Jobs Says Apple TV App Store Could Launch When the Time is Right

[MagnusVonMagnum]

While the geek crowd would cheer, it would still be at a pricepoint where consumers would roll their eyes at the device. Consumers make up more of the buying numbers of devices than the geek crowd ever will. Apple isn't dumb here and putting a $99 device that competes well with other $99 devices like Roku will put Apple ahead. Or did you miss where everyone is laughing at BoxeeBox right now, primarily because of price despite doing all that you said above?

Well, like I said, if PRICE is the ONLY reason Apple TV V1.0 failed, then this new one will be a massive success. But I can almost guarantee it will fail nearly as badly as the first generation because it does NOT solve ANY of the shortcomings of generation one. It also lacks component and analog outputs (some people were put off by the lack of compatability with pre-HD televisions the first time around. My receiver and switching does not handle HDMI, so I cannot use the new ATV without buying a new receiver or switcher). They have really cheaped out to get the price down.

Secondly, if you look at what this device is designed to do versus what most people used the first generation Apple TV to do (i.e. rentals versus an archive library setup), there's a big disparity. While you could still do that with the new model, relatively few people are actually going to do all that work (i.e. convert large DVD and/or Blu-Ray collections to stream to their ATV box). That's EXACTLY what I do with the first generation Apple TV and it took me a year to scan and clean up all my photos and convert hundreds of DVDs to M4V. The only way an average person would do the latter is if the system automatically did it while watching a movie. That will never happen, it seems. So the box for MOST people is pretty much what Apple intends it to be...a cheap "rental" box for iTunes movies and now Netflix movies. Well, that didn't work for the 1st generation ATV either. Most people just cried that it couldn't do 1080p and so they rent or buy Blu-Rays instead and screw Apple TV for sucking so hard. Whether actually true or not (I liked the 720p rental quality, personally, but I think the price is a bit high compared to Netflix or Red Box rentals) doesn't matter. If people perceive that a 720p rental at $4.99 sucks, then it sucks. Good luck selling even a $99 device to do something most people don't want.

Now if you figure that an Airport Express is $110, then the Apple TV is a really good deal just as a music receiver even (although with the lack of analog out, pretty useless unless you have at least a receiver with toslink in). But like I said, that assumes someone is setting up a whole house audio system. Apple doesn't really push even the Airport Express very hard for that function, even though it's designed to do it and Remote automates it. You STILL have to leave a computer on running iTunes since they REFUSE to support NAS and UPnP.

Some of the early rumors said 16 gb of flash storage in the AppleTv. I am guessing 8gb...the Ipod Touch starts at 8 Gb...which is stupid they should have started it at 16GB...maybe they ran out of 16GB because they are going to use those in the Apple TV and the Iphone 4.

I dunno. The 8GB iPod Touch is $199. This device costs half that. I don't know how big a drive they could fit for a total price of $99, but maybe their costs are obscenely low given the bulk they buy?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I see the cheerleaders are at it again with anti-1080 justifications, etc.

A 1080p TV would play 720p iTunes content to it's fullest. Hardware overkill is always good for lessor need software. The "720p is good enough" crowd would get every bit of the same experience on 1080p hardware; it just doesn't work the other way.

A 1080p TV wouldn't force 1080p content into iTunes, any more than tethering capabilities in iPhones forced AT&T to offer tethering, or grand central in OS-X forced all software coders to use it. For years now our iPods have been able to play lossless format; but that hardware capability didn't force lossless into the store, nor jettison lower, more compressed variations of AAC. The content does not have to come before- or with- the hardware; the hardware must come first. Why? Until there's lots of 1080TVs in homes, there is NO MOTIVATION to test 1080p TV content rentals/sales in the iTunes store. They could put a bunch of 1080p content for TV up tonight for all the established TV owners; but since none of us could play it, that test would completely fail.

On the other hand, pump a ton of 1080TVs into homes so that it is a real competitor for BD (on the most important benefit- picture quality), and some Studio's greed will motivate them to come to Apple hat in hand wanting to test content beyond the limited incarnation of 720p

Arguments about bandwidth limitations, file sizes, etc are all poor excuses. Those that don't have the bandwidth or can't store the bigger files can download the smaller files. Else, maybe Apple should do away with 720p too so that we can more quickly download the SD versions. Or maybe they should do away with the SD versions because we could download 320 x 200 even faster than the SD versions, and they are much smaller files. The point is that all of these arguments are "to each his own". If someone has the bandwidth (or the patience) and the storage, why NOT let them also be motivated to buy an TV for THEIR OWN NEEDS, rather than Apple arbitrarily deciding for them? Is it better for you or Apple for them to instead buy a 1080BD player because they want maximum picture quality?

1080p instead of 720p hardware would not add lots of cost to the new TV. We can easily see other, comparable set-top boxes with 1080p hardware inside, selling for higher and lower prices than $99. If these other companies can do it, so can Apple. And I would bet that if we could poll all "1080p or bust" people right now, the majority of them would welcome a "pro" version with 1080p for $149 or $199 and not blink (quality hounds are less price sensitive than those who argue for less-than-maximum quality).

Arguments about uncompressed 1080p files sizes being ridiculously large vs. Apple 720p being "just right" seems to always leave out that Apple's 720p is heavily compressed (and only 30fps MAX compared to THE HD standard at 60fps). If we're going to be satisfied with the compression applied to Apple's 720p, we need to consider it vs. the same compression applied to 1080p, not compare heavily compressed 720p vs. uncompressed 1080p and imply crazy storage requirements. YES, a comparably compressed 1080p movie file is still going to be bigger- sometimes a lot bigger- than the Apple 720p version. But, in exchange, we're getting higher picture quality if we want it (if we don't want it, we can download the smaller 720p or smaller still SD version). Nobody loses.

Arguments about "9X% can't see the difference" would also apply to everything else that Apple makes...

• 9X% aren't close to maxing out their processors, so Apple shouldn't bother putting better processors in Macs?
• 9X% don't use tethering/MMS in iPhones, so Apple shouldn't have built in such features?
• 9X% don't come close to taxing better graphics cards in Macs, so Apple shouldn't put better graphics cards in their computers?
• 9X% aren't using iDevice multitasking, so why bother putting that in?
• 100% of iPad users aren't using cameras or facetime, so why bother putting that in?
• Etc.

The point again is that in the hardware vs. software race, the hardware always has to lead. You have to deliver the hardware capable of something for the software players to "catch up". If you don't deliver hardware capabilities, there's no purpose in the software catching up.

Arguments about there being no 1080p content in TV now is irrelevant for the same reason. First you have to install the hardware to motivate the content creators to support the format. Roll out a 1080p TV now and it can soon and/or immediately take advantage of:

• select youtube videos
• HD camcorder video shot in 1080p
• vodcasts formatted for 1080p
• BD collections ripped as 1080p
• 1080 movie trailers on Apple's own website

Allow some app development, and we could also tap into >720p content from sources like VUDU and others, 1080p video-on-demand, etc. As the popularity of the hardware grows, more and more software will show up to feed the hunger. That's how it always is.

Get lots of units in place and some Studio will want to test whether that quality of content will sell- in spite of the bigger file size, in spite of download bandwidth issues, in spite of _______________, etc. Don't get any 1080p units in place and it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO TEST market demand for 1080p content for this device.

Bottom line is this: contrary to the cheerleading, there is no downside for anyone if Apple would have rolled this out with 1080p hardware. Everyone- whether they're in the "720p is good enough" camp or the "1080p or bust" camp would be able to get what they want. And Apple would sell more units to ready buyers from both camps.

All the same old justifications from one camp won't convince the other to buy into an idea that 720p max is going to look good enough on their 1080p HDTVs. On the other hand, EVERYONE could have gotten what they wanted in the hardware had it rolled out at 1080p. You win. "They" win. Apple wins.

 

[JordanNZ]

I see the cheerleaders are at it again with anti-1080 justifications, etc.

A 1080p TV would play 720p iTunes content to it's fullest. Hardware overkill is always good for lessor need software. The "720p is good enough" crowd would get every bit of the same experience on 1080p hardware; it just doesn't work the other way.

A 1080p TV wouldn't force 1080p content into iTunes, any more than tethering capabilities in iPhones forced AT&T to offer tethering, or grand central in OS-X forced all software coders to use it. For years now our iPods have been able to play lossless format; but that hardware capability didn't force lossless into the store, nor jettison lower, more compressed variations of AAC. The content does not have to come before- or with- the hardware; the hardware must come first. Why? Until there's lots of 1080TVs in homes, there is NO MOTIVATION to test 1080p TV content rentals/sales in the iTunes store. They could put a bunch of 1080p content for TV up tonight for all the established TV owners; but since none of us could play it, that test would completely fail.

On the other hand, pump a ton of 1080TVs into homes so that it is a real competitor for BD (on the most important benefit- picture quality), and some Studio's greed will motivate them to come to Apple hat in hand wanting to test content beyond the limited incarnation of 720p

Arguments about bandwidth limitations, file sizes, etc are all poor excuses. Those that don't have the bandwidth or can't store the bigger files can download the smaller files. Else, maybe Apple should do away with 720p too so that we can more quickly download the SD versions. Or maybe they should do away with the SD versions because we could download 320 x 200 even faster than the SD versions, and they are much smaller files. The point is that all of these arguments are "to each his own". If someone has the bandwidth (or the patience) and the storage, why NOT let them also be motivated to buy an TV for THEIR OWN NEEDS, rather than Apple arbitrarily deciding for them? Is it better for you or Apple for them to instead buy a 1080BD player because they want maximum picture quality?

1080p instead of 720p hardware would not add lots of cost to the new TV. We can easily see other, comparable set-top boxes with 1080p hardware inside, selling for higher and lower prices than $99. If these other companies can do it, so can Apple. And I would bet that if we could poll all "1080p or bust" people right now, the majority of them would welcome a "pro" version with 1080p for $149 or $199 and not blink (quality hounds are less price sensitive than those who argue for less-than-maximum quality).

Arguments about uncompressed 1080p files sizes being ridiculously large vs. Apple 720p being "just right" seems to always leave out that Apple's 720p is heavily compressed (and only 30fps MAX compared to THE HD standard at 60fps). If we're going to be satisfied with the compression applied to Apple's 720p, we need to consider it vs. the same compression applied to 1080p, not compare heavily compressed 720p vs. uncompressed 1080p and imply crazy storage requirements. YES, a comparably compressed 1080p movie file is still going to be bigger- sometimes a lot bigger- than the Apple 720p version. But, in exchange, we're getting higher picture quality if we want it (if we don't want it, we can download the smaller 720p or smaller still SD version). Nobody loses.

Arguments about "9X% can't see the difference" would also apply to everything else that Apple makes...

• 9X% aren't close to maxing out their processors, so Apple shouldn't bother putting better processors in Macs?
• 9X% don't use tethering/MMS in iPhones, so Apple shouldn't have built in such features?
• 9X% don't come close to taxing better graphics cards in Macs, so Apple shouldn't put better graphics cards in their computers?
• 9X% aren't using iDevice multitasking, so why bother putting that in?
• 100% of iPad users aren't using cameras or facetime, so why bother putting that in?
• Etc.

The point again is that in the hardware vs. software race, the hardware always has to lead. You have to deliver the hardware capable of something for the software players to "catch up". If you don't deliver hardware capabilities, there's no purpose in the software catching up.

Arguments about there being no 1080p content in TV now is irrelevant for the same reason. First you have to install the hardware to motivate the content creators to support the format. Roll out a 1080p TV now and it can soon and/or immediately take advantage of:

• select youtube videos
• HD camcorder video shot in 1080p
• vodcasts formatted for 1080p
• BD collections ripped as 1080p
• 1080 movie trailers on Apple's own website

Allow some app development, and we could also tap into >720p content from sources like VUDU and others, 1080p video-on-demand, etc. As the popularity of the hardware grows, more and more software will show up to feed the hunger. That's how it always is.

Get lots of units in place and some Studio will want to test whether that quality of content will sell- in spite of the bigger file size, in spite of download bandwidth issues, in spite of _______________, etc. Don't get any 1080p units in place and it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO TEST market demand for 1080p content for this device.

Bottom line is this: contrary to the cheerleading, there is no downside for anyone if Apple would have rolled this out with 1080p hardware. Everyone- whether they're in the "720p is good enough" camp or the "1080p or bust" camp would be able to get what they want. And Apple would sell more units to ready buyers from both camps.

All the same old justifications from one camp won't convince the other to buy into an idea that 720p max is going to look good enough on their 1080p HDTVs. On the other hand, EVERYONE could have gotten what they wanted in the hardware had it rolled out at 1080p. You win. "They" win. Apple wins.

But the thing is, it's almost a given that the hardware can already do 1080p... Watch for a firmware update.

My iPhone 3gs can playback 1080p H264. It's just not advertised.

 

[Master Chief]

But the thing is, it's almost a given that the hardware can already do 1080p... Watch for a firmware update.

This might in fact be true. This is what I found on the A4 data sheet under special features:

"Fully ARM Cortex-A8 compatible, 13-stage pipeline, 64/32-bit Multi-layer AHB/AXI bus, ARM TrustZone, 2x 128MB integrated DDR SDRAM, NEON SIMD engine, OneDRAM, mobile DDR, LP DDR2 interface, PowerVR SGX 540 3D graphics coprocessor, vector floating point coprocessor (VPU), 32-channel DMA, 1080p full HD codec engine, HDMI1.3 interface"

 

[nelmat]

Wrong. This is the trap that Google is falling into. They will be thrown down the same stairs that WebTV got thrown down.

Just a simple example: web browsing on TV is a horribly bad idea. Why? Because everyone wants to surf different things. Do you think the family would let Mom look up a roast beef recipe in the middle of, say, Monday Night Football? And would Dad be allowed to look up his team's quarterback's passing statistics during a family showing of Kung-Fu Panda? I don't think so.

There just isn't any good reason to web surf on your big-screen TV. It's there for communal use in most homes. Family members can surf on their iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, MacBooks, or whatever else.

Well I don't live at home with my mom, i'm in the majority of the 25 - 45 group of guys who live alone, or with their partner and have more than one TV in the house... I'd love to view the web on the main living room tv, iPad in hand for text input and control. Would be a really nice way to browse.

 

[nelmat]

I see the cheerleaders are at it again with anti-1080 justifications, etc.

A 1080p TV would play 720p iTunes content to it's fullest. Hardware overkill is always good for lessor need software. The "720p is good enough" crowd would get every bit of the same experience on 1080p hardware; it just doesn't work the other way.

...

All the same old justifications from one camp won't convince the other to buy into an idea that 720p max is going to look good enough on their 1080p HDTVs. On the other hand, EVERYONE could have gotten what they wanted in the hardware had it rolled out at 1080p. You win. "They" win. Apple wins.

You obviously don't understand that to process 1080 would take a lot more than the power given by the A4, this would mean a more powerful chip, this would mean a higher price point. What's the point in a higher price point when a device that is designed as a dedicated streaming box has no/very little 1080 content. No one has 1080 media streaming into a residential home, no on line rental/purchase company streams it. 1080 exists only on Blu-Ray and it's illegal to rip blu-rays. The device has no blu-ray drive, and isn't intended therefore to display blu-ray movies.

No apple device that supports airplay has any 1080 content to stream unless it's user produced, so that's a very, very small market.

No streaming 1080 content
No 1080 streaming capability into the home

therefore

No reason to increase the price point at this stage.
No reason for 1080 out.

 

[nelmat]

But the thing is, it's almost a given that the hardware can already do 1080p... Watch for a firmware update.

My iPhone 3gs can playback 1080p H264. It's just not advertised.

Yup, but on a very small screen. The processing power to output 1080 while streaming is more than the A4 can handle without a damn large cooling fan. Would need more ram/processor power and push up the price point.

No streaming 1080 content. No need for 1080 out on the Apple TV.

 

[alent1234]

But the thing is, it's almost a given that the hardware can already do 1080p... Watch for a firmware update.

My iPhone 3gs can playback 1080p H264. It's just not advertised.

it can't

boxee dumped the tegra2 and went to Intel's Atom CPU at the last minute for 1080p output. the tegra2 and A4 are very similar

 

[JordanNZ]

it can't

boxee dumped the tegra2 and went to Intel's Atom CPU at the last minute for 1080p output. the tegra2 and A4 are very similar

But it CAN..

It can on do it on the last generation CPU already. It's built into the GPU on the chip. If my 3GS can do it, the A4 can. Surely you're not going to argue this?!

The tegra SOC does not have an SGX gpu on it.

 

[JordanNZ]

Yup, but on a very small screen. The processing power to output 1080 while streaming is more than the A4 can handle without a damn large cooling fan. Would need more ram/processor power and push up the price point.

No streaming 1080 content. No need for 1080 out on the Apple TV.

It doesn't matter how many pixels it's showing on the screen.. The CPU/GPU in my 3GS can decode 1080P H264 files. Of course the A4 is going to be able to do it.

 

[hiimamac]

1080i version?

I really don't get how this works. Example. All tv shows offer them free online, many in HD. In fact, Big Brother would out it online an hour after airing on the west coast so why in tarnations would someone pay .99 cents per show. You get no dvr, no 1080,nd no way to play what you've downloaded. Crazy
maybe someone can explain?
Peace.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But the thing is, it's almost a given that the hardware can already do 1080p... Watch for a firmware update.

My iPhone 3gs can playback 1080p H264. It's just not advertised.

The same was said about the previous (current) generation of TV... "all Apple had to do is use the coprocessor that was there via some future firmware update". 4 years later, I'm still waiting.

When Jobs was on stage he opened by talking about listened to the changes that customers wanted. And while some of the changes he showed may have been things that people were asking for, I would bet that 1080p hardware would have been in the top 3 or so.

If they have built it in- but kept it quiet (because they don't want the 1080p'ers money right now???), hopefully they'll make that upgrade before the 1080p'ers spend the money that could have gone to Apple on some other solution. That's where I am right now: wanting to buy the new TV to replace the ones I already have, but wanting it to have very desirable features that were (apparently) left out (or as you imply, not activated yet).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You obviously don't understand that to process 1080 would take a lot more than the power given by the A4, this would mean a more powerful chip, this would mean a higher price point.

Again, cheerleader, I think I covered this already. Look around at other set top boxes with a "more powerful chip" inside that can do 1080p. Some of them are not retailing for "higher price points". Some retail for lower than $99. Those companies are not losing money because they are selling them for lower than the "expensive" 1080p hardware platform costs. With all of Apples muscle, they could certainly secure the same solutions for the same prices.

What's the point in a higher price point when a device that is designed as a dedicated streaming box has no/very little 1080 content.

I thought I covered this as well. If the only application you can see for this box is it's rental/buy marriage to iTunes, there is no point in a 1080p version until there is 1080p content in the iTunes store. Of course, if there are no TVs in place that can play 1080p content, there is NEVER a reason to put 1080p content for TV in the iTunes store. The hardware must lead.

But, if you expand your view of the application of the box, you'll know you can also stream your own content. In my case, I have years of 1080HD home movies shot with HD camcorders. The video is processed in tools like iMovie, can be rendered at 1080p from iMovie, will store & play just fine in iTunes (just like 720p and SD video content), but it just can't get passed from there to the 1080HDTV via TV.

So, "the point" is twofold:

1. The hardware capabilities must lead the software content; it makes no sense the other way
2. there are sources of applicable content readily available to iTunes/TV users (for years now) that need the last link in the chain to work. Downconverting such content because people like you argue "what's the point of 1080p" or Apple dictates "720p is good enough" is a poor solution, especially considering that Apple gives us all the other tools to make it work.

No one has 1080 media streaming into a residential home, no on line rental/purchase company streams it.

Here's just one: http://www.vudu.com/product_overview.html Look around before you spread comments from fellow cheerleaders.

If Apple would get lots of 1080p playback hardware in homes, lots of entrepreneurial minds would step up to take advantage of such hardware... just like new hardware features in Macs & iDevices. That hardware leads and the software follows. It doesn't work the other way.

1080 exists only on Blu-Ray and it's illegal to rip blu-rays. The device has no blu-ray drive, and isn't intended therefore to display blu-ray movies.

Did you read my post? I provided a list of sources of 1080 content, only one of which referenced BD. TV is a terrific device for home grown content like photos and home movies. I've shot 1080 home movies since 2006. 1080 HD camcorders are dirt cheap (for years). Apple gives us all the tools to process, render, and store (in iTunes) them at full 1080 resolution. They just don't allow the obvious link to our 1080HDTVs to pass them from iTunes to the TV. Instead, the only solution is to down convert them.

And guys like you post these same old, tired arguments as if to justify that decision. What's in it for you? And how does Apple win by selling less hardware to those that care about this particular feature? Yet, the cheerleading goes on and on.

No apple device that supports airplay has any 1080 content to stream unless it's user produced, so that's a very, very small market.

So, does the same apply to every hardware/feature advance that Apple builds into it's stuff. For example, when tethering capabilities were built into the iPhone but AT&T did not support it out of the gate, would we dismiss it as a useless feature to include because there was NO market for it at the time? I have the i7 Quad in my new iMac. Virtually none of the software I use often takes full advantage of it. As such, perhaps I'm in a very, very small market? Was there no need to architect this iMac with i7s? Etc. (this could be a very long list).

Again, the hardware must lead the software. If DVD or BD discs came out long before there were any (hardware) players for them, would sales have roared for the better quality video? Of course not. Until you have the playback hardware, there can't be much of a market for the software. In theory, every content provider on iTunes could put up 1080p versions of their content for TV today, but that test would completely flop. Why? Not because the files are too big, or bandwidth, or people can't see the difference, or "the chart", or "9X% of the people", etc. It would flop because it has no way to work out. The hardware must lead.

After this point, you merely repeated the incorrect arguments about no 1080p content available (proven wrong above), higher prices (proven wrong above). I encourage you to put down the koolaid and take a very good look around. I know we want to justify everything Apple does because Apple can't do wrong, but a simple bit of browsing the web with our rose-colored glasses laying on the table will disprove so many of these cheerleader arguments.

Apple provided 720p in the 2006 edition of TV. Even back then, many HDTV buyers already had TVs with resolution above that limited incarnation. For the last few years, 1080p has been THE standard. It's hard to even find good-sized sets limited to 720p anymore. Why? Because the chipsets to yield 1080p are not priced higher than the chips to yield 720p- they're just chips. And the market of HDTV buyers have been sold on the idea that "full HD" equals 1080p, not a limited incarnation of 720p.

If a person cares about resolution, they want hardware that will max out what they own. Once again, they can't go with TV (2010 edition) to do this. Instead they have to buy someone else's box (and deal with limitations therein other than better picture), or buy a BD player, or buy a HDTV that has TV-like features built in such as: http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore And that's too bad. Because this is so much an prime Apple opportunity to take.

Cheer on though. I perceive it somehow helps you personally to cheer for lower-than-readily-available picture qualities. And I'm sure Apple is happy NOT selling a maximum number of units to both camps, because sales volume of the first one showed the market of the "720p is good enough" group is huge.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yup, but on a very small screen. The processing power to output 1080 while streaming is more than the A4 can handle without a damn large cooling fan. Would need more ram/processor power and push up the price point.

Those seeking playback for their small-screen iDevices could download the lower resolution version (suitable for their own situation), just like we often have a choice now of 720p vs. SD versions. That would work just fine. What doesn't work well is arguing for resolutions suitable for little screen playback to be used by scaling them up to big screens. That results in a lessor picture on the big screen in exchange for a good picture on a small screen.

There is no lose in 1080p hardware. Those- like you- happy with 720p or less could still download 720p or less video quality and enjoy it to the maximum it can play back. Better hardware can always play back less-demanding software; it just doesn't work the other way.

 

[jp102235]

There is no lose in 1080p hardware.

1. somehow from this statement I am beginning to conclude you have not done electronic design/manufacturing.

2. [sarcasm on]I think you should really consider Denon AKDL1's [sarcasm off] - I just say that to say that many arguments we electrical engineers have with audiophiles go this way. we have to make design decisions and trade-offs. There are even marketing implications here as well that I (or you) are not privy to. So yea, some of the decisions are not going to "make sense". This happens in the automotive industry as well. However in this case, you have the mac-mini to do all you want it to do - and even plex for a fancy interface. You should check it out.

3. Consumer is always right: if its 1080p you want - then I hope gets around to offering to ya

that is all

j

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

1. somehow from this statement I am beginning to conclude you have not done electronic design/manufacturing.

2. [sarcasm on]I think you should really consider Denon AKDL1's [sarcasm off] - I just say that to say that many arguments we electrical engineers have with audiophiles go this way. we have to make design decisions and trade-offs. There are even marketing implications here as well that I (or you) are not privy to. So yea, some of the decisions are not going to "make sense". This happens in the automotive industry as well. However in this case, you have the mac-mini to do all you want it to do - and even plex for a fancy interface. You should check it out.

3. Consumer is always right: if its 1080p you want - then I hope gets around to offering to ya

jp, I infer from this that you are in the industry. Perhaps you can offer direct input on whether 1080p playback would have added any- or much- cost to the TV.

Working from the less "insider" stance of looking at competitor set-top boxes that include it- some with a disc spinning mechanism and a laser- priced around this same level, I assume those other companies are NOT taking a loss on sales of those boxes. But perhaps you could fully put this one to bed?

The cheerleaders are often implying that it would have added a lot of cost to the device had Apple included 1080p playback coprocessor instead of 720p.

The other camp argues the above (other boxes have it- some retailing for less than $99), as well as the arguments for economies of scale probably yielding 1080p chip set production at much higher quantities than 720p MAX chipset production in use by Apple (and who else?).

But perhaps you actually have access to the real cost information. Could Apple have chosen 1080p processors instead of 720p MAX for around the same price? Could they have gotten 1080p processors for less cost than 720p MAX?

And even if you have access to that, and even if it turns out that it would have cost them more, competitor offerings prove that it can't be too much more- certainly not "lots more", against which I would argue that I'd happily pay twice as much for the exact same TV with just that one added benefit. Call it the "pro" model or whatever, but that would have made my money move from my pocket to Apple's, instead of staying where it is (and continuing to consider alternatives for the 720P max TVs I already own).

I'd love to get a definitive answer to the cost question from an expert with access to that specific information. If you are that expert, please post it.

As to the implication that only "videophiles" might care about 1080p, I'd suggest that's not the case. The CES industry has done a pretty good job of the classic "bigger number is better" game. They've done a pretty good job of convincing people that "full HD" or "true HD" is 1080p. It's not a message solely for videophiles. It's proudly displayed (often bigger than everything else) on everything that works with HD. It's advertised a lot more than- say- Apple advertising that "720p is good enough" or even that "Apple TV is HD". It's fine if you side with the 720p'ers (is good enough) crowd. But again, the 720p'ers don't lose anything if the box had 1080p hardware: their 720p (smaller, less bandwidth hogging, ____________, etc) files would all play to their fullest on hardware capable of a bit more. It just doesn't work the other way though. And even if you want to believe only videophiles care about 1080p, if your stance is hooked to being pro-Apple in everything, Apple would benefit by selling more units to the "1080p or bust" camp. Thus, you win, "they" win, and Apple would win.

 

[jp102235]

expert

jp, I infer from this that you are in the industry. Perhaps you can offer direct input on whether 1080p playback would have added any- or much- cost to the TV.

yea,
too humble to call myself an expert, so I'll start with some wild overstatements that will get people 'riled up:
From my experience cost has nothing to do with price.
the market sets the price, the marketing people and design team decide if they can make a device that matches the market's willing price.

example: I was in a technical marketing briefing years ago, and the target price for a STB (set top box) was determined by surveying married women: the question: "how much money can your husband spend on an impulse buy and NOT get in trouble". at the time it was $500 - so the designer was tasked with staying well below that mark / and or designing components that would help the customer (sony) stay well below that cost.

while TV most likely can do 1080p - some marketing genius / manufacturing person decided not to enable it. perhaps they spent money putting an hdmi on the mac mini and want to direct the people that want 1080p towards a more expensive option.

many many examples of products that can do better than their specs - just ask the overclockers. A certain firm I used to work for would speed-bin their processors, so you had stacks of 450Mhz, 300Mhz, and 150Mhz (yea I am that old). if the demand for 150Mhz was higher than the supply, we simply stamped the 450Mhz parts as 150Mhz parts. it happens.

This is much less a engineering cost conundrum than it is a marketing one. perhaps we have a marketing guru who can chime in.

But perhaps you actually have access to the real cost information. Could Apple have chosen 1080p processors instead of 720p MAX for around the same price? Could they have gotten 1080p processors for less cost than 720p MAX?

Even if I had that info, it most likely would be under NDA. from my statement above - I suspect it doesn't matter

The CES industry has done a pretty good job of the classic "bigger number is better" game. They've done a pretty good job of convincing people that "full HD" or "true HD" is 1080p.

ok, here's the deal: the best you can do: go see a play at a theatre, or better yet experience life in all its 3D grandeur. So if you can't do that, attempt to duplicate it / record it as much as possible using the best equipment/media out there.

When our obsession about audio or video fidelity exceeds our quality expectations of the source ( is "The Fifth Element" REALLY good theatre?) then we probably have fallen victim to the marketing geniuses trolling CES.

their job: sell you something you really don't need. Don't get me wrong, its your right to want/need whatever it is you feel - I just think the "cheerleaders" are just trying to counter the marketing trolls who would have us upgrade our TV's every year for seemingly infinitesimal benefits.

so yea, apple could have added 1080p - and it very well may be in there, just a firmware update away- but I suspect they want guys like you and me to run a ssd-equipped mac-mini connected over gigabit ethernet to a RAID-NAS in the basement/closet with elagato eyeTV for OTA dvr-ing, for the ultimate HTPC.

if it makes you feel better, I have changed my mind a bit and wish TV had 1080p (native resolution of TV is 1080p) - but I don't expect to be able to see the difference.

hope that helps

jp

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

When our obsession about audio or video fidelity exceeds our quality expectations of the source ( is "The Fifth Element" REALLY good theatre?) then we probably have fallen victim to the marketing geniuses trolling CES.

their job: sell you something you really don't need. Don't get me wrong, its your right to want/need whatever it is you feel - I just think the "cheerleaders" are just trying to counter the marketing trolls who would have us upgrade our TV's every year for seemingly infinitesimal benefits.

OK thanks for the fuller feedback. I sure would have liked to see a definitive answer to the "it would cost a lot more" arguments often offered by the cheerleaders. I would suspect not based on some of the inferences I shared, but the NDA limitations turns it more into a "trust me" implication, while giving us nothing to put that particular argument to bed other than the same kinds of outsider inferences I offered. I might as well say "trust me" that they could have sold 1080p TV at $99, and let both cancel each other out.

As to the bit of feedback I quoted, the one thing I'll point out that is a bit different is that with a video standard like HD, there isn't a steady stream of evolving standards to pressure us to upgrade each year. 1080p (a bit of a trick on the max official standard) is likely to be the MAX standard for a very long time to come. The prior SD standard was a decades long standard. You upgraded your TV to get color (around 1964), but otherwise the upgrade cycle was often driven by when the old one died, or when you wanted a second TV.

I doubt the current HD standards will persist for decades, but I would suggest that 1080p will probably hold as the MAX consumer standard for at least 10+ years. There's too many players in the mix- including a lot of public policy actions involved- to quickly migrate to a new standard much faster than that. As I recall the HD standard was first drafted in about 1986. It took about 10+ more years for any HD to start showing up, about 5+ years after that for the broadcasters to start playing ball, and we're still waiting for all popular channels to fully migrate from SD to HD content.

So, while I agree with the idea that the CES industry wants us to find reasons to buy more CES stuff every year, the push hooked to max HD video standards is a race largely already run. 1080p will be the max "standard" for a very long time to come.

It certainly would be nice if Apple had given us all the ability to embrace that max standard in the present (if we wanted to as individuals), as it would be a reasonably future proof video standard for at least a good number of years before the next one begins to gain some traction. Instead, we got hardware that is apparently limited to almost the same (minimal) incarnation of 720p that was in the 2006 edition. As such, when we buy new 1080HD camcorders, 1080HDTVs, etc, if we embrace Apple's solution, it always involves a down conversion to work with the limitations offered.

Apple has dictated that it is good enough, and as usual, a lot of cheerleaders want to justify anything that Apple decides for us. I'm generally pro Apple on many things myself. I just think they missed this opportunity... again... for no apparent reason that I can see or infer. With all due respects to concepts like bigger file sizes, bandwidth constraints, the "chart", "9X% can't see the difference", "if there's no content in iTunes, it makes no sense", etc arguments, there is plenty of countering viewpoints that suggest building that benefit into the 2010 model was win:win:win for everyone.

If BD is a "bag of hurt", and digital distribution is the future, it seems that Apple should have at least countered the most key marketing proposition favoring BD: highest quality picture & sound. Even if the Studios wouldn't put anything in the iTunes store now, at least Apple would be toe-to-toe with the "bag of hurt" on the hardware side. Then, by selling tons of 1080pTVs into homes, it's only a matter of time until the "greedy Studios" get tempted to test an alternative to putting the movie on a plastic disc and giving a big cut to Walmart or Best Buy. One Studio starts making money on it and the others would quickly follow.

Instead, unless there really is 1080p playback capability stealthly contained in this same box (ready for a flick of a firmware update switch), the proposition is to sacrifice- perceived or not- picture quality because Apple puts forth that "720p is good enough". Or we can choose from many other options- some of which for around the same price- can maximize the playback resolution of our 1080p HDTVs, but we sacrifice some of the niceties of the close tie to iTunes database and all DRMd content playback.

The funniest thing is that many of the cheerleaders are the same people who will whine when new Macs roll out without the latest & greatest hardware, or new iDevices roll out missing a few obvious things. Or worse, some of them are so thoroughly intoxicated on whatever Apple decides, they'll passionately argue the Apple decision, then quickly flip flop with Apple when Apple rolls out the alternative. For example, last year some of these same cheerleaders passionately argued against the sensibility of iPads with cameras- especially for video chat. Now that it's obviously coming, some of the same people are gushing with excitement to get the new one with that feature. It seems like if it made no sense last year, it should make no sense this year. I suppose when Apple finally rolls out a 1080p TV (hopefully not 4 more years from now), all those who argue the many rationalizations for 720p (is good enough) should find great fault for the overkill of the 1080p option. But I suspect they'll gush with excitement for the new version.

 

[umrk]

Predictions for Steve Jobs

Autumn 2010 : Apple announces quarterly results which show a 50 Billion Dollar revenue / 20 Billion Dollar profits trajectory. The analysts revise their expectations ..

Spring 2011 : after the iPad, the iPhone (now 5) is introduced in China, and generates hysteria, as well as a specific Verizon CDMA model for the US. The competitors announce models "soon to come", but fail to materialize ... Analysts revise their expectations again..

The analysts start to realize that instead of the iPad (now sold at more than three million per month) cannibalizing the Macs, each product or service of the Apple ecosystem strengthens each other, and that Apple is eating up every year a percentage of the huge PC market share. They revise their expectations accordingly ..


Autumn 2012 : Apple reinvents the watch: iWatch (human skin surface currents being used to transmit information to earphones. At that time, rumors already circulated that Apple was secretly working on a way to convey the audio information directly to the brain. Other rumors from sources (which insisted to remain unidentified) also speculated that Apple was working on the most secret project of its history (code name Wozniak), aiming at implementing a neuronal version of the iOS into the human brain (the only minor remaining technical difficulty being to implement into the human brain a 5.1 encoded audio information into the human brain).


Summer 2011 : Steve Jobs announces that a few billion Dollars out of Apple's cash will be used to launch Apple's largest private satellite constellation (this representing a tiny proportion of Apple's total cash). TV broadscasters feel uncomfortable ..

Spring 2012 : Apple reinvents the TV : iTV (British shareholders of ITV, the managers of which had previously expressed irritation about the use of this acronym, enthusiastically accept Apple's generous offer). The TV broadcasting industry understand that its destiny is sealed, and consists in being cut into tiny bits...

Summer 2013 : Apple reinvents the credit card : Steve announces that the iPhone now fully possesses credit card capabilities (with of course sophisticated authentication capabilities, and added value services for budget management, etc ...), and announces the creation of the Apple iBank. Although Banking companies publicly minimize the announcement, they infact are terrorized, as they know that Apple's gigantic cash makes this situation very dangerous for them.


Spring 2014 : the Apple profits have now jumped to the incredible amount of 40 Billion Dollars a year, turning Apple shares into the largest stock among any companies in the world (beyond Exxon Mobil or Petrochina). Analysts again revise their expectations ..

Summer 2014 : Apple chief financial Officer (R Oppenheimer) manages to convince Steve that the only way to reduce Apple's enormous cash (on which the US government is starting to look at in a somewhat threatening way) would be to distribute a dividend to the shareholders. The Apple share skyrockets again ..

Spring 2015 : Apple acquires Intel. The analysts ...


Apple competitors feel increasingly worried, and find no way to navigate safely through the mine fields of Apple patents (the Lawyers department of Apple has grown up to ten thousand of people, becoming the first department of the company). Sadly for them, they have no hope to expect from the antitrust authorities, since Apple, not being he dominant player in any of its markets, due to its vertical integration model, is out of reach.


Following IBM's historical example, PC suppliers quit one by one the PC market, into which they have no hope to make any decent profit (especially since the competition on prices has become even tougher, as the Windows market share shrinks ..).


Microsoft is in trouble.. (Especially since Steve's pitbull buddy Larry Ellison has successfully sued Google and Microsoft companies about Java (plus various other things), has aggressively and successfully promoted Open Office against Microsoft Office, and engaged a strategic partnership with Apple very dangerous for Microsoft in the professional business market.

Steve Ballmer is fired. Apple uses the old Microsoft video of the "iPhone4 funerals" (pathetic episode, inconcievable for such a large company) to celebrate the news. Dell runs out of business (and distributes the money to its shareholders (who immediately buy Apple shares with it).


Spring 2015 : Steve announces that from now on, the Apple enormous cash + the revenues driven from immaterial content (advertising, music, films, newspapers ..) enable the company to distribute its electronic consumer products for free


Autumn 2016 : in a keynote which will forever remain in the anthology, Steve Jobs reveal that Apple reinvents the car : iCar (yes, it is a mobile device, too …). the automotive industry is terrorized ...


Summer 2019 : the «*water party*» candidate to the US Presidency (tea party follow up, even more aggressive republican sect (yes, it is possible ...)) announces Apple's dismantling in case he/she is elected. Steve Jobs is successfully (without any campaign, as the other candidates withdraw for him) designated as Democrat candidate to the election.

2020 : Apple reinvents the Presidency of the United States :Steve Jobs is elected president of the United States (reachhing majority of votes in all states, including Texas), but insists for its salary to be one dollar / year only (first iPresident of the United States).

At that time, Steve's popularity is so great that most American people convert to Zen Buddhism, and are no longer interested in profit making. The National Riffle Association (NRA) turns itself into the National reconciliation Association, and now promotes non-violence. Apple Stores throughout the world (even China agrees) are converted with little modifications into Zen Buddhist temples (the Logo stays, the tables and Apple products are removed, the Genius bar employees are trained to become spiritual advisors).

2030 : Apple reinvents the religion : after a carreer as a business man & a politician, Steve Jobs reaches the final (and probably the most successful) accomplishment of his life in being a religious leader. Flying throughout the world with his Gulfstream, he preaches successfully Zen Buddhism in climate of religious fervor which cannot be described, and manages to convert very unlikely disciples (such as Arnold Schwarzenegger & Larry Ellison (who decides to give his entire fortune to charity funds, and to spend the rest of his life in the street of San Francisco as a beggar)).

2031 : after a second unsuccessful liver transplantation, Steve Jobs dies. Like Prometheus (who, according to ancient Greek Mythology, was condemned to have his liver perpetullay destroyed and then regenerated, for having stolen the fire from the Olympus, and having given it to the human), Steve Jobs, after having given the Mac to the human, therefore had similar destiny.

I, umrk, simple mortal, hereby testify in the front of Heaven that this is the true, complete and unaltered record of the prophecy that the Orbe of time transmitted to my iPad on the Patmos island (Sorry, no, I was unable to trace back the IP address of the sender ...). May Heaven grant me to live long enough to see the fulfilment of this prophecy !!!!

 

[kingtj]

When is the time right?

IMHO, the time is right, right *now*, if they want AppleTV to really take off. But that said, there sure is a lot of armchair Apple management that takes place around here.

Steve Jobs knows FAR better than any of us how many projects his company can take on at one time, without getting overloaded. He likely doesn't think it's worth taking people away from other projects they've got going right now (such as that iOS 4 for iPad?) to develop an online AppleTV section of the store.

IMHO, many of Apple's products are really only successful in the marketplace because they took the time to hone them before pushing them out on store shelves. Unfortunately, most Apple product users seem to be impatient and expect these things to keep churning out of Cuppertino at a breakneck pace.

The new iteration of the AppleTV is, seemingly, just another "baby step" Apples wants to take right now. I don't think they've really expressed interest in dominating the home theater/media center market -- or else you'd see much more activity in that area. In a way, it makes a lot of sense though. You didn't see Apple rush a cellphone to market either. They waited for YEARS, letting other companies dominate that arena, until it was clear they had a way to trump everything that was available or likely to be developed based on those existing products.

When the time is right? Yes, instead of offering an innovative and interesting new product with all kinds of potential 3rd party support and things to look forward to, let's offer the same old product that didn't sell before for a somewhat lower price, take away all internal storage so it's even less useful in some areas, ignore ALL previous customer suggestions (say 1080p?) and hope it sells anyway. Then we'll hint that SOME DAY maybe we'll offer something useful or interesting to consumers IF we sell a whole boat load of them, which we won't because it's uninteresting and out of date just like the last version that didn't sell for squat.

Sometimes I TRULY wonder how Steve ever got where he did. He'll show all this innovation in some areas like the iPhone but then appear to be Forrest Gump when it comes to something that's actually pretty simple like home theater products (i.e. offer the best quality and state of the art features for a reasonable price offering all the conveniences of the best products that already exist).

For example, if Apple TV had 1080p from the start, a DECENT sized hard drive (even if that meant making SLIGHTLY bigger to fit a 3.5" hard drive; imagine THAT!?!) contained a DVR and Blu-Ray drive with support to convert them to be stored in iTunes automatically (like they do for CDs; a license would make this possible), had a front panel display that at least had a CLOCK on it (rather than just a little led light that does squat) and maybe even display title/artist information so you can see what's playing music-wise when the TV is turned off and don't have to wear out your projector bulb just to see a flipping album cover endlessly...or perhaps offer a cool visualizer to watch while you listen? What's THAT?!? ), put in place the ability to add features like Netflix support, etc. as they become available (i.e. give the thing proper hardware assisted video decoding) and supported ALL the available formats so you can watch your home movies etc. without having to convert them to M4V and left provisions in place for gaming (and included a "remote" that could be used for gaming ala the "wii") and offered it for around $500, MAYBE just MAYBE the thing would have actually SOLD because it would have the potential to replace most of the home theater gear out there (just add receiver and TV).

THAT is what it would take to be as innovative as an iPhone. Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device with slick controls that can be upgraded to do just about anything you'd want it to do, whether it be a DVR or a cookbook display for the TV in the kitchen/dining room. If it had the proper connections (e.g. input video as well as output it) and the right hardware inside (hardware assisted encoding/decoding) with enough room to store apps/videos/movies (1.5TB 3.5" drives and larger are DIRT CHEAP for goodness sake!), it could do for TV what the iPhone did for smart phones. But no, some of those things MIGHT cannibalize iTunes music/movie sales, so we cannot include them! Never mind that we claim we do not make much profit from selling those sorts of things. We simply CANNOT offer a user-friendly do-everything type device because we want to sell SD 480p movies with low-quality video encoding and Dolby Pro Logic 2-channel sound to people that don't think there is anything better....

 

[jp102235]

IMHO, the time is right, right *now*, if they want AppleTV to really take off. But that said, there sure is a lot of armchair Apple management that takes place around here.

Steve Jobs knows FAR better than any of us how many projects his company can take on at one time, without getting overloaded.

so true, so true - and in my opinion- you heard it here first- this will be the last generation of "media player boxes". There is no reason not to license this stuff off to a TV manuf., just like a company recently did for their product called "airplay". yep. airplay enabled TV's, stereos, toasters, what have you.

at least that's my armchair prediction.

OK thanks for the fuller feedback.... I might as well say "trust me" that they could have sold 1080p TV at $99, and let both cancel each other out.

just to counter my own argument - sometimes these guys will sell at a price above the cost (XBOX) only for market share and/or software purchase possibilities.

As to the bit of feedback I quoted, the one thing I'll point out that is a bit different is that with a video standard like HD, there isn't a steady stream of evolving standards to pressure us to upgrade each year.

ahem: 3D, 4k, netflix integration, blah blah integration. If not resolution, maybe HDR video or something like that, then low-power TV's, then luminescence, and don't get me started on what they could do beyond RGB - (many colors are missing from using just RGB or YUV), then you have H.264 and its successor (fractal based maybe?) - what about laser projection and God forbid "retina" displays.

As I recall the HD standard was first drafted in about 1986.

There is no real standard, there is the FCC's def (in the US) of HD: 16:9 720p or 1080i for ATSC with a max rate of 19.8Mbps (interestingly no min rate was specified).
and PQ cannot be judged objectively (ok some of my colleagues who do research in that would say it can), but the only accepted barometer of PQ is based on surveys of people observing the image.

It certainly would be nice if Apple had given us all the ability to embrace that max standard in the present (if we wanted to as individuals), as it would be a reasonably future proof video standard for at least a good number of years before the next one begins to gain some traction.

I agree

if we embrace Apple's solution, it always involves a down conversion to work with the limitations offered.

unless you consider the mac-mini - Apple's other solution.

Apple has dictated that it is good enough

nope, the market has. (at least until now) - if sales of 1080p media players climb - I am sure Apple will adjust - its the free market.

If BD is a "bag of hurt", and digital distribution is the future, it seems that Apple should have at least countered the most key marketing proposition favoring BD: highest quality picture & sound. Even if the Studios wouldn't put anything in the iTunes store now, at least Apple would be toe-to-toe with the "bag of hurt" on the hardware side. Then, by selling tons of 1080pTVs into homes, it's only a matter of time until the "greedy Studios" get tempted to test an alternative to putting the movie on a plastic disc and giving a big cut to Walmart or Best Buy. One Studio starts making money on it and the others would quickly follow.

yea, I think that may be the key thing - would you as a studio, want to distribute blu ray across the net? Napster freaked the industry out and the BD copy protection is dynamic and getting tougher (have you seen the new audio based version of BD+ copy protection?) so you may be onto something here on how the studios may want to reserve their best content for BD. Could you imagine if apple became a movie distributor? that would shake a lot of studios.

cheers!
jp

 

[AidenShaw]

Steve Jobs knows FAR better than any of us how many projects his company can take on at one time, without getting overloaded.

And the evidence strongly suggests that the answer to that question is "1 project". Apple is single-threaded.

And lately, most of the time that "1 project" is an Itoy, not an Apple computer or an Apple software release. (Why is Final Cut Pro still a 32-bit Carbon app - especially after all the histrionics about Adobe apps not being Cocoa?)