Initial Orders for New Apple TV Being Prepared for Shipment

[NicoleRichie]

I feel this is becoming a hostile thread... Be happy for others I say.

 

[sbagdan]

Mine Shipped

Ordered mine on day of release and mine shipped yesterday, scheduled delivery is 9/30!

 

[paradox00]

I agree with this, except this AppleTV, for now, doesn't worth buying at all unless you're really in need of a iTunes only TV box. There are much better and broader options out there at similar price points.

And I didn't pretend every Apple product needs to bring a new groundbreaking market, I asked the poster who claimed it did to which new market he was referring to.

AppleTV will remain a hobby until Apple starts to take it seriously.

Of course Apple doesn't need a new market, they take existing markets that they see problems in and improve them. Quite often their offerings are more limited than others, but they do the things they were designed to do very well. That is the key for mass market adoption.

I suspect Apple is taking their hobby seriously now, but they can only do so much against network resistance. Apple faces bigger road blocks because they do have the potential to bring streaming TV boxes to the masses.

PS: I don't see any settop boxes that will accept video streams from an iOS device as easily as Apple TV.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Well, my decision on this was more logistical, not philosophical. When I first got the camcorder in anticipation of my son's birth, I definitely intended to shoot in 1080p all the time. But after doing that for a couple of months, I noticed three things:
1. The amount of room that the 1080p (or 720p, for that matter) stuff takes up on my hard drive is so much that I've already started storing this stuff exclusively on an external hard drive, which brings in more logistical issues because now I have to have an even bigger Time Machine backup hard drive to get both my mac and the external backed up. Doubling that (720p vs. 1080p) makes the problem of even higher magnitude, and more expensive.

Same problem, similar solution here. What I'm doing is storing the 1080p raw files only as AVCHD, because Apple hasn't given me an easy way to render a final master that also capitalizes on 5.1 audio, also available in HD camcorders for at least 3 years now. So, I render for TV now, and I store the AVC files to re-render as soon as I choose what my next TV-like device will be. Those AVC files are not that big, but I too am using a big external 4TB drive (<$500) as well as a secondary backup drive off site. I exclude the 4TB drive from Time Machine, but always do the dual backups every time I dump the video from camcorder to drive(s). That might be an fairly cheap, not too complicated idea for you if you change your mind about what you're doing now.

2. Playing both 1080p and 720p on my 37" TV yields what I consider to be an unnoticeable difference in quality to me.

Yes, an HDTV that small is not going to really show much of a noticeable difference of 1080p vs. 720p. As an up-and-comer though, do you foresee a time when you might decide that you want a bigger screen than 37"? For example, I was you soon after I came out of college (with a 36" TV). A few years later, I found myself buying a 65" inch 1080 HD screen. At about 50" and up, 1080p vs. 720p becomes a very different proposition. Look out there in your own future and decide if the video your iPhones are shooting now will be enough if you eventually add a bigger screen (getting cheaper all the time you know).

3. The act of importing the stuff from my camcorder into iMovie, editing, deciding where to save and whether to import into iTunes is such a hassle that we've rarely used that 1080p camcorder since we got our iPhone 4's. Now we shoot most of our video on our iPhones (720p, the quality is pretty good, and the phones are always on us anyway so that's one less thing to bring). Our SLR camera does HD video (up to 1080p) as well, but again I don't shoot that high resolution with it because of file size.

I completely appreciate the convenience arguments. It's always a bit of of a pain to lug along a bigger camcorder and the tripod that I usually keep with it vs. something that could fit in my pocket like an iPhone. On the other hand, I've got 4 years of my late Father having some times "of his life" on a few big vacations- all captured in 1080HD and high quality audio. The perceived value of that content goes up every month for me, and I increasingly regret not being able to get ahold of a 1080HD camcorder sooner than about 2006.

I have quick access to that video via TV now, via work in iMovie and downconverted to what TV can handle. But sometimes, I'll just connect the camera straight to the HDTV to enjoy the experience maxed out at 1080. Generally, it's not for the most special or spectacular moments, but just for the boring (to anyone else) everyday moments captured on disc. 960 x 540 is OK- better than SD, and 1280 x 720 is OK too. But at 65", nothing compares to 1080.

You're closer to the beginning of life, but I'll encourage you to break out that less convenient equipment you have and shoot a lot of 1080 content while that baby is a baby. Burn the backups to cheap BD discs or buy a couple of 4TB WD backup drives and archive it. If later on, you're not thrilled with iPhone video on your future big screen, you'll be glad that it is not the MAX you have.

I'm glad I also have old SD video- the best we had when we shot with that- but I sure wish I could go back and give myself an HD camcorder and re-shoot all that old SD in 1080HD.

If I want to capture my son in the highest res possible, I ought to get a camera capable of recording in 3D 1440p (expensive but possible, nowadays), since one day we might have 1440p HD 3D Tv sets, and I wouldn't want to be limited to measly 1080p.

But the difference is that 1080p will be the MAX standard for a long time to come. We're not going to have broadcast hop up to 1440p in just a few years. The HD standards were finalized in 1986, and we're still seeing devices come to market that don't maximize them. 1080i is actually the highest end max standard, and 1080p is just a trick but one that has taken hold through clever marketing by CES.

Someday, they'll be another round of standards being set, and another 25+ year span to fully embrace those higher standards. But for now, for a few years backwards, and probably for a decade or more forwards, 1080p is likely to be the mainstream MAX standard.

However, if you could afford a 1440p or a 4096 camera, or film camera and it could work for you, I'd say go for it. You won't get to come back to your baby's earliest moments and film it again.

a. bumping up the processor so it could support 1080p (to apple's high user-interface standards) would have pushed the price point higher. . . say another $30 or so, just pulling a number out of the air from the cost difference between the Roku players.

Ah, the #1 justification is that it would have cost more. Here's all 3 ROKU boxes, the latter 2 both 1080p capable, all with recommended retail prices of $99 or less: http://shop.roku.com/Roku-Digital-Video-Player-Options-W5.aspx I'm confident that Apple could get just as good a deal on 1080p chips as a much smaller company like Roku.

b. The low $99 price point is a major psychological motivator to get lots of people to actually try out this product without sweating it too much. . .

OK, so see last answer. I might argue that the "1080p or bust" crowd would be less price sensitive- I certainly am- motivated to pay more for the same functionality on 1080p chipset- I would. Maybe borrow a page from Roku and roll out the "pro" version at $129, $149, $199. I'd gladly pay 2-3X more than $99 for this last link in the imovie-itunes-______-1080p HDTV chain to be filled in with a great solution from Apple.

*shrug* this is all conjecture on my part, of course. I don't actually know why Apple didn't include the 1080p support. But it seems Apple is focusing on simplicity here, at least for now. They want to concentrate their resources on selling a whole bunch of these before Christmas at a "why not?" price to get new apple tv users. Similar to what they did with the first generation iphone (what? It doesn't support 3G? Outrageous!).

- - -

1080p support was a victim of Apple's strategy to get a lot of people to buy Apple TV's before Google TV and Boxee Boxes came out (maybe?). Once they've got a greater standardized market penetration, I expect the apple tv upgrade cycle will be similar to that of the iphone. Or, maybe at least every 2 years instead of 4.

As illustrated above, ROKU (and WD and some BD players, etc) are all going to compete with Apple this Christmas with 1080p hardware in set top boxes. 1080p is just a number, but it implies a higher quality picture. Someone sold a "full HD" or "true HD" HDTV probably learned that "full HD" or "true HD" is 1080p, not 720p. Once again the "bigger number is better", whether they can actually see it or not. When they shop this Christmas for a little set-top box, Apple has to win with 720p vs. 1080p, for pricing in many cases higher than the 1080p boxes against which they will compete.

I agree that a strategy here may have been to sell a lot for Christmas. I'm sure you'll agree that having covered this particular base in this version would have helped that strategy be realized to an even larger level of success. At least they would have sold Christmas presents to both the "720p is good enough" and the "1080p or bust" crowds.

And the beauty is that 1080p hardware would serve 720p software at it's fullest possible quality, so those happy with the various benefits of 720p would have still been able to enjoy every single one of those benefits. And those of us hungry for a bit more, would have been looking for Santa to buy Apple too.

 

[garethpauljones]

My Apple TV was "prepared for shipping" this morning and now it is back to "Not Yet Shipped". However, Apple have emailed me regarding upgraded shipping.

Thank you for choosing the Apple Store.

With reference to your recent order, we are pleased to advise that we have upgraded your shipping method at no extra charge.

Your order will be delivered by carrier during business hours and a signature may be required.

Once your order has dispatched, you will receive a Dispatch Notification email, advising you of expected delivery dates and enabling you to track your order.

 

[Doc750]

got my email last night, should be here on 9/30

 

[lexusford]

Order mine 2 Sept @ 9:32 pst, its just now, prepared for shipping

 

[iMosaic]

Be prepared

Ordered mine on Sep 5, 2010 at 07:08 PM PDT and it shows Prepared for Shipping..

 

[gri]

Ordered mine on day of release and mine shipped yesterday, scheduled delivery is 9/30!

Did you order expedited shipping? Mine was ordered 9/2 standard delivery and it says estimated arrival in 8 days, 10/5th. While I can certainly live with that I am a bit surprised/disappointed, that is the slowest shipment I have seen from Apple ever (east coast)

 

[Westside guy]

I'm getting an AppleTV; only to stream MY content.

Streaming your own stuff can be quite nice - I've ripped most of our DVDs and feed them (using the free streambaby and pytivo programs) to our Tivo. Much more convenient than trying to find a particular DVD, plus the DVD sits there safe and unscratched (for however long the DVD lasts anyway).

All my home media is streamed to either my LG Blu-ray player or my PS3 depending on where in the house I am using a DLNA server off my NAS.

The PS3 has so much promise for this sort of thing; but Sony seems hell-bent on preventing it. My Tivo - which certainly has significantly less processing power than my PS3 - handles high quality mp4 movies streamed to it much better than my PS3 does. I've tried different encodings, and I've tried most every stream server out there... ugh.

 

[tripjammer]

None of which are new markets. Again, Internet show rentals is nothing new. Netflix streaming on a device directly connected to your TV is not a new market either (hint, behing an Apple device doesn't make it a new market, that's not a feature). Airplay is just DLNA in a proprietary package. Nothing new there either.

Did you even try ?

ovrlrd said that there is plenty of room for Apple if their device is a new market. So which new market is it ? Or are they offering a lackluster option in an already existing market ?

Airplay from a IPad\Iphone4\Itouch4...video and audio from any app running on those devices.

Possible streaming of whole apps to the Apple TV from other iOS devices.

Show me another device where you can walk up to with an Ipad\Iphone\Itouch and have it stream from that it to the device plugged into the TV?

Only the new apple tv....and maybe google tv...but the new apple tv came out first.

If apple can get apps to run on it...if ifixit can show that it has 16gb of flash on it...everybody in the sun will go out and get a new apple tv because they know apps are coming.

Streaming your own stuff can be quite nice - I've ripped most of our DVDs and feed them (using the free streambaby and pytivo programs) to our Tivo. Much more convenient than trying to find a particular DVD, plus the DVD sits there safe and unscratched (for however long the DVD lasts anyway).



The PS3 has so much promise for this sort of thing; but Sony seems hell-bent on preventing it. My Tivo - which certainly has significantly less processing power than my PS3 - handles high quality mp4 movies streamed to it much better than my PS3 does. I've tried different encodings, and I've tried most every stream server out there... ugh.

You are doing it wrong...get PS3 media server. Its free and it works the best on the PS3.

But yeah, I agree with you on sony....but they now have partnerships with google, so you will see google tv integrated into the PS3 soon.

The Hulu plus app is nice on the PS3. They did a good job on it.

Ordered mine on Sep 5, 2010 at 07:08 PM PDT and it shows Prepared for Shipping..

I ordered mine on September 4th...mine now shows prepared for shipment!

 

[Westside guy]

My iTunes library has 2.1 terabytes of movies (all my DVDs have been ripped and tagged with Meta X). With a TV in the bedroom, the office, and my living room, as well as a movie theatre in the basement, these things are gold. Pure gold. And thats BEFORE Netflix.
...

It's not for everyone. I'd imagine my incentive to own one would be much less if I hadn't made digital copies of my dvd library. But that's the niche that the Apple TV fits

I agree - if you don't already have such a thing, then it could be useful to you (and I believe I said that in part of the post you quoted). But a lot of us have this functionality already - for me, it's using streambaby/pytivo running on a Mac that holds our ripped DVDs. I've been doing it for a couple years now. For me, there's no value to adding yet another device to the television.

Of course if Apple makes it easier, then there's going to be a market for that. And I realize the obstacle there isn't really Apple; it's the media companies that seem to believe if they wish hard enough and clap their hands, the internet will go away. Personally I'm hoping that, if Apple gets successful enough, they'll have the impact they had with music - and eventually we can end up with DRM-free video the way we now have with audio.

I've actually bought a small number of movies and TV series from Apple, removed their DRM with Requiem, and can now stream those to my Tivo. So I don't need the AppleTV to give me access to their media when it makes financial sense to go that way.

 

[dgalvan123]

Same problem, similar solution here. What I'm doing is storing the 1080p raw files only as AVCHD, because Apple hasn't given me an easy way to render a final master that also capitalizes on 5.1 audio, also available in HD camcorders for at least 3 years now. So, I render for TV now, and I store the AVC files to re-render as soon as I choose what my next TV-like device will be. Those AVC files are not that big, but I too am using a big external 4TB drive (<$500) as well as a secondary backup drive off site. I exclude the 4TB drive from Time Machine, but always do the dual backups every time I dump the video from camcorder to drive(s). That might be an fairly cheap, not too complicated idea for you if you change your mind about what you're doing now.

I need to move in this direction anyway since, whether I'm shooting 720p or 1080p, either way I'm going to need more hard disk space in the not-too-distant future. So, just to make sure I understand what you have set up: When you import video from your camcorder, you save the AVCHD file in a directory on your 4TB external hard drive. Then you use iMovie to "import" that video file (stored externally) into an apple-TV resolution movie in iTunes, which is the only version that is stored locally on your mac. You must also have an additional external hard drive which you use as time machine backup for your mac's main hard drive, and you don't backup your AVCHD's on the 4TB external to the time machine hard drive. So then, how do you do your backup of the 4TB holding the AVCHD's? Do you clone it to your offsite hard drive somehow?

My 500GB MBP hard drive is already 80% full, so I'm going to start by offloading the rest of my iMovie library to a different external hard drive, but I don't yet have a plan for keeping those backed up. (I prefer automated backup systems like Time Machine, because my forgetfulness doesn't impact the process.)

. . .. Look out there in your own future and decide if the video your iPhones are shooting now will be enough if you eventually add a bigger screen (getting cheaper all the time you know).

I completely appreciate the convenience arguments. It's always a bit of of a pain to lug along a bigger camcorder and the tripod that I usually keep with it vs. something that could fit in my pocket like an iPhone. On the other hand, I've got 4 years of my late Father having some times "of his life" on a few big vacations- all captured in 1080HD and high quality audio. The perceived value of that content goes up every month for me. . .
. . .You're closer to the beginning of life, but I'll encourage you to break out that less convenient equipment you have and shoot a lot of 1080 content while that baby is a baby

Fair enough. We do pull out the camcorder every now and then, but it's amazing how convenience-addicted we become if we are enabled. And I will admit that the camcorder I got (a Canon Vixia HF20, I think) is amazing in how small it is compared to the casette camcorders of yesteryear. Fits in the palm of your hand, and maybe even in a big coat pocket. Not a pants-pocket though. We end up with video taken on 3 different devices (phone, SLR, and camcorder). I just find that the phone video gets archived (via itunes backup) and shared (via posting to flickr, youtube, facebook, e-mail) much more quickly than video taken with the other two devices. I'm lucky if I get time to sit down and deal with the SLR/camcorder video once every month, as it takes me a couple hours+ in front of the computer to import, edit, sort, distribute to family/friends, and I find I have less and less time in front of the computer at home, due to baby's needs. I can edit/share my phone video while sitting on the couch for a few restful moments or even while lying awake in bed, on the phone itself.

I have quick access to that video via TV now, via work in iMovie and downconverted to what TV can handle. But sometimes, I'll just connect the camera straight to the HDTV to enjoy the experience maxed out at 1080. Generally, it's not for the most special or spectacular moments, but just for the boring (to anyone else) everyday moments captured on disc. 960 x 540 is OK- better than SD, and 1280 x 720 is OK too. But at 65", nothing compares to 1080.

That quick access is my holy grail. I'd love to have quick access to my entire home video/photo library from the couch, and I do realize that takes some work on my part organizing the file structure and editing the videos a bit. I still don't get why the movies need to be imported into itunes, though. I mean, apple tv can stream photos directly from iPhoto library without the photos being imported into itunes, right? I'd love to just store the video in one "place" on the computer, without having to import everything into iTunes.

Also, that's another issue: I've actually gone through the rigamarole of exporting 1080p video via iMovie / Quicktime (it takes some extra steps to do it. . . found the instructions on some blog post), and the resulting 1080p movie file looked ok on my HD TV, but not as good as when I plugged my camcorder directly into the TV and played it. This made me lose confidence in the Apple software's ability to export a good 1080p video file, and helped to justify my not using 1080p. Do you have another method of watching your 1080p home movies on your HDTV other than plugging your camcorder into the TV? Apple certainly doesn't make it easy to get a 1080p video out of iMovie.

Ah, the #1 justification is that it would have cost more. Here's all 3 ROKU boxes, the latter 2 both 1080p capable, all with recommended retail prices of $99 or less: http://shop.roku.com/Roku-Digital-Video-Player-Options-W5.aspx I'm confident that Apple could get just as good a deal on 1080p chips as a much smaller company like Roku.

I agree with you that it would have been better for consumers if Apple had made a 1080p version available. So I'm not trying to make excuses for them, per se, just offer possible explanations as to why they didn't. The explanations are more about Apple's marketing strategy and less about giving the consumer lots of options (something Apple's not generally known for anyway). Clearly, if Apple thought they could put the 1080p chip in their $99 device and have it be good for their business, they would have done it, as it is a nice feature to be able to tout. So why didn't they?

One possibility might be that they wanted to make sure and use the A4 chip so that they could build it on iOS (helpful for Airplay and potential future App Store), and the A4 couldn't do 1080p (at least not up to Apple's standards). Maybe the next generation "A" chip was not going to be ready before christmas? Also, I'll point out that Roku lowered their prices on August 30, 2 days before Apple announced the new apple tv, and long after the Apple $99 price point was rumored. IE: Apple probably set their price point based on existing competition (pre-price-drop rokus), and then Roku responded competitively by lowering their prices.

Also, the crowd that cares a lot about 1080p is probably going to be either a.) home video gurus like you with lots of home video 1080p content and/or blu-rays ripped legally to hard drives or b.) video pirates who get 1080p content via bit torrent. Group "a" will have little use for Roku, since they don't adequately do streaming from your home computer to your TV, and so Apple is likely to lose that group to Roku any time soon. (example: are YOU going to buy a Roku XDR? I'm guessing not.). Also, group "a" has enough income to support the many external hard drives to support the maintenance and storage of the big 1080p files. At $99, it's pretty clear the Apple TV is trying to be a mass-market-appeal device that is affordable to people with lower incomes as well, so group a is not the target audience. Group "b" probably have enough tech-savvy and time such that apple tv would not have appealed to them anyway, and they probably have HTPC's or WD Live devices instead. Plus those people are a pretty small percentage of Apple's potential customer base.
Hence, Apple is probably betting that they are not likely to lose those customers to competitors in the near future.

Finally, another marketing explanation: Apple has stuck its iphone's with 720p max res video. It is selling and renting 720p max/res video over iTunes. And Netflix is only streaming at 720p. Perhaps apple didn't want to announce their new device supports 1080p, and have the backlash be all the people saying: "I bought this device because it supports 1080p, and then I find that there is no 1080p content available for it! Lame!" The 1080p-content-using segment of the population is way to small to be driving Apple's short-term strategy.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Still not on Amazon.com yet.

I will wait. Amazon gives free shipping but also no tax.

I'm guessing by the time the two week wait period for new orders is over, it will be available at local stores and amazon.

 

[japanime]

Not having to deal with wires is a huge deal, and the video out cable does not do 720p. Even with the VGA cable you can only do 1024x768, which means with widescreen content that is actually 576p, not 720p. Plus a lot of TVs don't even have VGA input.

Ultimately being able to stream video, photos, and music, with extreme ease (and painless because there arr no wires) is a huge deal.

Besides, those video out cables are way overpriced. For not that much more you can have the new Apple TV, plus get the ability to stream tons of stuff without even needing your iPad hooked up.

The video quality isn't as important too me (I'm older, so my eyesight isn't all that great anymore). But you do make a good point there, and I could see that being a huge plus for most people.

As for the wires, well, the Apple TV will have just as many wires going to the TV and the power outlet as the iPad, right? And I can already wirelessly stream video content from my MacBook Pro to my iPad using the free Air Video app.

 

[weave]

Did you order expedited shipping? Mine was ordered 9/2 standard delivery and it says estimated arrival in 8 days, 10/5th. While I can certainly live with that I am a bit surprised/disappointed, that is the slowest shipment I have seen from Apple ever (east coast)

I ordered mine about an hour after it was announced. Used standard shipping, because usually they ship all this stuff at the same method anyway. FedEx originally said delivery on 9/30 but not it says Oct 5th as well (I'm on east coast too)

 

[OSUGuy]

The anticipation is killing me.

Had to wait till Sept 14 before I could order (switched banks). But if people who ordered the 4th and 5th are getting their shipment notices then mine might actually ship before Oct 13th (which it says on my order currently)!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...just to make sure I understand what you have set up: When you import video from your camcorder, you save the AVCHD file in a directory on your 4TB external hard drive. Then you use iMovie to "import" that video file (stored externally) into an apple-TV resolution movie in iTunes, which is the only version that is stored locally on your mac.

Yes, here's even richer detail. I use Chonosync to sync the camcorder AVC content to the 4TB external. Then, I manually, input just newly shot video into iMovie (from the 4TB), edit it to taste, then render it for TV. The input for iMovie is in a folder called "Scratch" on the iMac's internal hard drive. The Scratch folder is also excluded from Time Machine backups. Once rendered, I often give it a quick check, then send it back to the "home movies" folder (organized by year) on the 4TB.

When Scratch starts taking up too much space, I just delete everything in it, knowing that some day, I'll reimport and re-render all that AVCHD to master copies of 1080p, at which point- after verifying I've got exactly the net footage I want at it's native 1080p resolution- I'll probably dump the AVCHD backup files, and those 1080p renders will become my master copies.

The 4TB drive is backed up 2 times, once to another 4TB, and then component folders of raw and processed content are backed up to 2TB drives stored offsite. I could just pick up another 4TB drive for my 2 backup approach, but I happen to have spare 2TB backups just laying around doing nothing.

Time Capsule is attached to the AEBS solely backing up the iMac SSD + 2TB internal drive, my laptop drive, and the other iMac in our house, but not "scratch" (folder) and not the 4TB attached to mine. This all works really well and doesn't involve much cost considering what I'm doing and the (family) perceived value of the content.

I chose this approach over using Time Machine for everything because that would take a small server (for Time Machine) and I generally think of Time Machine as good for all the smaller files like Applications, photos, etc, not as good for big multi-GB files like videos, where I might occasionally tweak the description or name or something in iTunes, and then Time Machine would back that up as a new copy.

My 500GB MBP hard drive is already 80% full, so I'm going to start by offloading the rest of my iMovie library to a different external hard drive, but I don't yet have a plan for keeping those backed up. (I prefer automated backup systems like Time Machine, because my forgetfulness doesn't impact the process.)

Everybody has their own way of doing things, but I do prefer to backup big-file content manually, mostly because the small tweaks can burn backup space quickly. However, if you are worried about forgetfulness, you might consider one of those 8TB raid boxes from OWC, to allocate as your Time Machine box. That would be plenty for backing up 720p and 1080p big files for a good long time given what you're doing. And again, not really that expensive considering how valuable that content will become as you age.

I just find that the phone video gets archived (via itunes backup) and shared (via posting to flickr, youtube, facebook, e-mail) much more quickly than video taken with the other two devices. I'm lucky if I get time to sit down and deal with the SLR/camcorder video once every month, as it takes me a couple hours+ in front of the computer to import, edit, sort, distribute to family/friends, and I find I have less and less time in front of the computer at home, due to baby's needs. I can edit/share my phone video while sitting on the couch for a few restful moments or even while lying awake in bed, on the phone itself.

I understand... and remember how it was. What I can offer is that it won't always be that way, so archive it now and get to it when you can. Maybe you won't have time to process AVCHD for a couple of years, but when the baby is off to school, and especially later on as they become more independent, you'll find more and more time for these kinds of projects. You'll be happy that you have a "ton of old footage" to go back and process than not ("because I never thought I would have the time to actually do anything with it"). Trust me on this one. I know first hand.

I still don't get why the movies need to be imported into itunes, though. I mean, apple tv can stream photos directly from iPhoto library without the photos being imported into itunes, right?

Not exactly, iTunes is involved in all things related to media pumped to TV. It's not 100% clear to me exactly what goes on there, but I'm pretty sure that iTunes will convert copies of your iPhotos (you earmark for TV) optimized for HD resolutions. Either they are stored in association with iTunes directly, or they may be stored in association with iPhoto. I'm certain that the photos stored in iPhoto are not the source of what appears as duplicate photos stored for/in TV, so I know there's a smaller copy of the photos stored somewhere for TV. Apple TV is an "ipod for your television"; just like your iPhoto library is not loaded into your iPod at full resolution (say a bunch of 10 MP images to show on a tiny iPod nano screen), these optimizations are also done for other iDevices. I'm pretty sure this is all handled by iTunes.

Also, that's another issue: I've actually gone through the rigamarole of exporting 1080p video via iMovie / Quicktime (it takes some extra steps to do it. . . found the instructions on some blog post), and the resulting 1080p movie file looked ok on my HD TV, but not as good as when I plugged my camcorder directly into the TV and played it. This made me lose confidence in the Apple software's ability to export a good 1080p video file, and helped to justify my not using 1080p. Do you have another method of watching your 1080p home movies on your HDTV other than plugging your camcorder into the TV? Apple certainly doesn't make it easy to get a 1080p video out of iMovie.

No, it does seem to be a problem to get an excellent copy out of iMovie at 1080p quality. There's tons of workflows and discussions online, but I've generally concluded that we haven't been given a version of iMovie yet (maybe 2006's iMovie HD) that is really set up for this. I always expect we're one version away from that capability (with processing for 5.1 audio too).

However, if not, when re-rerendering for 1080p in the future, I'll probably just go with Final Cut Express. But I do think iMovie will get there. Another reason to store the masters as AVCHD.

Also, the crowd that cares a lot about 1080p is probably going to be either a.) home video gurus like you with lots of home video 1080p content and/or blu-rays ripped legally to hard drives or b.) video pirates who get 1080p content via bit torrent. Group "a" will have little use for Roku, since they don't adequately do streaming from your home computer to your TV, and so Apple is likely to lose that group to Roku any time soon. (example: are YOU going to buy a Roku XDR? I'm guessing not.).

I intend to buy some solution for 1080p playback sooner than later (I waited for this new version from Apple in hopes that they would deliver on this long-requested feature). It may or may not be a Roku. Roku can stream from home computers, but it is also well suited to just attach storage to it. So I could just copy all my media to a spare 2TB, attach it to the Roku or similar, and that could be a solution. I'm not in love with Roku- only pointed to them to disprove the popular belief that Apple couldn't put 1080chips in a set-top box and still retail it for $99. Obviously, they could have done so.

In my own case however, I'm about to buy a newer HDTV. I'm looking at the latest Samsungs with built-in apps (like netflix): http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore and normal USB ports for home media libraries. It may be my new TV like option (minus a set-top box). As a matter of fact, tomorrow I'm taking a USB stick loaded with some test video rendered in various formats to Best Buy to check out how the playback of everything from old SD home movies to 1080p renders from iMovie HD (2006) and iMovie 09 all look. I hope it "wows" me.

Also, group "a" has enough income to support the many external hard drives to support the maintenance and storage of the big 1080p files. At $99, it's pretty clear the Apple TV is trying to be a mass-market-appeal device that is affordable to people with lower incomes as well, so group a is not the target audience.

Now here's the reality. My whole DVD collection plus all of my home movies rendered for the current TV currently comes in under 1TB. When I re-render all the home movies to 1920x1080p, I expect that to increase to no more than 2TB. A 2TB external to hook to a Roku or Samsung USB jack can cost $120: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Western-D...ner=jXot6eVeYJg&sourceid=22000130430528900513. So for about the same price I paid for the original TV 4 years ago, I could cover this base in a complete way. The point is that it's not hugely expensive to go 1080p for these kinds of applications, even for a poorer player. If they can afford a 1080p HDTV, they can probably afford a few hundred dollars for some kind of 1080p source.

And here's a hint: export your movies all at "best" settings, then run them through Handbrake for optimizing them for h.264. Just last night a 1920x1080 render out of iMovie came in at just under 10GB. The same video pumped through Handbrake brought it down to a bit more than 1.2GB. Both versions look just about exactly the same on the (small 27") iMac screen. I haven't been able to compare them on a big screen yet. But I do know that handbrake really optimizes well, while iMovie doesn't seem to be set up for output optimization at the same level.

Finally, another marketing explanation: Apple has stuck its iphone's with 720p max res video. It is selling and renting 720p max/res video over iTunes. And Netflix is only streaming at 720p. Perhaps apple didn't want to announce their new device supports 1080p, and have the backlash be all the people saying: "I bought this device because it supports 1080p, and then I find that there is no 1080p content available for it! Lame!" The 1080p-content-using segment of the population is way to small to be driving Apple's short-term strategy.

Maybe so, but they could have included 1080p hardware and not announced it if they were concerned about that. Officially it would support 720p, but unofficially it would play 1080p. I'm awaiting definitive tests in hopes that that easter egg might actually play out (doubtful).

The path to 1080p content in iTunes for TV only can be realized by getting 1080p TV hardware installed in homes on a massive scale. When enough are in place, some Studio will be tempted to test whether 1080p content via iTunes will be profitable to offer as rentals or purchases. Any Studio that decided to run that test this week will see a massive failure, as no 1080p TVs in place can not possibly prove whether we'll pay for 1080p content in a profitable way.

Thus, it's not really a chicken & egg situation. Apple can lead with 1080p hardware and let the software catch up, just like offering 4 & 6 core chips in Macs before all software can utilize them, or tethering capabilities in iPhones before AT&T software was ready, etc. However, it certainly won't work the other way (software before the hardware).

Besides, if this TV is going to have apps, by the time the stealth 1080p hardware issue actually grew into something, sources with 1080p content like VUDU: http://www.vudu.com/ could roll out their app to feed this little box. There's already 1080p content avaiable on youtube. Some vodcasts would go 1080p content if there was any way for it to be watched via TV. And so on. In other words, if the hardware gets heavily entrenched thanks to your big Christmas sales theory, every additional unit sold adds incentive for many players to test the profitability of 1080p content. It wouldn't take long for some Studio to approach Apple wanting to test it as an additional option in the iTunes store- especially as a big base of owners are clamoring to rent or buy such content in a way that gets picked up in the press. Sellers always love to see hungry buyers ready to buy.

As is, Apple might sell millions of these 720p MAX units this Christmas. But if they do, not a one can prove if there's a market for 1080p content via iTunes rentals/sales. Not a one.

 

[KnightWRX]

Airplay from a IPad\Iphone4\Itouch4...video and audio from any app running on those devices.

Wow, late to the game much ?

1.99$, MediaServer, Released February 2010. It's a DLNA streaming server for iOS.

Took me 2 seconds to find on the AppStore, and I didn't even go through the entire list of apps I found with my search string.

Possible streaming of whole apps to the Apple TV from other iOS devices.

This has been addressed. This is pure fiction. Touch input kills this idea so hard.

Show me another device where you can walk up to with an Ipad\Iphone\Itouch and have it stream from that it to the device plugged into the TV?

See my first point. Search for DLNA on the AppStore. It already exists.

Seriously, tired argument is tired. AppleTV is nothing new. To me, it's also lackluster compared to other options. If you like it, fine, but don't pretend it does anything that wasn't already possible.

 

[dgalvan123]

Wow, late to the game much ?

1.99$, MediaServer, Released February 2010. It's a DLNA streaming server for iOS.

Took me 2 seconds to find on the AppStore, and I didn't even go through the entire list of apps I found with my search string.

From the description in MediaServer's splash page:
"Play your iphone media on your PS3, XBOX 360, XMBC, BOXEE. . . PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: The media synchronised [sic] with iTunes are not available because the Apple SDK doesn't permit this. Only the camera roll is available by default. You must upload every other content via FTP. . ."

So. . . this app just allows you to stream your iphone photos to an XBox or other TV-connected device (each of which cost $200+). . . and your iTunes synched content won't work.

So, are you advocating that people buy a $200+ box plus a $2 app to (almost) do something that Apple TV (with Airplay) will do for $100? (confused)

AppleTV is nothing new. To me, it's also lackluster compared to other options. If you like it, fine, but don't pretend it does anything that wasn't already possible.

Apple has rarely come out with products that do things that weren't "possible" before. Hooking up a computer to a TV has been possible for decades now. What Apple tends to do is come out with a product that makes doing something easier. The Apple TV aims to get the content most people care about (photos, music, videos) from your computer (and your mobile devices) to the TV in the easiest, most convenient way possible.

I don't have an Xbox,PS3, or HTPC, and I don't want one. All those items either cost too much for my interest level, do things I don't need, or take too much time and effort to maintain. Apple TV does what I need at a lower cost than it would be to purchase and use the multitude of features you'd have to combine to get the same functionality, and it does it in a more user-friendly way in collaboration with Mac applications I already use to organize my photos, music, and videos.

I don't really get why you seem to be bragging that the sum total of all your equipment (which may total several hundred $ or over $1K), taken together, can do what the $100 Apple TV can do.

 

[paulisme]

Wow, late to the game much ?

1.99$, MediaServer, Released February 2010. It's a DLNA streaming server for iOS.

Took me 2 seconds to find on the AppStore, and I didn't even go through the entire list of apps I found with my search string.

Can you control the music using the iPhone itself, or stream music from a computer's iTunes library to a UPnP-capable device while controlling it with the iPhone? It looks to me like the MediaServer app you mentioned only acts as a UPnP server for the files stored on your phone, and it doesn't even work with your iTunes library (the music must be stored separately from iTunes on the phone). I'd hardly say that's a replacement for the functionality you get with Apple TV.

 

[KnightWRX]

Can you control the music using the iPhone itself, or stream music from a computer's iTunes library to a UPnP-capable device while controlling it with the iPhone? It looks to me like the MediaServer app you mentioned only acts as a UPnP server for the files stored on your phone, and it doesn't even work with your iTunes library (the music must be stored separately from iTunes on the phone). I'd hardly say that's a replacement for the functionality you get with Apple TV.

Searched for 2 seconds. I'm not surprised that Apple has more control over getting it right, they make both devices. Doesn't mean there aren't better apps. I was just pointing out that it is possible. The poster was saying it wasn't. It's always like this on this forum. Someone says X is impossible, you show X is possible, the goal posts get moved.

Seriously, how about for once just conceding ?

However, I don't see what's so great about streaming stuff from an iOS device. My media is not primarily stored there, it's either on my computer or on my NAS. Why would I want to waste already limited battery streaming from my iPhone ?

 

[raggedkarma]

However, I don't see what's so great about streaming stuff from an iOS device. My media is not primarily stored there, it's either on my computer or on my NAS. Why would I want to waste already limited battery streaming from my iPhone ?

I think the idea with AirPlay (although I don't know if there is a final word at the moment how it will work, but here's my guess) is for the iOS media player to be able to push anything it's asked to play to the Apple TV. Not just stuff from your video library, but anything you find while browsing, a link in an email, etc. Also, if a friend happens to visit, they can use their ipod to put photos, music or video on the TV, and that would be quite cool.

 

[capwkidd]

Mine shows prepared for shipment... has been that way all day.... I ordered on Sep 2, and live in CA... I also pre-ordered the BoxeeBox

 

[phillydogg28]

Anger


so my apple tv was suppose to be delivered on the 29th, but has i just looked at the tracking it got delayed in china and wont be here till the 1st, im so pissed