio/video/image
6. iMac - reintroducing consumers to the idiot-proof all-in-one
7. iTunes - Music
8. iPhoto - Images
9. iMovie - Movies
10. iDVD - Videos
11. iPod - Take 7 through 10 with you!
12. iPhone - 11 + some of 6 + wi-fi = Insane greatness to-go (now with multitouch!)
13. AppleTV - Harnesses 0, 1, 7-10
14. Mobile Mac - Take all of the above anywhere
This list may be missing a few things (e.g. core audio, core image, etc. ) but, really, need I say more?
You're not the general public, and as such most individuals do not mind paying for services. Generally speaking, there are still millions of individuals who do not have internet access and/or iTunes accounts with which to purchase such content. Choices are made based primarily on what is presented to the main stream customer.
You've completely missed my point. DVR capability was only ONE of the points I added (last minute), mostly because there are individuals who still record TV shows with DVR's. The success of TiVo is a perfect example of this fact.
While I agree that Apple is looking towards the future with internet television/movie content (I have much faith in that direction for many reasons, one of which is buying decent quality content without the endless commercials), the general public still rents and/or owns DVR boxes with their service and would like the use of such included in new technology.
My point was simplification. A device that has capabilities that would satisfy EVERYONE'S needs would be perfect for the present time. Steve Jobs seems to portray a growing sense of simplicity in the Apple product line. The
TV seems to be just another hardware addition to an already growing stack of media players in most individuals homes. A device that could take the place of top set DVD players and cable boxes would simplify home entertainment. Taking it one step further by utilizing DVI output's would allow HDTV's to become wireless monitors. My 50" Pioneer Elite Pro has a DVI port built into the back for PC use, why not wirelessly stream desktops as well?Further, you are making quite a jump by assuming the average consumer will be willing to throw away their DVD collection and strictly use internet content by blithely dismissing DVR units. When wireless technology becomes the mainstream with faster and more effecient connectivity and available online content then certainly cable television may become obsolete. Presently, it would be a huge mistake to assume that multi-billion dollar companies such as Time Warner and TiVo are wrong in investing in digital cable television. It will be years before internet content becomes the mainstream. Until then, cable boxes and DVR units are very much important to the general consumer.
Think Different indeed (and thanks for the grammar check, I realize the PROPER english is DIFFERENTLY), but that is not what Apple intended by using Different. Apple suggests "Think Different" not "Differently". Arrogrance is alive and well, eh kiddies?
I agree with most of your post. There is one issue that you miss.
Consumers, in general, do not want to spend more than they currently spend. Naturally if something gives them considerable benefit that they weren't getting before, it becomes appealing to them.
That said, the iTunes model of purchasing all your content is far too expensive for regular TV viewing. I notice that you haven't spoken about costs in your extensive post - and technologically I'm with you 100%.
The question becomes - how can Apple lower the cost of watching a TV show? The options, as I see them, are
1) Rental
2) Subscription
3) DVR integration (FTA only)
4) DVR integration (cable/satellite)
Most of the shows I watch are FTA. If I could record them (free), + purchase the series I watch on cable & purchase some movies, I think it'd be a similar cost to my payTV bill.
I would argue that the sorts of people that you are talking about here isn't the current target of the Apple TV. Here, Apple has an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of that future you see, and they want to show the infrastructure is in place. I see the Apple TV as it is now as the iPod was when it first came out. It didn't meet the needs of the average consumer that existed, but now it does because the average consumer has changed.
Sometimes, a company is better at showing you how it /could/ be, rather than trying to show you that they have what you thought you wanted.
I am getting an Apple TV because I am getting used to the idea of how it could be, and I like where it is heading... (and I have a chance to archive my DVD collection while I am at it, because of my geekery) When the content comes, I will be waiting gladly for it, since Comcast is pissing me off to no end right now. :/
I did the number crunching (for US customers in my area anyways), this route would let me subscribe to about 24-28 TV shows a year (36-40$ US) outside what is available FTA versus my current Comcast bill for digital cable. That is a lot of TV...
I hear you on that. When I lived in NYC, I had Time Warner and paid roughly $80/month for everything. That included high speed earthlink at $29/mo and cable TV with everything, HD, Showtime/HBO - you name it. When I moved upstate to Rochester, NY for a bit, the comparable service for Time Warner is close to $150/mo. That's insane. Of course, when I asked them why my bills for the same exact services in the same exact company were so different, it came down to competition. NYC has Comcast and RCN, the only alternatives in upstate NY are DirectTV through phone companies such as Frontier. That's when I decided basic cable was fine as HD channels are legally required to be broadcast through basic digital cable. I don't buy shows through iTunes though, I usually use torrents and download them through other (free) online services.
In 2003, 61 percent of households had a computer compared with 42 percent in 1998. From 2002 to 2003, broadband internet usage increased 50 percent from 26 to 39 million with projected usage of over 60 million by 2008. 2006 broadband usage rose to 42 million lines up from 32 million in the previous year, a ten
From 2000 to 2005, overall internet usage rose from 44% of the US population to 68%... tracking pretty closely with overall household ownership of computers.
Say what you will about the size of the market, but because of the niche that Apple's catering to, and the disposable income possessed by Apple's demographic, there are strong opportunities ahead. ThinkEquity analysts value the opportunities for AppleTV at $5 to $11 billion, roughly an increase of one quarter to one half over Apple's existing revenue.
By what stretch of the imagination are you calling them a success? Or are you just perceiving this without any hard figures?
TiVo went from positive to negative cash flow and has posted net losses for three consecutive years... posting higher net losses in 2006 than in 2004.
During this same period, Apple has tremendous positive cash flow relative to their size -- $2.9 billion in FY06; and they have posted net profits for more than three straight years.
Consumers are not picking up DVR's in droves... Most of the users of DVRs are cable/dish subscribers whose providers rent the equipment, but if given a choice consumers have identified a-la carte, on demand, internet-downloadable programming as one of their most highly desired products/services this year.
5) Not make you subsidize the 9 billion hours of programming you don't watch for the five to ten hours of programming a week you DO watch.
There's no reason you can't... but the point is that AppleTV is not the device to do this. Your computer is, and there are plenty of third-party solutions to add this functionality to your setup.
The biggest thing lacking in the equation is not these myriad features/benefits but the actual purposeful, smartly integrated and easy-to-use bridging of computer hardware with home entertainment hardware.
Apple may even grow other features around AppleTV but the place for those features is iTunes, not AppleTV.
Ever since they figured out how to drive a flicker-free cursor in software (which baffled Microsoft for another ten years), Apple have been the masters of knowing exactly where to stick features and how to prioritize them.
But first they need to address the technological gap between the computer and the TV... Because this has not been properly addressed with a viable solution. By keeping other features and specificity OUT of AppleTV, it makes AppleTV more useful.
How? Modular industrial design allows value to be added to the product at its endpoints... just as the value of the internet is not in the internet itself, but at its endpoints. As a financial analyst for one of the largest Tier 1 providers, I'll tell you that the greatest value the internet has to offer is by being a dumb network that does not prioritize any particular kind of content. Being the conduit is where the HUGE money is because you're allowing other more agile and diverse entities incur the fixed and variable costs of bringing feature-rich services and content to market that ultimately require your conduit.
This is precisely the genius of AppleTV. By not prioritizing it for any one service or feature, it is capable of bridging all kinds of features that can be facilitated at the endpoints.
Maybe some consumers don't want a 40 inch LCD... maybe I want a 70 inch Sony SXRD XBR LCoS display. Maybe some consumers don't want DiVX, DVR or subscription-based IPTV.
Most companies business models are predicated on products that do fifteen things badly, rather than doing one thing superbly. Apple's core competency is the latter. For them to do otherwise would mean annihilating the brand equity they've regained since 1997.
Don't believe me? Dig up the Harvard Business Review case study of Nicholas Hayek's resurrection of the Omega Watch Co. which at one point had diluted itself with too many watch lines at too broad a price range. Hayek eliminated the confusion and refocused the brand on high quality Swiss chronometers and spun their lower lines into a different business unit (you may have heard of them... Swatch).
To that end, Apple is indeed addressing the "everything else" market with their Mobile Mac business unit that will have some fantastic mobile computing devices coming out in the next three years that will demonstrate that they took "computer" out of their name not because they plan on making toasters and electric toothbrushes... but because while iPhone, iPod and AppleTV are essentially computers, Apple has redefined how we use this technology to the point where "computer" is no longer a useful term to describe it.
Ok, breeeaaaath. I'm seriously not going to waste my time digging up corporate financial statistics/reports for Time Warner and TiVo to prove any point I have made about DVR and Cable Television subscription/viewership. I think people take things waaaaayyy to personally on these boards sometimes and forget that THIS IS ABOUT A COMPANY THAT NEITHER OF US OWN. Who really cares in the end? My simple statement would be things "I" would like to have seen included in
TV. I didn't make any outlandish standments or personal attacks on any one, so I think some of you need to relax a little and realize the world will continue with or without TV.
Obviously. But for sake of argument, the numbers I presented are from Tivo's corporate statements.
I think people take things waaaaayyy to personally on these boards sometimes and forget that THIS IS ABOUT A COMPANY THAT NEITHER OF US OWN. Who really cares in the end? My simple statement would be things "I" would like to have seen included in
I didn't make a single personal attack. I don't have any need to. It's not you I'm interested in dismantling... it's your argument, which I dissociate from you just as I dissociate myself from my argument (as soon as I walk away from this keyboard I'll have forgotten this debate, and hopefully so will you have).
But to put a point on it... I'm a financial analyst, and a person who loves to deconstruct arguments just as I break down numbers. I simply find your statement completely incongruous with the financials.
I am passionate about technology just as I am passionate about evolutionary biology, and while I don't care what you stand behind after you leave a discussion (I'm not interested in changing your mind) I am interested in arguing one's case on the basis of the facts.
What I find lacking in your argument are the facts to substantiate your assertions.
You can confuse that for a personal attack if you like... but I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling your argument lacking.