Damn, in the time it took me to formulate my post, Evangellon said it all. I think there are many of us that think this way.
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 Specs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is it exactly. The inclusion of a DVD player (esp. an upconverting one) would have been a low-cost way to add quite a bit of functionality to the appleTV, and allow a lot of people to replace an existing device while gaining all the other neat features. In other words, it would put people who are just "considering" the appleTV firmly into the "get me one of those now" camp.
Other features (subscription service for movies) would really send me over the edge.
I don't need it to replace my DVR, though. That's a whole different set of features. Maybe down the road (as I mentioned) they could at least add streaming from your Tivo.
For me, the only thing holding off an iTV purchase is the question of how to watch legally-ripped DVDs from iTunes...someone above told me I would have to recode it to m4a or mov, something like that...
Question: how/where do I do that? Is there a quality loss from the DVD to the recoded file?
Last remark: people here are complaining about lack of 1080 support...how many people in the world REALLY need that in a 5-year timeframe? Less than 0.5% of the globe, trust me...HD TV is ways off in most of the world, including the developed countries...
Apple TV is nothing but a "DVD player" type device with streaming, and downloading support built-in. Is anyone complaining that a DVD player does not have a Core 2 Duo in it. That is absurd.
Here are the tasks for the Apple TV.
A 1 GHz Pentium M is plenty fast for the following tasks:
1) Handle an incoming stream from a computer or internet through ethernet or wireless.
2) Write to hard drive as fast as you can.
3) Generate Front Row interface
4) Hand over large chunks of data to the graphics processor as fast as you can.
5) Perform any audio decoding necessary and any picture decoding such as PNG, JPEG, GIF, etc.
6) Handle other OS features of Mac OS X Lite.
The NVdia graphics card is plenty fast for the following tasks:
1) Decode H.264 data (including 1280x720p) sent by the CPU
2) Decode MPEG4 data sent by the CPU
3) Render Front Row interface
4) Decode audio data (not sure if this is done by the CPU, other audio chip or by the graphics card) and send through HDMI as bitstream or send through optical audio output as bitstream or raw analog through stereo audio outputs
5) Decode JPEG and other picture formats sent by the CPU.
Remember these activities can be fine tuned and optimized since it is a pretty closed system. You will be amazed how much processing power is actually wasted on a desktop computer because of unoptimized code from various third party programs and compatibility.
DVD players are a dying breed and hopefully both BlueRay and HD-DVD will never mature. Would you rather upgrade a piece of equipment everytime the movie studios wish to make some more money from you. How many times can you rebuy the same movies?
Devices like Apple TV are actually media independent (like an iPod or a computer). There is no technical reason why the Apple TV will not support 1080P today.
What Apple needs is support from movie studios (who are now torn between BlueRay and HD-DVD). If Apple was able to outsell both of these formats (maybe Disney or Paramount will provide HD content to Apple) then ....
However there is another hurdle. Retail stores. Stores such as Best Buy and Walmart need hard media to fill their shelfs. If Apple manages to erode DVD sales (like they did with CD) and both BlueRay and DVD-HD die in child birth, then these stores will not have any product to sell.
I've been saying this for years, the day of hard media (45s, LPs, 8-Track, Cassettes, CD, LaserDisc, Beta, VHS, DVD, BlueRay, HD-DVD) are numbered!
the Mac Mini page is due for a refresh soon.
Maybe they will create the "Mac Mini Module" M^3
if they update the mini to work as a component in the 3M system (Mac Media Module) then it will be the brains in the apple tv/airport media hub. They could stack on top of one-another or "Dock" some how. the Mini could be the next iPod you know
Ha! now all we need is a "graphics blade" and we will have a semi mobile pc gaming media center
I think you may have something here..... I think we'll see.
Mac Mini... DVD player/recorder, DVR recorder, email and internet on a plasma TV, (wireless keyboard, and eyetv, ofcourse)
Airport extream.... able to send content and broadband to any 'puter in the house and the ability to be a media server if you a connected large external drive.
iTV... The box that pulls it all together and packages it with itunes for broadband movie purchase and rental. Possibly even going as far as getting into 'broadband/cable'... not the hardware, but greatly expanding the TV shows available now, so that some people will not even need cable as such, especially as more and more news and weather is podcasted.
All in one tidy cube shaped rack??? maybe even a clear, lucite cube???? Nahhhh couldn't be.... could it?
I think you're missing the point here. Apple is trying to create a simple consumer product. Not one that resembles a computer. If that was their goal then they would just used the Mac Mini. They want a product that looks like it belongs.
Let's face the facts, a computer in the living room is just plain ugly.
My own personal plan is to move all of my a/v equipment out of my living room and into a media closet (which is actually in a bathroom) and have all of my speakers put into walls and and ceilings. And the only component which will be visible will be the Elite Plasma over my fireplace (even that I'm planning on covering up with a cool mirror, which looks like a mirror when the TV is off and when the TV is on the picture shines through).
Well my TiVo uses something like 60mhz processor and it still works. It is amazing how much you can do on small amounts of horsepower when it is specialized for a task. Apple TV Specs are probably more then enough to do what it was designed to do with a few software upgrades along the way.
Nobody complains that there aren't enough complaints.
Oh wait, I guess that's not true. When people accuse others of automatically defending Apple and its products, that's complaining that they don't complain enough.
Bah Humbug
I wish I knew where this rumor started. How can 720 lines of resolution be better than 1080? I mean, 1080 is a higher number than 720, right? Just because 1080i is interlaced doesn't mean it's the resolution equivalent of 540p. 1080i is the same resolution as 1080p, it's just the way the lines are scanned that's different.
Interlaced scan systems have been around since the dawn of TV, this is nothing new. In fact, most HD content (outside of Fox HD) is captured as interlaced video.
The only practical benefit progressive scan video offers is smoother, more fluid motion from film-based sources. That's it. No extra colors, or magical pixel pixies. Unicorns don't fly out of 1080p XBR TV's, nor is there much of anything out there in 1080p in the first place (nor will there be in the near future, save BluRay or HD-DVD).
And as for the topic at hand... as so many others have said, I don't care about the Apple TV specs, the GPU doesn't bother me, nor does the amount of HD space. What really gets my goat is how limited the list of files supported seems to be.
I really, really want to love this thing. I want to want one -- I'm trying to find reasons to talk myself into buying one. The problem is, everything I want to watch is Divx or Xvid or something like that. Now, I don't want to get into the moral/legal/ethical ramifications of this, but I just imagine that most folks that want to watch digital video content on their HD tv's want to watch their non-iTunes content.
I don't want a replacement for my DVD player -- my Pioneer Elite does a better job than any Apple-branded upconvert could ever do. I don't want a DVR replacement -- it might be expensive, but my Time-Warner issued HD DVR integrates very tightly with their programming schedule, and if the thing every flips its wig, it'll do it on Time Warner's dime. All I want is a simple path from my computer to my TV so I can watch my downloaded HD episodes of Dexter, or listen to my DRM'd music without having to navigate my receiver's clunky iPod interface. I thought the Apple TV would have been a great solution, but it just seems like it's going to be a slightly less-clunky, low-res, limited file format iPod.
I'd hold out hope that Apple will support other video codecs, but I get the sneaking feeling this is going to remain a very closed loop. Not that I'm necessarily complaining, mind you, but I'm still a little bit disappointed that it's not exactly what I imagined it to be.
I wish I knew where this rumor started. How can 720 lines of resolution be better than 1080? I mean, 1080 is a higher number than 720, right? Just because 1080i is interlaced doesn't mean it's the resolution equivalent of 540p. 1080i is the same resolution as 1080p, it's just the way the lines are scanned that's different.
Interlaced scan systems have been around since the dawn of TV, this is nothing new. In fact, most HD content (outside of Fox HD) is captured as interlaced video.
The only practical benefit progressive scan video offers is smoother, more fluid motion from film-based sources. That's it. No extra colors, or magical pixel pixies. Unicorns don't fly out of 1080p XBR TV's, nor is there much of anything out there in 1080p in the first place (nor will there be in the near future, save BluRay or HD-DVD).
And as for the topic at hand... as so many others have said, I don't care about the Apple TV specs, the GPU doesn't bother me, nor does the amount of HD space. What really gets my goat is how limited the list of files supported seems to be.
I really, really want to love this thing. I want to want one -- I'm trying to find reasons to talk myself into buying one. The problem is, everything I want to watch is Divx or Xvid or something like that. Now, I don't want to get into the moral/legal/ethical ramifications of this, but I just imagine that most folks that want to watch digital video content on their HD tv's want to watch their non-iTunes content.
I don't want a replacement for my DVD player -- my Pioneer Elite does a better job than any Apple-branded upconvert could ever do. I don't want a DVR replacement -- it might be expensive, but my Time-Warner issued HD DVR integrates very tightly with their programming schedule, and if the thing every flips its wig, it'll do it on Time Warner's dime. All I want is a simple path from my computer to my TV so I can watch my downloaded HD episodes of Dexter, or listen to my DRM'd music without having to navigate my receiver's clunky iPod interface. I thought the Apple TV would have been a great solution, but it just seems like it's going to be a slightly less-clunky, low-res, limited file format iPod.
I'd hold out hope that Apple will support other video codecs, but I get the sneaking feeling this is going to remain a very closed loop. Not that I'm necessarily complaining, mind you, but I'm still a little bit disappointed that it's not exactly what I imagined it to be.
More codecs please!
I ordered my Apple TV as soon as it became available. I then cancelled my order two days later. Why? Because MP4 support is not enough. I could care less what's inside the box. I only care about what the box can do. I'd put money on the movie studios having forced Apple to support only MP4 video in exchange for content. While that may look good on paper to the studios, it's an utterly boneheaded move.
Apple TV looks great. It's sleek. The interface is top-notch. But where is support for MPEG-2 video? For VOB files? For Transport Streams? For DivX and Xvid? For AVI? Heck, for WMV? If this box is designed for people who buy TV shows on the iTMS, that's not a very big market. Unlike Apple's music market, which continues to grow very quickly, Apple's video market, while strong, isn't enough to make Apple TV a success. I want to rip my DVDs and not have to hunt through a stack of cases to find a movie. I want to play back all the stupid little video clips people send me via email. I want to browse YouTube and Google Video.
Apple TV makes me want to buy an Xbox 360 and Media Center PC to replace my home server (a PowerMac G4). Apple could have hit this one out of the park. Instead, they've delivered a crippled box that doesn't really appeal to many people. And with UPnP offerings from Netgear, Dlink, and others getting better (yeah, I know, they still suck pretty hard...but give it time), Apple is missing a huge window of opportunity. If they supported more formats, this thing could be the next iPod. By limiting themselves to MP4, they've all but guaranteed that Apple TV will be a bit player. I'm a diehard Apple guy. I've been a loyal customer for 24 years now. But I'm not drinking the kool-aid. Apple TV is a stinker.
And before someone pipes up with something to the effect of "well, you can convert your stuff to MP4", who the heck wants to do that? It takes several hours to convert a ripped DVD to MP4. And I certainly don't want to deal with converting the endless little video clips I stumble across on a regular basis. Conversion is too time-consuming and tedious.
I ordered my Apple TV as soon as it became available. I then cancelled my order two days later. Why? Because MP4 support is not enough. I could care less what's inside the box. I only care about what the box can do. I'd put money on the movie studios having forced Apple to support only MP4 video in exchange for content. While that may look good on paper to the studios, it's an utterly boneheaded move.
Apple TV looks great. It's sleek. The interface is top-notch. But where is support for MPEG-2 video? For VOB files? For Transport Streams? For DivX and Xvid? For AVI? Heck, for WMV? If this box is designed for people who buy TV shows on the iTMS, that's not a very big market. Unlike Apple's music market, which continues to grow very quickly, Apple's video market, while strong, isn't enough to make Apple TV a success. I want to rip my DVDs and not have to hunt through a stack of cases to find a movie. I want to play back all the stupid little video clips people send me via email. I want to browse YouTube and Google Video.
Apple TV makes me want to buy an Xbox 360 and Media Center PC to replace my home server (a PowerMac G4). Apple could have hit this one out of the park. Instead, they've delivered a crippled box that doesn't really appeal to many people. And with UPnP offerings from Netgear, Dlink, and others getting better (yeah, I know, they still suck pretty hard...but give it time), Apple is missing a huge window of opportunity. If they supported more formats, this thing could be the next iPod. By limiting themselves to MP4, they've all but guaranteed that Apple TV will be a bit player. I'm a diehard Apple guy. I've been a loyal customer for 24 years now. But I'm not drinking the kool-aid. Apple TV is a stinker.
And before someone pipes up with something to the effect of "well, you can convert your stuff to MP4", who the heck wants to do that? It takes several hours to convert a ripped DVD to MP4. And I certainly don't want to deal with converting the endless little video clips I stumble across on a regular basis. Conversion is too time-consuming and tedious.
First of all I do not think the comparison to size of the iPhone's OS is valid here, these are two completely different machines. Both from a hardware point of view and from the intended uses.
The price difference to a real hard drive is not so big given your numbers but gives you much more capacity. Plus the fact that for caching a flash chip is the worst possible choice as it wears down when written to frequently.
Somebody correct me if my understanding is faulty!
If the picture is barely moving, then you get 1080 crystal clear lines. If the picture is moving fast, then each line is slightly out of sync with the line above/below it (the faster the picture is moving, the more out of sync). If you're wanting a really clear picture and it's fast moving action, interlace is not good.
So there are systems to de-interlace the content, so the blur is removed. They do a reasonable job! The best ones work out what formula was used to interlace the picture in the first place. Film has 24 frames in a second which are then spread out over 60 pictures and then interlaced together, and it uses a preset standard so it's pretty easy to de-interlace it. Video is harder - scenes with little motion don't need much work, but fast scenes from interlaced video sometimes just drop half the lines to make it work.
Film is captured as 24p. I'm really not sure what standards are most common for capturing HD content. Do they capture at 1080p and then interlace it? Or capture interlaced? I'd guess they'll move to 1080p as soon as the cameras can handle it (even if they're forced to transmit at 1080i for all the HD receivers that are designed for it!)
ps. This-week-in-media mentioned this week that there was a test a few years back of 1080p24 against 1080p60. People preferred 1080p24, they theorise it's because it's what we've come to expect as a "movie experience".
pps. When people talk about bandwidth required to transmit a 1080p movie, I believe the frame rate is an important factor. 1080p24 would make the file smaller than 1080p60, and match precisely the frame rate of most current movies. 1080p30 also refreshes the whole picture every 1/30th/second, instead of half the picture every 1/60th/second - and progressive compresses better than interlaced!
ppps. Australia and Europe have 240v power, and 50Hz. So our TVs are 50Hz (or 100Hz), and our frame rate is 25 instead of 24. Unfortunately, our HD transmissions still follows these old rates!! At least modern TVs handle pretty well whatever is thrown at them.
Yeah... but 720p60 means there are 720 lines, and all 720 are refreshed every 1/60th of a second (ie 60 refreshes per second). 1080i60 means that there are 1080 lines, and half of them are refreshed every 1/60th of a second - then the other half are refreshed.
If the picture is barely moving, then you get 1080 crystal clear lines. If the picture is moving fast, then each line is slightly out of sync with the line above/below it (the faster the picture is moving, the more out of sync). If you're wanting a really clear picture and it's fast moving action, interlace is not good.
So there are systems to de-interlace the content, so the blur is removed. They do a reasonable job! The best ones work out what formula was used to interlace the picture in the first place. Film has 24 frames in a second which are then spread out over 60 pictures and then interlaced together, and it uses a preset standard so it's pretty easy to de-interlace it. Video is harder - scenes with little motion don't need much work, but fast scenes from interlaced video sometimes just drop half the lines to make it work.
Interlaced systems were chosen because they had no choice. Electricity was at 60Hz so the TV flickered at that rate. The rays in the tube couldn't move fast enough to do 60 cycles a second of the whole screen, so it was made to do half the lines, then the other half. Again - they had no choice.
Film is captured as 24p. I'm really not sure what standards are most common for capturing HD content. Do they capture at 1080p and then interlace it? Or capture interlaced? I'd guess they'll move to 1080p as soon as the cameras can handle it (even if they're forced to transmit at 1080i for all the HD receivers that are designed for it!)
ps. This-week-in-media mentioned this week that there was a test a few years back of 1080p24 against 1080p60. People preferred 1080p24, they theorise it's because it's what we've come to expect as a "movie experience".
pps. When people talk about bandwidth required to transmit a 1080p movie, I believe the frame rate is an important factor. 1080p24 would make the file smaller than 1080p60, and match precisely the frame rate of most current movies. 1080p30 also refreshes the whole picture every 1/30th/second, instead of half the picture every 1/60th/second - and progressive compresses better than interlaced!
ppps. Australia and Europe have 240v power, and 50Hz. So our TVs are 50Hz (or 100Hz), and our frame rate is 25 instead of 24. Unfortunately, our HD transmissions still follows these old rates!! At least modern TVs handle pretty well whatever is thrown at them.
After having read these posts, I am still left unsure about this Apple release (and I'm not talking about the idiots complaining about the hardware - get over yourselves)...
- I do not understand of promoting the iTunes compatability with this thing, until the store starts to sell 720P HD content. I will not watch anything from the iTunes store at present as the quality is abismal. I know you can listen to music and view pictures, but come on, this is labeled as apple TV and therefore needs the media for support. As such, I can only presume Apple are working on bringing in 720p content as we speak. Given that Apple has said that the product is a little way off from shipping, gives it time to prep the ITMS for some decent 720p content to be purchased. Otherwise, the Apple TV is not as user friendly as it seems, and I will be most dissapointed, and will not purchase this one product by Apple. See, a lot of people are tech-savvy to a point. I'm sure that although lots of us know to d/l Handbrake to rip our DVD's, a lot more people will not know this, or how, or have issues with it working. iTunes needs revamping as much as physical products do right now, it has been long in the tooth with 640x480 media and I hope that when the AppleTV is finally shipped, that Apple also updates iTunes to get the most out of this product. Otherwise it is a waste. Being an iTunes player is its real purpose and potential.
- I think the reason there is a lot of anti-bias towards this product, is because people were/are uncertain as to what this product can really do. It's potential is massive, although it has been restrained. And this is due to the fact that if Apple add too many more features, they will start stepping on the toes of their other products, ie. Mac Mini, and that will hurt their sales strategy and line up. This is unfortunate as it is the versitality of Apple's products that have undone what would have been quite a nice concept. As such, it is kind of stuck between two points of interest and landed in a distinctly grey area. In fact, the only plus it has over the Mac Mini, is the connectivity options - if Apple were to put a direct HDMI connection into the Mini, not a lot of people would buy the Apple TV - I for sure would not. If they did add a DVD player, the market share of people who go for a Mac Mini, would buy this product instead, and that would hurt sales for Apple. As a result, I still see it as a bit of a strange standpoint by Apple to include a HDD, as this almost begs for a DVD drive! I'm sure Apple wanted to put a DVD drive in, as this would have increased it's appeal 10 fold, but as for the reasons pointed out before, they couldn't.
To sum up I like the potential of this product, combined with the new AiportExpress 'disk' feature, there is a lot of hidden untapped potential to this thing. But as I see it, most suprisingly it is crippled by something Apple is great at: iTunes. It does not have have any HD content, and I'm not shelving out £200 to simply play HD trailers on my TV. And as it doesn't have a DVD player built in for various reasons outlined, I'm not buying another peice of clutter for my house unless it serves a real purpose. And as the confusion on this thread outlines, it doesn't. Yet.
I'd like to close with a quote from the product page that kind of sums up the problems we have here with the product:
"If it's on iTunes, it's on TV ... Instead of huddling around your computer to watch what’s on iTunes, connect Apple TV to your widescreen television and wirelessly sync your iTunes library."
Now since when have any group of people, us, ever huddled around our computer screen to watch content on iTunes?
- I do not understand of promoting the iTunes compatability with this thing, until the store starts to sell 720P HD content. I will not watch anything from the iTunes store at present as the quality is abismal. I know you can listen to music and view pictures, but come on, this is labeled as apple TV and therefore needs the media for support. As such, I can only presume Apple are working on bringing in 720p content as we speak. Given that Apple has said that the product is a little way off from shipping, gives it time to prep the ITMS for some decent 720p content to be purchased. Otherwise, the Apple TV is not as user friendly as it seems, and I will be most dissapointed, and will not purchase this one product by Apple. See, a lot of people are tech-savvy to a point. I'm sure that although lots of us know to d/l Handbrake to rip our DVD's, a lot more people will not know this, or how, or have issues with it working. iTunes needs revamping as much as physical products do right now, it has been long in the tooth with 640x480 media and I hope that when the AppleTV is finally shipped, that Apple also updates iTunes to get the most out of this product. Otherwise it is a waste. Being an iTunes player is its real purpose and potential.
- I think the reason there is a lot of anti-bias towards this product, is because people were/are uncertain as to what this product can really do. It's potential is massive, although it has been restrained. And this is due to the fact that if Apple add too many more features, they will start stepping on the toes of their other products, ie. Mac Mini, and that will hurt their sales strategy and line up. This is unfortunate as it is the versitality of Apple's products that have undone what would have been quite a nice concept. As such, it is kind of stuck between two points of interest and landed in a distinctly grey area. In fact, the only plus it has over the Mac Mini, is the connectivity options - if Apple were to put a direct HDMI connection into the Mini, not a lot of people would buy the Apple TV - I for sure would not. If they did add a DVD player, the market share of people who go for a Mac Mini, would buy this product instead, and that would hurt sales for Apple. As a result, I still see it as a bit of a strange standpoint by Apple to include a HDD, as this almost begs for a DVD drive! I'm sure Apple wanted to put a DVD drive in, as this would have increased it's appeal 10 fold, but as for the reasons pointed out before, they couldn't.
To sum up
I like the potential of this product, combined with the new AiportExpress 'disk' feature, there is a lot of hidden untapped potential to this thing. But as I see it, most suprisingly it is crippled by something Apple is great at: iTunes. It does not have have any HD content, and I'm not shelving out £200 to simply play HD trailers on my TV. And as it doesn't have a DVD player built in for various reasons outlined, I'm not buying another peice of clutter for my house unless it serves a real purpose. And as the confusion on this thread outlines, it doesn't. Yet.I'd like to close with a quote from the product page that kind of sums up the problems we have here with the product:
"If it's on iTunes, it's on TV ... Instead of huddling around your computer to watch what’s on iTunes, connect Apple TV to your widescreen television and wirelessly sync your iTunes library."
Now since when have any group of people, us, ever huddled around our computer screen to watch content on iTunes?
I'm really unsure about ?TV, and by that I mean ... unsure. Not that I don't like it, but I'm really not sure what I think. To explain why, I need to tell a story...
When I bought my first powerbook, it was really before the iPod revolution in Canada, nobody had one yet, the AL PB had just been announced, and the 3G was brand new. As part of the bundle deal with the powerbook, I was offered a free printer -- Canon i450, which I though cool, I already have a colour HP that will do 11" wide prints, but I can't turn down a free printer, and was offered a $300 rebate on the iPod. I had no MP3's, had no intention of an MP3 collection, but couldn't turn down the offer, so I got the cheapest iPod I could get (the 10GB 3G) and paid $80 for it. A decision I now regret.
The powerbook was everything I could have hoped for, no disappointment.
The i450 was fascinating ... I just wrote an essay then deleted it, since its beside the point. Basically it was so much better than my previous printer that it has released the inner artist in me, and I have my own framed prints through my house, something I have never done before, and never even considered doing.
Then came the iPod -- when I bought it, I had no idea what I would do with it, and no songs to play on it. But, I thought it was neat (my friends thought it was a waste), and I ripped my CD's into iTunes. The DBA in me organized them meticulously and built a rich set of Smart Playlists.
Now I do regret the purchase -- I should have got the largest available (30GB) because I long ago ended up with more digital songs than space[1] . My CD's are boxed and stored in the attic somewhere, what a waste of space they were before! With the organization, smart playlists have completely changed the way I listen to music, no exaggeration.
When I bought my smart phone, I became addicted to eBooks -- a thing I had sworn I could never do, because I liked the feel of the pages in my hands. But backlighting is so nice on the bus in the morning, having 5 books in your pocket is so handy when you're in the queue at the store[2]...
So back to ?TV. My first thought is why would I possibly spend that kind of money on a device to stream video when I don't have any video to stream? But I said the same thing about my iPod ... and now I have more music than I have iPod. I said the same thing about eBooks, now I have to manage them because I can fill the entire memory of my Palm with the books I am currently working on. I didn't want a digital camera, since I didn't want to have to sit at my computer to look at photos, now they're framed around the house and the film photo albums are beside the CDs in the attic.
Will ?TV do the same thing? I'm really not sure, but history seems to be on its side. Its something I need to think about -- my family spends a lot of time crowded around my MacBook staring at YouTube videos (before someone points out I can't watch YouTube on the ?TV, that's beside the point since its an example of streamed video) [3], home videos, and Video Podcasts.
Of course the alternative I am seriously considering is a full MythTV system with a Mac Mini front-end, which will do all and more, but for more cost (basically the Mac Mini cost, the Ubuntu backend is already 75% built for other reasons), so it really comes down to cost/benfit.
I'm really unsure, I need more time to think, weigh, and look at what people do with it. I was disappointed when it was announced, but on reflection the iPod of the TV is not a bad idea[4].
Is ?[5]TV worth it? I guess time will tell.
[1] of course the brilliance of the iPod is that it can deal with it; my iPod is all 4 and 5 star songs, plus 3 star to fill the rest, sorted by least recently listened to.
[2] Also much better at the coffee shop, where you can have the eBook in one hand, and the coffee in the other. No losing pages when you have to try to take a sip -- this is a potential issue with the iPhone where i may have to put my coffee down to scroll the page, instead of the thumb button I am used to.
[3] But given how cozy Apple and Google currently are, you never know what the future may bring
[4] Is it hackable to a Myth front-end + FrontRow? wouldn't that be the ultimate....
[5] ????? I just ???*figured ? out ? how to type an ? and its so much fun ?
When I bought my first powerbook, it was really before the iPod revolution in Canada, nobody had one yet, the AL PB had just been announced, and the 3G was brand new. As part of the bundle deal with the powerbook, I was offered a free printer -- Canon i450, which I though cool, I already have a colour HP that will do 11" wide prints, but I can't turn down a free printer, and was offered a $300 rebate on the iPod. I had no MP3's, had no intention of an MP3 collection, but couldn't turn down the offer, so I got the cheapest iPod I could get (the 10GB 3G) and paid $80 for it. A decision I now regret.
The powerbook was everything I could have hoped for, no disappointment.
The i450 was fascinating ... I just wrote an essay then deleted it, since its beside the point. Basically it was so much better than my previous printer that it has released the inner artist in me, and I have my own framed prints through my house, something I have never done before, and never even considered doing.
Then came the iPod -- when I bought it, I had no idea what I would do with it, and no songs to play on it. But, I thought it was neat (my friends thought it was a waste), and I ripped my CD's into iTunes. The DBA in me organized them meticulously and built a rich set of Smart Playlists.
Now I do regret the purchase -- I should have got the largest available (30GB) because I long ago ended up with more digital songs than space[1] . My CD's are boxed and stored in the attic somewhere, what a waste of space they were before! With the organization, smart playlists have completely changed the way I listen to music, no exaggeration.
When I bought my smart phone, I became addicted to eBooks -- a thing I had sworn I could never do, because I liked the feel of the pages in my hands. But backlighting is so nice on the bus in the morning, having 5 books in your pocket is so handy when you're in the queue at the store[2]...
So back to ?TV. My first thought is why would I possibly spend that kind of money on a device to stream video when I don't have any video to stream? But I said the same thing about my iPod ... and now I have more music than I have iPod. I said the same thing about eBooks, now I have to manage them because I can fill the entire memory of my Palm with the books I am currently working on. I didn't want a digital camera, since I didn't want to have to sit at my computer to look at photos, now they're framed around the house and the film photo albums are beside the CDs in the attic.
Will ?TV do the same thing? I'm really not sure, but history seems to be on its side. Its something I need to think about -- my family spends a lot of time crowded around my MacBook staring at YouTube videos (before someone points out I can't watch YouTube on the ?TV, that's beside the point since its an example of streamed video) [3], home videos, and Video Podcasts.
Of course the alternative I am seriously considering is a full MythTV system with a Mac Mini front-end, which will do all and more, but for more cost (basically the Mac Mini cost, the Ubuntu backend is already 75% built for other reasons), so it really comes down to cost/benfit.
I'm really unsure, I need more time to think, weigh, and look at what people do with it. I was disappointed when it was announced, but on reflection the iPod of the TV is not a bad idea[4].
Is ?[5]TV worth it? I guess time will tell.
[1] of course the brilliance of the iPod is that it can deal with it; my iPod is all 4 and 5 star songs, plus 3 star to fill the rest, sorted by least recently listened to.
[2] Also much better at the coffee shop, where you can have the eBook in one hand, and the coffee in the other. No losing pages when you have to try to take a sip -- this is a potential issue with the iPhone where i may have to put my coffee down to scroll the page, instead of the thumb button I am used to.
[3] But given how cozy Apple and Google currently are, you never know what the future may bring
[4] Is it hackable to a Myth front-end + FrontRow? wouldn't that be the ultimate....
[5] ????? I just ???*figured ? out ? how to type an ? and its so much fun ?
Interlacing + High Resolution = Crazy Delicious
Okay, I know this is off-topic, please don't flame me for this, but I just can't resist a friendly debate, even if I'm the only one debating:
As for the 720p60 thing, this is a partial truth. However, while "progressive scan" can mean a variety of framerates, if we're talking about most instances of progressive scan, it's going to be 24 fps. Only video content appears as 60 fps.
Any sort of degradation caused by interlaced video is massively overshadowed by the HUGE damage done to images by HDTV compression. If you think interlacing is bad, you should watch some network TV sometime on a TV with a poor motion artifact filter.
It is true, interlacing was the only option that was really available in the infancy of television. That doesn't mean that it's an entirely bad system, though. The way I see it, the only reason to even think about a dual system is to better accomodate watching films on a television.
True, film is 24 fps. True, television is 60 half-fields per second. But how do you divide 24 into 60? You don't. Hence, jerky motion, hence, artifacting, hence, brief details in the film showing up for only a single interlaced field. Yawn. I'd be more concerned about the fact that your contrast control is set too high and you just paid $249 for a Monster Cable that made the store you bought it from about $248 in margin. Or the fact that that $4000 LCD of yours can't produce a true black. The list goes on and on.
I'm not the chair of A Fair Wisconsin Votes Interlaced or anything, but it's just one of my huge pet peeves when people get all hung up on interlaced versus progressive. Any benefit you get from progressive video is more often than not nullified by another weak link in the system, so don't sweat it. Set down the remote and go get some sun on your face.
Okay, I know this is off-topic, please don't flame me for this, but I just can't resist a friendly debate, even if I'm the only one debating:
As for the 720p60 thing, this is a partial truth. However, while "progressive scan" can mean a variety of framerates, if we're talking about most instances of progressive scan, it's going to be 24 fps. Only video content appears as 60 fps.
Any sort of degradation caused by interlaced video is massively overshadowed by the HUGE damage done to images by HDTV compression. If you think interlacing is bad, you should watch some network TV sometime on a TV with a poor motion artifact filter.
It is true, interlacing was the only option that was really available in the infancy of television. That doesn't mean that it's an entirely bad system, though. The way I see it, the only reason to even think about a dual system is to better accomodate watching films on a television.
True, film is 24 fps. True, television is 60 half-fields per second. But how do you divide 24 into 60? You don't. Hence, jerky motion, hence, artifacting, hence, brief details in the film showing up for only a single interlaced field. Yawn. I'd be more concerned about the fact that your contrast control is set too high and you just paid $249 for a Monster Cable that made the store you bought it from about $248 in margin. Or the fact that that $4000 LCD of yours can't produce a true black. The list goes on and on.
I'm not the chair of A Fair Wisconsin Votes Interlaced or anything, but it's just one of my huge pet peeves when people get all hung up on interlaced versus progressive. Any benefit you get from progressive video is more often than not nullified by another weak link in the system, so don't sweat it. Set down the remote and go get some sun on your face.
To continue my comment regarding AppleTV and DVD-playback:
So, fact remains that AppleTV practically only plays back content from iTunes Store. Yes, you could rip your own content to iTunes, but that's marginal at best, and you lose such things as subtitles. So practically, AppleTV only plays back Apple-blessed content, while your existing content (that stack of DVD's you have) will not play back. Compare this to the iPod. When iPod was released, it played back all mp3's you had. What would have happened to the iPod if Apple had said "Your existing music will not play back on this device, you need to get your content from us in order to use this device". iPod would have been a flop. But as things turned out, you could use the iPod to replace your old mp3-player or your cd-player. Or you could use it to take those mp3's on your computer with you, regardlesss of their source. AppleTV does not do any of that.
So now we have a new device from Apple. Stylish and easy to use. But your existing content is useless with it. You need to get your content from iTunes in order to really use the device. Do I have to re-purchase my movies from iTMS, just so I could watch them on AppleTV?
Add to that the fact that it's quite easy to buy something to replace something that you already have. But to buy something that serves similar purpose to an existsing device, yet does not replace it, is a very difficult thing to sell. The sales-pitch of AppleTV is basically "It does more or less the same thing as your DVD-player does, but it does not replace your DVD-player.". So why should I buy it? If I could replace my DVD-player with AppleTV, I would buy one, and I wouldn't even have to think twice. Right now, it would just be another media-playback device in addition to my DVD-player and DVR, while not really replacing any of those devices.
I think that Apple miscalculated badly here. And the most puzzling thing is that, they ALMOST got it right. They kept on talking how AppleTV has Front Row-like interface. But Front Row plays back DVD's, AppleTV does not. They said how this is the "new DVD-player". But it's not "the new DVD-player", since... well, it's not.
Instead of requiring the user to re-purchase their content or live with even more complex stack of components, how about working with the user's old content and actually simplifying things? Yes, the AppleTV-DVD might not be as good as "real" DVD-player, but for 95% of people it would be "good enough".
How could they get it so wrong? They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They were so close of releasing a truly killer-product, and they opted to release a product that is not. Had they included DVD-playback in there, they could have "smuggled" tons of those devices to homes, devices that could play back iTunes-content out-of-the-box. The market for iTunes would have gotten pretty darn big. But as things are right now, people are going to look at AppleTV and ask themselves "I have a handful of movies/tv-shows from itunes (or none at all), but I also have tons of DVD's. Why should I buy this piece of equipment just so I could watch the few movies I got from iTunes?". Apple basically ignored the existing install-base of DVD, and that install-base is HUGE.
So, fact remains that AppleTV practically only plays back content from iTunes Store. Yes, you could rip your own content to iTunes, but that's marginal at best, and you lose such things as subtitles. So practically, AppleTV only plays back Apple-blessed content, while your existing content (that stack of DVD's you have) will not play back. Compare this to the iPod. When iPod was released, it played back all mp3's you had. What would have happened to the iPod if Apple had said "Your existing music will not play back on this device, you need to get your content from us in order to use this device". iPod would have been a flop. But as things turned out, you could use the iPod to replace your old mp3-player or your cd-player. Or you could use it to take those mp3's on your computer with you, regardlesss of their source. AppleTV does not do any of that.
So now we have a new device from Apple. Stylish and easy to use. But your existing content is useless with it. You need to get your content from iTunes in order to really use the device. Do I have to re-purchase my movies from iTMS, just so I could watch them on AppleTV?
Add to that the fact that it's quite easy to buy something to replace something that you already have. But to buy something that serves similar purpose to an existsing device, yet does not replace it, is a very difficult thing to sell. The sales-pitch of AppleTV is basically "It does more or less the same thing as your DVD-player does, but it does not replace your DVD-player.". So why should I buy it? If I could replace my DVD-player with AppleTV, I would buy one, and I wouldn't even have to think twice. Right now, it would just be another media-playback device in addition to my DVD-player and DVR, while not really replacing any of those devices.
I think that Apple miscalculated badly here. And the most puzzling thing is that, they ALMOST got it right. They kept on talking how AppleTV has Front Row-like interface. But Front Row plays back DVD's, AppleTV does not. They said how this is the "new DVD-player". But it's not "the new DVD-player", since... well, it's not.
Instead of requiring the user to re-purchase their content or live with even more complex stack of components, how about working with the user's old content and actually simplifying things? Yes, the AppleTV-DVD might not be as good as "real" DVD-player, but for 95% of people it would be "good enough".
How could they get it so wrong? They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They were so close of releasing a truly killer-product, and they opted to release a product that is not. Had they included DVD-playback in there, they could have "smuggled" tons of those devices to homes, devices that could play back iTunes-content out-of-the-box. The market for iTunes would have gotten pretty darn big. But as things are right now, people are going to look at AppleTV and ask themselves "I have a handful of movies/tv-shows from itunes (or none at all), but I also have tons of DVD's. Why should I buy this piece of equipment just so I could watch the few movies I got from iTunes?". Apple basically ignored the existing install-base of DVD, and that install-base is HUGE.
I disagree. For starters, how many people buy Mac Mini as a DVD-player? Not many. But on the other hand, if they did include DVD-player in the AppleTV, they could sell one to anyone thinking about getting a DVD-player. And they could sell it as a replacement for DVD-player. But as things are right now, they can't do either of those. AppleTV would be a new piece of equipment, replicating functionality of an existing device to some degree, yet not replacing that device. There would be overlap between the devices, yet neither could replace the other. If AppleTV included a DVD-player, it could replace standalone DVD-player 100%, whereas no standalone DVD-player could replace AppleTV.
Market for DVD-player is big. Market for DVD-replacements is big. Market for devices that stream content from itunes is considerably smaller. And before anyone says "But Apple is not interested in playing back DVD's, they want you to buy content from itunes instead". Yes, you are right. But if they did include DVD-player in AppleTV, they would be smuggling that iTunes-integration in to lots of homes around the world. So those people who bought AppleTV as a DVD-player, whereas itunes-integration was a secondary feature, would start thinking "why not just buy content from iTunes, instead of driving over to WalMart to get my DVD?". In addition, they could have made it so that you could buy content throuhg AppleTV. Instead of having to go over to your computer to buy stuff, you could just sit on your couch, and buy stuff on a whim. Or choose the "movie of the evening" with your better half. Doing that on a computer would be a lot less appealing.
Hell, maybe I should apply for a position in Apple's AppleTV-team
?I agree adding a DVD player would have made this a killer product-Maybe they were worried about being sued by the film studios and TV companies if people figured out how to copy DVD's directly, or if it was designed to copy DVD content to disk?? From what I have read Apple (I suppose quite rightly) is always concious of damaging litigation.
I notice my Hard drive recorder can play DVD's but can't copy them to the hard disk-is this for the same copyright reasons?
I did want one but now I'm in two minds-it might end up being a bit of a dead end purchase and another box to go with my amp, tuner, HD recorder and Foxtel box. An expensve way just to organise my music to play on my hifi.
I notice my Hard drive recorder can play DVD's but can't copy them to the hard disk-is this for the same copyright reasons?
I did want one but now I'm in two minds-it might end up being a bit of a dead end purchase and another box to go with my amp, tuner, HD recorder and Foxtel box. An expensve way just to organise my music to play on my hifi.
Absolutely! The over compression on FTA TV is bad, the macro-blocks etc reduce the quality significantly!.
But Bluray or HD-DVD don't have the issue - they have huge bandwidths to play with, plus MPEG4-10/h264 instead of MPEG2!
Interlacing is easier than progressive. It's cheaper. It DOES degrade the quality but it's barely noticeable. Resolution is barely noticeable too. People pay them both too much attention because they're easier to understand and quantify... they can ask "what's the resolution", or "is it progressive", but asking "what's the colour saturation" is harder.
Film and video have to be considered quite separately with interlacing. Yeah 24 doesn't go into 60 evenly. Every 2 frames of film have to become 5 frames of TV so they put one film frame on for 2 frames, then the next film frame for 3, etc etc. And then they interlace the frames because it's easier for a TV to refresh half the screen at a time, twice as often.
All up, most people don't notice regular DVDs as having jerky motion.
Sure. Hell, even resolution is only considered the 4th most important thing in TV quality. Contrast and colour have a far more noticeable effect.
In summary, yeah, I agree that interlaced isn't the most important difference. I'll go a step further - resolution itself isn't considered as important as other factors. So get your colour/contrast quality happening first. All other factors being equal interlacing does lower the quality of your average show (ie average amount of motion causing blur) just enough that 720p can be qualitatively better. Depends on what you're watching. But there are many opinions on both sides of that fence