Also, I hope the rumor that Leopard will display your desktop to the Apple TV comes true.
sounds cool!!! i'll buy immediately if it is the case.
but please.....make it support at least 1080i...
1280 x 720 desktop isnt enough for use...
Also, I hope the rumor that Leopard will display your desktop to the Apple TV comes true.
And I'm not saying I don't agree about the point that the AppleTV would be much nicer if it did support other codecs, but I think the point that Apple may not have included them in order to win the business of the studios is probably more likely than they didn't include them just to be so stubborn.I'm not saying Apple TV will be a flop - just that it would have been a bigger hit if Apple weren't being so stubborn. It is ok to support legacy codecs.
Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!We are all adults...can't we just say "it doesn't support enough of the video I've stolen"?
Or maybe people are actually just encoding their home movies and DVDs that they already own in six or seven different formats.![]()
And I'm not saying I don't agree about the point that the AppleTV would be much nicer if it did support other codecs, but I think the point that Apple may not have included them in order to win the business of the studios is probably more likely than they didn't include them just to be so stubborn.
IMO, Apple has way more potential money to make by being able to offer DVDs from all of the major studios to the average American that doesn't know what a codec is (but knows how to download from iTunes) than they stand to loose from geeks like us that have already encoded everything we own in something other than what the AppleTV plays.
Alright, let's talk about the white elephant in the room. PORN!!
We all have it (those of us who will admit it) and we'd all like to watch it somewhere more comfortable and romantic than the desk chair. Sometimes I have a guest or two over and I'd like to be able to throw some PORN on my TV...
I'm not saying Apple TV will be a flop - just that it would have been a bigger hit if Apple weren't being so stubborn. It is ok to support legacy codecs.
Amen brother. I think you just summed up 75% of the posts in this thread.It is frustrating though sometimes being a geek who loves Apple stuff - when Apple release things that are close to being perfect, but just missing some geek feature you'd really like.
Yes, I agree - and stand corrected.
It is frustrating though sometimes being a geek who loves Apple stuff - when Apple release things that are close to being perfect, but just missing some geek feature you'd really like.
Also frustrating when you see all these other media server type devices that support all the things you'd like as a geek, but suck in terms of the user interface and style.
To each his own...I must say, I've never considered showing porn to my guests when they visit. I've never quite considered porn to be "romantic" either.![]()
![]()
Because many dvd players support it.. So it makes sense to encode to it.. Most dvd players don't support h264.. if they did I'm sure people would've been encoding to that instead. :/The real question is why are people encoding stuff in crap like divx? Or avi for that matter.
My "argument" ... Currently i have 200GB of legit eyeTV stuff recorded.. as i run out of space i burn them to CDs in xvid/divX, so they'll play in the DVD player and won't hog my hd space. ... did you quote the wrong bit of my text? (im not sure what napster has to do with that)Napster tried that argument. The court didn't buy it.What about all the stuff we've (supposedly) legally recorded off TV with devices like eyeTV? Don't be so quick to just lump everyone in some big pirate camp..
IMO, Apple has way more potential money to make by being able to offer DVDs from all of the major studios to the average American that doesn't know what a codec is (but knows how to download from iTunes) than they stand to loose from geeks like us that have already encoded everything we own in something other than what the AppleTV plays.
Does the AppleTV support WPA2-Enterprise (RADIUS etc.) or is it limited to pre-shared passwords?
I'm paranoid. My network is locked down to within an inch of death. If I need to undermine my wireless security to use this, I'm not going to even bother.
Can someone who already has one give me an answer? Most appreciated.
nope. only wep.
OK! So when do we get to see pictures of the insides, looking for some true geek porn.
It'll be very interesting to see whats on the HDD itself, when it is removed and connected to a Mac.
B
No, the AppleTV is most likely NOT running Leopard. It COULD be running a very stripped-down OSX that includes Leopard components. But, not likely that it is running Leopard itself. Most likely, it includes basic input/output components (for remote), ethernet components, bonjour frameworks, graphics frameworks, and CoreAnimation.
I agree entirely.
No, Apple would probably still need to pay that $30. Maybe not quite so much, maybe only $20, or even $15.
I'm so sick of complaints about the lack of cables. My modems, my routers and other assorted doodads that I've purchased came with cables, only to become pointless electrospaghetti shoved in a drawer or shelf because they were just too short.
Just imagine:
"I got myTV today, but it only came with an HDMI cable
freaking Apple, my TV is only component!"
As mentioned before, these unsupported codecs are getting similar treatment from the studios. Xvid and the like are poorer quality. Boohoo torrentites.
Um, so where can i find a "xvid/divx to mp4" converter?
if there aren't any, how would i use quicktime to convert to h.264
thx much (already purchasedtv so i gotta deal with this.)
true.
Also, just to clear things up (I see ppl using it interchangeably) mac os x and os x are "different" os. mac os x is for computers and os x (according to SJ keynote) is for iphone and maybe atv. ...
Even the cheapest iPod needs an OS to be able to do anyone. A collection of hardware components doesn't just simply "doing things" by magic.The Airport Extreme Basestation is another example of a device that would (also) need an OS...
It's a safe bet that Apple didn't reinvent the wheel when developing such systems. It would only be logical for them to develop (small) systems based on OS X, in much the same fashion that many hardware manufacturers of various devices have used Linux as a starting point. For example, most/many of the inexpensive routers these days are actually running a flavor of Linux.