AppleTV Survey

[jackfrost123]

I assume this was a response to me (although you quote someone else)...

I'm not saying you should store it all on your iMac... I know I sure don't. I have a NAS that offers RAID5 for some level of redundancy. It is always on. My iMac is always on. So I don't really care if it needs to pair to my iMac. It'd be nice if the files could go directly from the NAS to the AppleTV, but the current setup has not impacted my ability to play any of my files.

I fail to see how Apple is bullying you into buying anything from them. Like I said, you can have an AppleTV and NEVER visit the iTunes Store to buy/rent anything. Furthermore, x264 is a very capable open source h.264 encoder -- it offers better quality and more functionality than you'll find in some of the paid applications out there. You're confusing containers and codecs at this point. Apple has no incentive to support MKV because they already support MP4. If you have the originals, you can easily get them into a format AppleTV can accept, often at lower bitrates and better quality. Why should they include support for outdated (and inferior) codecs like xvid?

If you don't want to do this, then AppleTV is not for you... simple as that.

So at least you understand the necessity of a nas in this day and age, why won't you agree then that apple is lagging behind by not coming up with one and having a sorry excuse of a back up server/whatever the time capsule priced btw as much as a four bay nas.
So you are telling me the fact that you got to keep both your media storage device (the nas) and your imac running just to get the damn tv to play a simple file is to you a no problemo set up?
I am fully aware of what codecs and containers are, I just don't want to be forced to one container. But it's more than that I have ripped dvds to xvid and like about 99.9999% of people with movie libraries 99.99999% of our libraries is in that format, now is this a good enough reason for you for apple to use it in atv? What do they want us to do, re-rip all our dvds? Re-buy them? That's like having itunes and going, ok, screw mp3, aac is better (which it is) we are not going to allow mp3 in. It's a damn media player, it shouldn't constict you to the codec or container it choses, it should allow you to chose. AND how about every single dvd player now featuring xvid? In my previous post I have made a crystal clear case about apple's greedy motives hear but guess what, they are wrong.

How can they prove someone is importing a DVD that they actually bought (i.e. they didn't rent from Netflix)? If you can answer that question, I'll be impressed because that is the very question that prevents any secure DVD copy scheme from making it into iTunes or any other program for that matter.

How can they prove that you are importing a cd you have bought and not one of your friend's or from a library? BINGO.

Obviously, you haven't kept up with what other commercial companies are doing. Apple is missing the boat. Read: http://www.cepro.com/article/print/is_your_dvd_server_legal_manufacturers_say_yes/

I'm really tired of fanboys who think Apple can do no wrong that and that Apple somehow magically knows what the consumer wants better than the consumer himself/herself does. Oh wait. You have your own whining in the next paragraph of something you WISH Apple would offer but doesn't.... Just how do you think that makes your prior paragraph look?

Apple clearly does NOT have a clue what people want or they wouldn't be calling it a hobby device; they wouldn't have called 1.x a failure to listen to the consumer; they wouldn't keep adding features over time and they wouldn't be asking consumers surveys about what they want. Get over yourself already.

Hear, hear couldn't agree more.

 

[Tilpots]

I don't know what you're talking about. My point is that Apple ISN'T a bargain basement company- that the lowest I could possibly see a "full shebang" TV price point is $899. More likely that if all of the major wishes were granted, it would probably bump up into $999+ territory per Apple pricing. And then it would face "but I can get a whole Macbook for that" or "I can get 2 MacMinis", etc.

Do you have a problem with the price being that high or not? I'm not understanding your point. People don't say "should I get a Mac Pro or 6 Minis." They want a product that fits their needs, and if it's in their budget, they buy it.

I personally don't have a problem with a higher price tag if it has all the bells and whistles I disagree with your cost estimates, but I'm no parts dealer so I can't really put up a good argument, just looking at comparable products. I'd like it even better if they tier the pricing and product.

 

[jackfrost123]

Basically I think apple have messed up with the atv, they had some idea of where they were getting it at, and that was an ipod+itunes set up of having the player+the store making them billions by their selling the content, unheard of before itunes and ipod that a computer co could have the whole recording industry by the balls...hence apple tv...hence apple tv. 1. and then all the apologies and we listened to user comments blah, blah...hence atv 2 and still no luck and then "we want your comments". BUT IT WONT FLY ANYWAY, cause it was never meant to be a consumer friendly full options wireless streamer for media, it was always meant to be a vehicle to seel THEIR content and make $$$$, but now they are in the sorry position to see that their scheme wont fly because guess what, the consumer is already fed up with having to re-buy all the vhs to dvds MERELY a few years ago, and then AGAIN rip them to xvid or divx to have some bully disallow them to:
a. record video
b. playback video in various codecs.
c. play dvds
d. play blue ray discs
e. act as a real client to a nas media server
ALL OF WHICH ARE POSSIBLE IN AN AVERAGE DVR OR SOMETHING LIKE POPCORN HOUR AND A DVR for the price of appletv and lower. ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE POSSIBLE BY AN NVIDIA MAC MINI WHICH FOR THAT REASON NEVER SEEMS TO BE RELEASED IN WHAT IS ONE OF THE MOST PATHETIC MOMENTS IN APPLES RELEASE SCHEDULE HISTORY.

So, now they are going, hey give us your opinions, hey please help us improve our product. WELL YOU CAN'T IMPROVE a product that was meant to PIMP your store and BULLY the average joe into getting ALL his entertainment via the itunes store. You did it once with the ipod (they won't even have fm radio on the iphone for god's sake for fear of not using it to buy music online while 101% of phones out ther have fm radio - that's not because they can't technically implement fm on the iphone, is there another reason thatn to pimp their store then? Why wont the headphones that have fm cost $80 and work fro my ipod wont work for my iphone?).

So, either wise up and but an end on the moneygrabbing greediness and come up with a mac mini type of device that's a dvr, wifi media streamer, open to formats, easily integrated with a nas, ie A GREAT PRODUCT AND NOT AN AWFUL VEHICLE OF GREEDY DOMINATING THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES ITUNES SALES, and then maybe people will buy in, MAYBE, because if you haven't guessed it already apple the competition is by far, far way ahead of you.

 

[chatin]

Improved hardware

The TV has only 256MB RAM and a single core Pentium M CPU (ouch!) - not to mention a sometimes glitch-prone nVidia 7400m GPU.

The software works just the way I want it to - near perfection. I cancelled my cable back in march 2007 and haven't looked back. The liberating experience included the marriage to my Net-soulmate.

Hint, hint: ATI makes some amazing chips and preserves the balance of power in the hardware universe.

 

[Angsty]

OK, so I won't call it my "wish list" for AppleTV, but this is the capability I would like in my entertainment area of my house:

Main Objective/Vision Statement:

De-clutter all those black boxes under my TV and keep it simple.

Maximum of 3 items preferred: 1 tv screen, 1 A/V receiver, 1 "media player" device


Functional Requirements on "media player device" (working title)

1. Provide ability to play ALL my video and audio files currently stored on various devices: portable hard drive, 1TB NAS, USB sticks, iMac, MacBookPro

Examples: vob, mpg, mp4, video_TS, avi, mkv, mp3, wmv, m4a, acc, aiff,

2. Provide the ability to play content stored on other devices. Do not copy or transfer files from their current location to the media player; play them from where they are located now.

3. Provide ability to access content via wireless, ethernet, USB, HDMI and firewire ports as a minimum

4. Provide dual digital TV tuner for the purposes of recording TV to hard drive. Note: this will replace currently functionality offered by "PVR device"

5. Provide ability to play DVDs from my current collection. Require the ability for multi-region playback for countries where region coding has been ruled anti-competitive and is not allowed. Note: this will replace current functionality offered by "DVD Player device"

6. Provide the ability to access internet from device

7. Provide the ability to install additional software applications to the media player device to extend functionality.

Phew, I think that's my requirements list to start with. Of course, I would need to workshop these requirements with other Users to ensure all User Requirements have been captured correctly.

Ang

 

[Philberttheduck]

Easy Add-on..

how bout a VISUALIZER. considering it's already in iTunes it shouldn't be difficult to port that over. imagine throwing that on your 40 incher. non-owners will instantly be attracted and couple that with Apple TV's beautiful interface, you have another buyer.

everyone else already knocked down what i wanted:

blu ray player
USB connectivity support/flash card memory reader
codec/format restrictions
apps

 

[WCLPeter]

However, the point that everyone is missing, is that I'm not paying to 'own' shows, having a permanent copy of the show is a side effect. You see if I pay $100 for cable per month, and I then replace that with $50 a month for Apple TV the fact I 'own' the shows is just an add, I didn't own the shows with cable.

You're 100% right that you don't own the shows with cable. That's not what cable is about. Cable is about giving you access to view hundreds of channels and thousands of shows for one comparatively low price.

All of that choice gives a person the opportunity to try out new shows that they might otherwise never see, or try, had they needed to be purchased outright. If that weren't the case, only the super rich could even come close to being able to afford all the shows available to a person via cable.

What you seem to be missing is that unlike cable, AppleTV charges you per show or per season of a show. I'm not complaining about this, I personally like the idea. The problem is they want you to consider it like cable, which certainly would be okay if they charged you a flat rate and let you download whatever you wanted from the AppleTV library every month.

But they don't. They charge you nearly full purchase price for a single show / season.

Its criminal reallly, there are no shiny disks to press, no boxes to put them in, no shipping guy to pay, no materials to buy, etc... by every measure a digital download is nearly free when compared to the manufactured product, so I shouldn't be paying anywhere near full price for an item that is nearly free to produce. The other problem stems from the fact that you've paid nearly full purchase price, only your purchase isn't really a purchase. Yeah, you can view it on your TV with your AppleTV, assuming you have an authorized license free, but you certainly can't back it up in case your system crashes, nor loan "this awesome new show you just *have* to see" to your friends, nor sell it when you're bored with it or simply need a quick buck.

Now call me silly, or behind the times, but if I'm paying a price for an AppleTV season pass on a show that damn near comes close to same cost I'd pay for the collection of shiny disks I can get at my local Best Buy, you better darned well believe that I expect them to send me those same shiny disks for the content I now own.

Because if all they really want me to do is rent it, then the fee better be on the order of dollars per season not dollars per episode.

 

[Fireteller]

You're 100% right that you don't own the shows with cable. That's not what cable is about. Cable is about giving you access to view hundreds of channels and thousands of shows for one comparatively low price.

I have access to thousands of shows with the TV too.

All of that choice gives a person the opportunity to try out new shows that they might otherwise never see, or try, had they needed to be purchased outright.

See this is what I'm talking about when I say people are getting stuck on the 'buy' concept. Don't think of it as buying, in fact feel free to delete the show after you 'buy' it on AppleTV. Seriously. YOU WILL STILL SPEND LESS MONEY THEN CABLE.

You're saying that the TV prices are a ripoff, ok that's fine by me I'd love the prices to be cheaper too. So even accepting that, my TimeWarner cable service was ripping me off even more then the TV is.

Let's do the math shall we:

My cable, which included HBO and Showtime, used to cost $97 a month.
Let's say I have 8 primetime shows I watch regularly. The best possible deal is that all 8 shows have all new episodes this month. That's 8 * 4 = 32 hours of programming in that billing month. Let's say on top of this I watch 10hours a month of other random shows. So I'm paying $97 a month for 42 hours of programming (including commercials, and deleting the show after I watch it), and that's on the best possible month when all the shows are new.

Now with the TV I can watch the same 8 shows at an average price of $2.50 per show ($1.99 & $2.99/episodes) so those same 32 hours is $80 (slightly cheaper if I buy full seasons at once), the other 10 hours are split between trying out new shows, and video podcasts.

Making the price almost identical, even though I don't have commercials on the TV side, and I keep the shows.

Now factor in the fact that on cable almost no month in the year has a new episode for every single show I watch which means I'm often paying even when I'm not getting new content.

I agree that DVD's are at least equivalent to the TV side of this equation, but I don't have to wait for them to come out, and that doesn't alter the fact that I'm paying less total cost of ownership for the TV then I did when I had cable, for almost all of the same features, plus a few new ones (and no commercials).

The above is a pathological case for someone who watches a lot of TV, I have found that I pay a total of about $50 a month for all my TV shows and rental movies (in HD). So I'm at about 50% of what I used to spend.

f

 

[NightStorm]

I'm really tired of fanboys who think Apple can do no wrong that and that Apple somehow magically knows what the consumer wants better than the consumer himself/herself does. Oh wait. You have your own whining in the next paragraph of something you WISH Apple would offer but doesn't.... Just how do you think that makes your prior paragraph look?

Apple clearly does NOT have a clue what people want or they wouldn't be calling it a hobby device; they wouldn't have called 1.x a failure to listen to the consumer; they wouldn't keep adding features over time and they wouldn't be asking consumers surveys about what they want. Get over yourself already.

Oh, the great fanboy argument. I didn't say anything about Apple really knowing what the consumer wants... my argument is that consumers want Apple to get into a business it has absolutely no desire to get into. If you have 1000s of xvid encodes already, why in the world are you looking to an Apple solution to solve your problem? Apple has made it perfectly clear that they are pushing digital downloads... an add-on Bluray drive or DVR support do not support that model. Do they have a track record of caving into the unreasonable demands of consumers who feel they should dictate what their products can and can't do?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So, now they are going, hey give us your opinions, hey please help us improve our product. WELL YOU CAN'T IMPROVE a product that was meant to PIMP your store and BULLY the average joe into getting ALL his entertainment via the itunes store. You did it once with the ipod (they won't even have fm radio on the iphone for god's sake for fear of not using it to buy music online while 101% of phones out ther have fm radio - that's not because they can't technically implement fm on the iphone, is there another reason thatn to pimp their store then? Why wont the headphones that have fm cost $80 and work fro my ipod wont work for my iphone?).

So, either wise up and but an end on the moneygrabbing greediness and come up with a mac mini type of device that's a dvr, wifi media streamer, open to formats, easily integrated with a nas, ie A GREAT PRODUCT AND NOT AN AWFUL VEHICLE OF GREEDY DOMINATING THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES ITUNES SALES, and then maybe people will buy in, MAYBE, because if you haven't guessed it already apple the competition is by far, far way ahead of you.

I have to agree with all of this. Just look at the way the AppleTV menu system is set up. FIRST on the list are things like "Top Movies" and "Search" and they're not YOUR favorite movies in your library and that's not a search tool to find YOUR movies. It's the top movies and search tool for the iTunes STORE!!! There should be a menu option called "Store" or "iTunes Store" and that should then have the search, movies, music, etc. categories in it. Movies, Music, etc. should be YOUR library and it should have search and top results, etc. for YOUR library. THAT is how a responsible product menu would be set up. They clearly do everything with selling you more junk in mind first and foremost. Heck, I'm almost suprrised they even let you play anything on AppleTV. The way it's set up, it almost feels like they want to sell you something but then don't want you to ever play it (e.g. no search tools for your own music library UNLESS you buy an iPhone or iPod Touch--more money to Apple).

Yet despite ALL of that, I STILL have to say that as screwed up as AppleTV's setup is, it's still MILES better than the XMBC interface I recently tried out, which feels a little like pulling your beard out one hair at a time with tweezers.... At least AppleTV organizes your iTunes database so it's easy to find an artist/album/song by list whereas XMBC goes by Filename, which requires importing lists constantly at slow speeds and then shows things like "01 Song_Name, 02 Song_Name" which is HORRIBLE if you want alphabetical order, yet that's generally how iTunes organizes filenames (which works OK if you have folders for each album, etc. as that is the track order from the CD rip, but XMBC won't pull ALL your folders together into a database. It has to read them all one by one. I see an iTunes import button, but it ONLY works for LOCAL databases. I see no way to point to an SMB share and have it import the entire library and make it easy to browse. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but who knows since it just crashed again for the 5th time in the past hour. I do like the visualizers, though... (well they suck compared to some I have for WinAmp (although it sucks in other areas, but there are some crazy sweet visuals available for it).

All Apple needs to do to rectify the situation is reorganize their interface (so the store is a separate option just like it is in iTunes itself), add a Grid view OPTION for your own material (like the Movie Store area already has and like iTunes already has internally) and add a search option for your own material (again like iTunes and "Remote" both already have) and BINGO, the interface issues are all but gone.

From there they should add a plug-in interface for formats and visualizers (for both iTunes and AppleTV which iTunes could sync to it automatically) and which Apple could approve/implement. That would shut up the people complaining that their existing .AVI, etc. files won't work. I know Apple doesn't like this idea because they want to encourage people to buy more crap from them, but I'm talking about ways to make Apple products BETTER and for them to stop being so freaking anti-social towards other systems, computers and formats. They need to understand that more compatibility = more sales of hardware which = more potential customers instead of being short-sighted and thinking they must try and milk every last drop from existing customers. This is what got them into trouble in the 1990s, not clones. The switch to Intel should have ended the compatibility crap, but clearly they still think that way anyway and it's why cloners are moving in to take their business away. Put bluntly, Apple's own greed will be their undoing unless they change their ways. A happy customer is a loyal customer. An unhappy customer goes somewhere else.

Oh, the great fanboy argument. I didn't say anything about Apple really knowing what the consumer wants... my argument is that consumers want Apple to get into a business it has absolutely no desire to get into. If you have 1000s of xvid encodes already, why in the world are you looking to an Apple solution to solve your problem? Apple has made it perfectly clear that they are pushing digital downloads... an add-on Bluray drive or DVR support do not support that model. Do they have a track record of caving into the unreasonable demands of consumers who feel they should dictate what their products can and can't do?

It is PRECISELY that kind of thinking that will backfire on Apple sooner or later (probably if/when Windows7 solves the problems of Vista). Apple needs to stop doing only what it wants and start doing what its customers want. They admitted AppleTV 1.x was a failure to listen to what their customers wanted and 2.x tried to address this by adding HD movie rentals. It was a step in the right direction. If they want to get even more customers they need to make 3.x do even more of what their potential customers want, not less. Your argument stems from the idea that the customers that are on the fence should go buy someone else's product because that's not what Apple had in mind for AppleTV. If that were the case, they should have stayed with the 1.x software since clearly they did not have HD rentals in mind back then! Apple wants MORE sales, not less. Your argument would eventually put them out of business. They need to start listening to what people want in a product, not keep trying to dictate it to them. The only reason that worked so far is because what they wanted just happened to coincide with what the people wanted (i.e. a reasonably priced legal way to buy songs one-at-a-time.) If they don't provide what people want for movies, someone else WILL. And that means Apple will be out in the cold. Just because Apple is making money right now doesn't mean they always will. Look at Vista and Microsoft and how much damage it's done to someone who practically had a monopoly. Even monopolies can fall if they continually ignore reality.

 

[AidenShaw]

how bout a VISUALIZER. considering it's already in iTunes it shouldn't be difficult to port that over. imagine throwing that on your 40 incher. non-owners will instantly be attracted and couple that with Apple TV's beautiful interface, you have another buyer.

Yes, and bundle 100 hits of windowpane with every Apple TV - a sure fire hit.

(Sorry, I've just never gotten into any of the visualizers - for me they're annoying and distract from listening to the music. Unless, of course, you've taken a windowpane or two.)

 

[jettredmont]

How can they prove someone is importing a DVD that they actually bought (i.e. they didn't rent from Netflix)? If you can answer that question, I'll be impressed because that is the very question that prevents any secure DVD copy scheme from making it into iTunes or any other program for that matter.

It may be a question which haunts the studio heads, but they have to realize that so long as Apple (etc) isn't providing a legitimate solution for this, users are finding illegitimate solutions. Handbrake and Mac the Ripper are quick and easy ways to rip DVDs, and they plop those ripped files right into iTunes or any of a dozen other third-party video players. They are used by vast hordes of consumers already to archive their DVD content. And, yes, they are also used by a good number of folks to "archive" their Netflix'd discs as well.

Inaction is the worst possible route. They cede the territory to folks with absolutely no interest in their well-being or keeping their copyrights intact.

I don't have an answer to give the studios control of what you do with your DVD, of course. I don't know that one exists, and in fact doubt that it does. The current state of affairs, however, is that they are maximizing copyright "infringement" simply because they are afraid of any solution which doesn't guarantee zero infringement. Perfect is truly the enemy of good for them.

As the music industry has proven: you treat your customers as criminals and soon you will have no customers but criminals. Treat your customers with respect and provide an easy-to-use product, and you will see your sales soar.

 

[godslabrat]

There is the problem for many TV wishers- a belief that Apple could somehow build in a Blue Ray drive, DVR hardware and a hard drive(s) large enough to satisfy the DVR crowd, as well as grant a bunch of the other major wishes, and be able to make the Apple-desired profit margin with a $399 price point.

I've previously tried to estimate a "whole shebang" TV based upon lowest retail costs of individual pieces and parts, discounted for volume buying, and lumping in the software that Apple would code to run it all nicely for free and got $899 on the low end (Apple pricing estimate).

Point taken. We can speculate all day about what the price COULD be, but neither of us knows for sure. You're saying $900, I'm thinking at some point the cost of the tech will drop it to under $400. After all, we now have BR players under $200, and the AppleTV itself is close to that price point.

I'm not arguing, I'm saying I honestly don't know what the potential cost would be. However, I'm confident that Apple could make it happen if it was something they actually wanted to do.

Note a fair amount of wishers even in this thread are looking for a lower price point on the current hardware.

Heck yeah, on the current hardware at least. I put the AppleTV in the same category as the iPod Shuffle-- a somewhat interesting idea whose limitations make its price unattractive. I'm not at all opposed to paying more, but I want to see that I'm getting something for my money.

 

[iMaggot]

Merge the MacMini and Apple TV and then put full 1080p purchases in iTunes.

I'll would wait in line for an "Apple TV" like that .

 

[cyclotron451]

AppleTV in EU

well I live in central EU and I rent & buy films from my TV via the UK iTunes store. (UK debit card & bank account needed, probably!) I have the choice now of paying 40 euros a month for SKY, or driving 10km to a Bloc*buster, joining a queue, paying 3 euros to rent a possibly scratched disk (happened twice) which needs to be dropped off after 2 days, OR I use the TV, choose a more modern than locally available film, pay less than 2 euros, can watch anytime within 30 days, then have 48hrs to finish. Family loves it, cheap , reliable, good quality, streaming a movie takes an hour or two - due to the presumed 2000kilometres from UK servers - eg an HD item needs to be reserved 24h in advance. The TV has completely replaced the MacMini as our living-room media PC, fitting in great next to the French TNTsat and UK Freesat boxes. SKY has gone back to Rupert!

 

[shirohagen]

Why doesn't the Apple TV have Safari? At the moment it is just a lure to get people to buy iTunes content, but I know plenty of people (especially non computer owners or older relatives) who would get an Apple TV if it let them browse the internet, watch iPlayer and check email etc on their TV just like Wii owners can already for example. Then they'd probably end up using iTunes by association anyway...

®

 

[satcomer]

Apple shouldn't buy Tivo because it is probably to expensive. Now if they bought Elgato and Sling Media and integrated them both into the AppleTV I would be in heaven.

 

[marmiteturkey]

Most companies have to pay for customers' opinions. I bought a 24in display last week from the Apple store in Regent Street - got an email the next day asking me to fill in a 20-minute questionnaire on the experience, without a reward or an incentive of any kind. You must be joking! 2 mins maybe, but 20? The only people filling that in are housewives and the unemployed...

 

[roocka]

I would buy an Apple TV if...

What they need to do is make the iPhone games playable on a standard television. That way, you could use the phone as a joystick. This would compete directly with the Wii from Nintendo. Then my phone would be all of the following:

1. Phone
2. Mp3 Player
3. Business Tool
4. Handheld Video Game System
5. Video Game Controller.

That would cause everybody who owns an iPhone to want one. Throw in BluRay and you've got the center of your home entertainment experience. You can buy discounted music movies and games on it, rent movies from it, look at photos on it, and have it link with your television so that you can play video games on the television. All your friends have to have to play against you is an iPhone or I-touch.. That would be brilliant.

Oh, and it needs BluRay because some people still buy movies. I think they haven't incorporated it into the AppleTV because they worry it will take away from movie purchases, but I for one will never buy a movie online unless it is from Amazon because I can own the disc and rip it. Lets face it, movies and cds are two different things...

Al Velasco

 

[BenRoethig]

Apple shouldn't buy Tivo because it is probably to expensive. Now if they bought Elgato and Sling Media and integrated them both into the AppleTV I would be in heaven.

Elgato is a no brainer. The only reason I can think of for Apple not purchasing their assets is Steve's bias against TV.

 

[twoodcc]

well i'm glad is asking people what they want in the apple tv. i hope blu-ray and dvr support come to it eventually.

 

[rhett7660]

Seems like the apple tv survey is full. I wasn't even able to get my .02 in..... dang it.

 

[jackfrost123]

@Magnus, great arguments, we think alike here, if it weren't for geographical differences would'd go for a beer.

@rhett Apple will be reading this thread too and weeping don't worry, they are checking these forums out. Let's hope they wizen up here, we wouldn't be here I we didn't love their stuff and attitude, so it would be a shame if they stick to their greedy ways with tv. make it happen st...I was about to say steve but considering the health issues, anyway make it happen stevo.. and tim.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

Though the survey is now closed, anybody wanting to voice their opinion and suggestions on the tv can do so here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html

Heh. I wonder if they are really still paying attention to this... The "What OS are you running?" options only list 10.3 and 10.4 (as well as XP and Vista).

 

[dirty digital]

What's needed is the ability to connect a MiniMac to a telly, have an aerial chuff and a three or four channel digital recorder. The audio output should be 6+1, probably digital. Not forgetting the ability to connect massive hard discs to stream it from. With some OS tweaks, it should be possible to simply do picture-in-picture, e.g. when I'm browsing, but sort of watching another channel or two (or three or four...). A decent remote control which responds to gestures (a-la Wiiii), plus Bluetooth to connect keyboards, mice, and a whole host of other accessories (speakers, printer, etc.).

Then you'd have something that's generic, could record programmes off air/cable/satellite, read/write DVDs, watch YouToob, play games, browse thar intarwebs, and be a portal to the Apple Store (which is it's whole raison d'etre).

Sure, it won't be cheap, but it'll be the mutts knuts and the centre of home entertainment.

Until then, it's a pretty pointless gadget.

right on. If they do it sign me up. An hd based home theater running osx!!!