Apple With Modest Expectations for 'iTV' and TV Show Rentals?

[Peace]

The last time Apple had modest expectations they sold 4 million iPads.

 

[Orange™]

I don't think I would pay .99 for renting a show. Anyway most networks have their shows on line.
Where I live my internet provider cap my bandwidth at 85 Gb per month.
How many shows or movies would take to reach that limit?
Also if I cut the cable, my provider will increase the price of the internet by around 15 bucks per month.
Not happy about it

Cry me a river why don't you! If a $15 addition to your bill is important to you, then your lucky it's the most pressing issue you've got!

I'm struggling to find a place to live and your whining about a measly $15???
The entitlement you people think you have is staggering!

 

[Benjamins]

Looks like rumor control for what Kevin Rose said couple of days ago.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Multiple studies show that quality of the content takes over the quality of delivery system. IF what people se is good (they like it and they are into it) 720p or 1080p at whatever bitrate won't matter most likely.

But it does matter to potential buyers of this thing. Kick out us more tech-savvy types here and think about Joe Sixpack. When he goes in to buy that new HDTV, what is the biggest thing that he is taught and probably remembers about HDTV? My guess is that 1080p is "True HD" or "Full HD". Much like GHz numbers and RAM sizes, he may not remember the fine details of tech specs, etc, but he probably remembers 1080p.

Hooking little boxes to that TV, he knows that anything less than 1080p capable cannot maximize what he bought. BD marketing keeps pitching BD as 1080p and "maximum picture & sound".

720p is a lower number. It's pretty easy to think that 720p < 1080p. Very little effort will clarify that (in spite of arguments that human eyes can't see the difference under average circumstances, "the chart", etc).

As I understand things, the paramount goal of Apple sales is to sell hardware. Since the cost difference between using a 720p chip and a 1080p chip is probably nominal (I'd even bet the latter would cost less than the former, given the popularity of the latter in many other set top boxes), why not build in 1080p?

The pro-720p crowd feels no pain in this. The 1080 iTV would still play their 720p files just as good. Retail cost would be exactly the same. They wouldn't have to buy 1080p content from iTunes if they favor 720p content. They wouldn't have to deal with bandwidth issue if they continue to download the same formats they download now. Etc.

And those who are pro-720p over 1080p mostly because they think that's what Steve/Apple likes, it's good for Apple too to use 1080p hardware over 720p because it means they can sell more units to those that will not buy unless it is 1080p capable.

There is NO LOSE for anyone in 1080p hardware. All the players completely win and can completely enjoy the experience however they favor it.

It just doesn't work the other way... where Apple arbitrarily chooses 720p limitations in the hardware. Then, the "1080p or bust" crowd doesn't buy, Apple doesn't sell as many units as they could, and only the "720p is good enough" crowd gets what they want (though they would get exactly the same with a 1080p platform too).

 

[Žalgiris]

Again talking about the content. I'm talking about hardware. Ship 1080p capable hardware. So that people who want and enjoy 1080p. It futureproofs the device and opens it up to more buyers.

Limiting to 720p based on the fact that "we will only stream 720p content" is retarded.

Makes sense, but it also makes sense not to ship 1080p capable hardware just so few image quality fanatics can use it. At this point from what i know people will choose carefully what to rent or buy means they will watch what they enjoy watching and again 720p vs 1080p goes to second plan.

I'm watching both 720p and 1080p videos on my LCD TV with WD TV HD LIVE from about 3 meters away. No difference whatsoever to me.

 

[JAT]

Well, for me personally, there's not much Apple can do because I literally get tv for free; my landlord pays for it. I do have an apple tv though and use it for streaming handbraked netflix discs.

LOL. No, you literally pay for it in your rent.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

For crying out loud, storage is cheap, and most people don't have rock-solid internet connections that can deliver high-quality, uninterrupted streams for an hour or more at a time. If the new iTV is streaming-only, it will not provide the level of user experience that is expected of an Apple product.

 

[leroypants]

Please provide a link to this, if you can...

Popcornhour.com, their devices are far superior and offer a better value than anything apple could ever offer.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Looks like rumor control for what Kevin Rose said couple of days ago.

...but isn't it so interesting that the $99 price point remains consistent? I've noticed in the past that when a price point was getting some traction via rumors, that new rumors would come out at higher price points. Then, Apple would release the thing at around those new higher price points and not get an over reaction to the "much higher" price.

In this case, rumor after rumor just keeps sticking with $99. Apparently the roll out is less than a month out.

I would think rumor control would be slinging some higher prices unless this $99 really is around THE price.

 

[KnightWRX]

I meant presented OTA its not in 1080p.

And again, who cares ? 1080p hardware is capable of 720p or lower playback.

 

[KnightWRX]

but it also makes sense not to ship 1080p capable hardware just so few image quality fanatics can use it.

No, it doesn't make sense. Why limit the hardware and not futureproof the device ?

It only makes sense for a very weird definition of "makes sense".

I'm watching both 720p and 1080p videos on my LCD TV with WD TV HD LIVE from about 3 meters away. No difference whatsoever to me.

What is your TV size ? The difference is dependant on both TV size and distance. 9 feet is quite a bit far to sit from a TV.

 

[Žalgiris]

But it does matter to potential buyers of this thing. Kick out us more tech-savvy types here and think about Joe Sixpack. When he goes in to buy that new HDTV, what is the biggest thing that he is taught and probably remembers about HDTV? My guess is that 1080p is "True HD" or "Full HD". Much like GHz numbers and RAM sizes, he may not remember the fine details of tech specs, etc, but he probably remembers 1080p.

Hooking little boxes to that TV, he knows that anything less than 1080p capable cannot maximize what he bought. BD marketing keeps pitching BD as 1080p and "maximum picture & sound".

720p is a lower number. It's pretty easy to think that 720p < 1080p. Very little effort will clarify that (in spite of arguments that human eyes can't see the difference under average circumstances, "the chart", etc).

As I understand things, the paramount goal of Apple sales is to sell hardware. Since the cost difference between using a 720p chip and a 1080p chip is probably nominal (I'd even bet the latter would cost less than the former, given the popularity of the latter in many other set top boxes), why not build in 1080p?

The pro-720p crowd feels no pain in this. The 1080 iTV would still play their 720p files just as good. Retail cost would be exactly the same. They wouldn't have to buy 1080p content from iTunes if they favor 720p content. They wouldn't have to deal with bandwidth issue if they continue to download the same formats they download now. Etc.

And those who are pro-720p over 1080p mostly because they think that's what Steve/Apple likes, it's good for Apple too to use 1080p hardware over 720p because it means they can sell more units to those that will not buy unless it is 1080p capable.

There is NO LOSE for anyone in 1080p hardware. All the players completely win and can completely enjoy the experience however they favor it.

It just doesn't work the other way... where Apple arbitrarily chooses 720p limitations in the hardware. Then, the "1080p or bust" crowd doesn't buy, Apple doesn't sell as many units as they could, and only the "720p is good enough" crowd gets what they want (though they would get exactly the same with a 1080p platform too).

Yeah a lot of angles.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah a lot of angles.

So that's all you have to comeback with ? I guess you now see the light and agree not shipping 1080p hardware is a dumb move if they do it.

 

[Žalgiris]

No, it doesn't make sense.

For you it doesn't and maybe it does for them.

Why limit the hardware and not futureproof the device ?

Oh come on. At this technology pace ... and at this price ...

What is your TV size ? The difference is dependant on both TV size and distance. 9 feet is quite a bit far to sit from a TV.

55"

 

[Benjamins]

I would think rumor control would be slinging some higher prices unless this $99 really is around THE price.

$99 sounds about right if it's an iPad without the screen and battery. I am just not sure about the timing though, their massive data center might not be ready yet.

 

[Žalgiris]

So that's all you have to comeback with ?

Yes. That means that you can manipulate information to best fit your point

I guess you now see the light and agree not shipping 1080p hardware is a dumb move if they do it.

Maybe, but anyway i can understand if they go with 720p for the first gen device.

 

[skeep5]

steve hasn't cut the cord then

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

To a question "why not futureproof the device <with 1080p instead of 720p capability" you replied...

Oh come on. At this technology pace ... and at this price ...

My reasoning would be simple.

1. I bet cost for Apple would be the same or less if they use a more popular 1080p chip over a 720p chip
2. Steve/Apple is very clear that they don't foresee a future for BD, yet they don't offer a complete alternative to it that competes on it's most popular benefits head-to-head
3. Until there are lots of 1080p iTVs in homes connected to iTunes, there is NO INCENTIVE for studios to even test 1080i or 1080p rentals/sales. You have to have the hardware in place to support the test. Putting 1080p movies in there today means that no Apple TV user could rent/play them. But entrench 1080p-capable iTVs in homes and each additional unit sale becomes one more tug for the option of higher quality video & audio experiences to be added to the various video-oriented options in the iTunes store
4. Apple sells more units if they give all camps in the market more of what they want. More sales is good for those that base their biases on what Apple tells them they should like or not like.
5. Lastly, again, there is absolutely no lose for the 720p fan, as better tech will play lessor quality as good as it can be played. It just doesn't work the other way.

 

[spillproof]

Steve Carell looks really old in that photo.

I don't see the Apple TV being a big hit either with the majority of people.

 

[jettredmont]

It's also a market with so many existing players... Apple needs to make a presence in the living room before it even thinks of taking a large piece.

The point of it being for 'tech savvy hobbyists' I think is adequate. I know there are a few of us who are using dedicated G4/G5 towers specifically for streaming headless. For me however I do have to re-start iTunes or AppleTV on occasion. The average consumer would not be so forgiving when they have to troubleshoot a problem.

Odd. I've had to reboot the AppleTV a few times (once Parental Controls went crazy and stopped allowing any new content regardless of rating without the password, another time it refused to acknowledge half of the iTunes library), but that's a once-a-month activity, at best. The ATV stays on and available longer than any of my other equipment (and that included DirecTV DVRs back when we had those in the house; they needed restarts weekly if not more often).

That being said. A $99 (highly mobile) wireless adapter that can take advantage of the iTunes store, and stream from your MacBook or iMac, would be a sweet spot for many consumers I think. It's not a game changer but it is getting a footing.

I think the key here is that the ATV needs to be able to purchase for download (to the synced iTunes server, obviously) as well as for direct streaming. A $99 internet-streaming-only device wouldn't be worth it for me. It needs to integrate with the home iTunes ecosystem. Then, a $99 iTunes extension for another room is a no-brainer.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Apple (or rather their more rabid iOS fans) have high expectations, but they'll never corner the media distribution market. It's about time this reality hit home. iTV (sic) will be as popular as the Apple TV - that is, not very. The iDevices have made a niche with regards to content sign-ups, but it's never going to go beyond that. There's a much bigger world outside of the iOS bubble.

 

[Žalgiris]

To a question "why not futureproof the device <with 1080p instead of 720p capability" you replied...


My reasoning would be simple.

1. I bet cost for Apple would be the same or less if they use a more popular 1080p chip over a 720p chip
2. Steve/Apple is very clear that they don't foresee a future for BD, yet they don't offer a complete alternative to it that competes on it's most popular benefits head-to-head
3. Until there are lots of 1080p iTVs in homes connected to iTunes, there is NO INCENTIVE for studios to even test 1080i or 1080p rentals/sales. You have to have the hardware in place to support the test. Putting 1080p movies in there today means that no Apple TV user could rent/play them. But entrench 1080p-capable iTVs in homes and each additional unit sale becomes one more tug for the option of higher quality video & audio experiences to be added to the various video-oriented options in the iTunes store
4. Apple sells more units if they give all camps in the market more of what they want. More sales is good for those that base their biases on what Apple tells them they should like or not like.
5. Lastly, again, there is absolutely no lose for the 720p fan, as better tech will play lessor quality as good as it can be played. It just doesn't work the other way.

I'm going with two:

1. It's 1080p out of the box.
2. It's 1080p out of the box, but firmware only allows 720p and 1080p may or may not be enabled with a firmware upgrade.

Wouldn't be the first time Apple pulls stunt like this right?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm going with two:

1. It's 1080p out of the box.
2. It's 1080p out of the box, but firmware only allows 720p and 1080p may or may not be enabled with a firmware upgrade.

Wouldn't be the first time Apple pulls stunt like this right?

Maybe, but why bother with #2? That would just seem to yield a bunch of bad press and whining. If it's got it, use it. Apple can finally tout a real competitor for BD that competes on every level (except 1080p content availability- yet- in the iTunes store).

Having it is the first step toward motivating those with content to offer the option of 1080i/p. Waiting for such content to be available in the iTunes store, when we have no TV or this #2 incarnation of iTV capable of playing it, means that there is zero incentive for such content to be tested in the store.

For my own situation, it's a total win if it comes with 1080p hardware (enabled) as I can finally push the 1080p home movies to the TV through an elegant TV-like solution. As things stand right now, Apple:

• empowers us with iMovie to import 1080i/p content from HD camcorders and render it to h.264
• store that h.264 file in iTunes and even play it there, just like any 720p or SD video

So we can easily have the HD camcorder linked to Apple iMovie linked to iTunes, but then the link between iTunes and our 1080i/p HDTV is broken "as is" now. Plug that hole with this device and the all-Apple chain is complete.

Execute #2 though, and we continue to have a broken chain waiting for Apple to finally turn on that connection, or some hacker to break the lock.

Why not just do it, if the tech is there?

 

[KnightWRX]

55"

3 meters, 55" TV, 1080p is noticeable. Maybe you should remove the Steve colored glasses :

 

[Žalgiris]

3 meters, 55" TV, 1080p is noticeable. Maybe you should remove the Steve colored glasses :

I know better what i see. And "Maybe you should remove the Steve colored glasses" makes you look silly.