Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well buy a real receiver. If you've used up all your inputs you went cheap and got what you deserved.

You deserve to be smacked. Really.

Even high end receivers have limits in their number of inputs.

On top of that, outside of a very few niche receivers, you have to pay a fair amount of money to get one that even accept HDMI for audio. MOST of the reasonable consumer priced models do not, and seeing as apple TV is a whopping 99 dollars, they aren't targeting Richie Rich with his $5000 Denon amp.

And for everyone going on about 720p vs 1080p - this has been discussed ad nauseum.

It is NEVER impossible to tell the difference, but it has been made clear that it is very difficult to see a difference between 720 and 1080p unless you are running over a 50" tv.

As well, the bandwidth increases by going up to 1080p are huge, HUGE. Wireless B networks can't handle 720p, lower end N networks can stream 720p okay, but have MAJOR problems streaming 1080p.

It will be quite some years before we see 1080p being a standard and for them to phase out 720.

AND on another note, people need to stop assuming that just because non physical media is becoming more common, it is going to be a very long time before it completely replaces physical media of things that have a higher value like Movies and Video Games.

Apple is hitting every target on the mark. They know their audience and are tailoring their products to suit the majority of them. Kudos to them.

And just to note - I was an Apple hater before the iPad. Since then, the kool-aid is tasty!
 
I wasn't too far off for the nano. My mock-up:

apple-ipod-nano.png


The reality:
Actual-Nano.jpg

Yours looks much better. Either way, that small of a touch screen is totally useless. Apple got too gimmicky this time.

Shuffle looks great for running/working out though, and price is right. I like buttons.
 
Yours looks much better. Either way, that small of a touch screen is totally useless. Apple got too gimmicky this time.

Shuffle looks great for running/working out though, and price is right. I like buttons.

Oh so you must have used one already than? Because you know it's useless and all...:cool:



I'm looking forward to getting one.
 
Apple TV needs:
1080p
Way to subscribe to shows, not rent each separately
More shows to rent from more networks

and then it would be worth it...

No, what it needs is integration with your iTunes store account, so you can stream all the stuff you bought right on Apple TV.

Seems silly that you have to use a computer to stream to ATV, when the WiFi with internet, your account and a huge TV screen is RIGHT THERE. Wtf?

So stupid. Jobs talking about how iTunes store had 160 million unique users or whatever. Well, then integrate stuff! They can learn a thing or two from Steam. You buy something, that's it - your account keeps track of it and it doesn't matter where you log on to play.

Is Apple's solution, apart from renting, really to force this workflow? What happened to making it simple? Instead we get this if you dont want to rent:

- Buy and download video to computer
- Change to Apple friendly format (skip if purchased in iTunes store)
- Play on computer, stream to Apple TV

Apple, you're so lagging behind. As a renting device though, I think the new ATV looks good. Prices seem reasonable. Netflix is obviously better when you watch a lot, it's too bad it's US only.
 
No, what it needs is integration with your iTunes store account, so you can stream all the stuff you bought right on Apple TV.

Seems silly that you have to use a computer to stream to ATV, when the WiFi with internet, your account and a huge TV screen is RIGHT THERE. Wtf?

So stupid. Jobs talking about how iTunes store had 160 million unique users or whatever. Well, then integrate stuff! They can learn a thing or two from Steam. You buy something, that's it - your account keeps track of it and it doesn't matter where you log on to play.

Is Apple's solution, apart from renting, really to force this workflow? What happened to making it simple? Instead we get this if you dont want to rent:

- Buy and download video to computer
- Change to Apple friendly format (skip if purchased in iTunes store)
- Play on computer, stream to Apple TV

So stupid. Netflix is cool though, too bad it's US only.

Take it up with the studios.
 
I have to say I am quite happy with the touch. Absolutely everything I wanted but the FM radio. I ordered a 32 gb model today. I'm glad they brought back the shuffle, but the Nano's screen looks a bit small. It should also be able to run apps. Overall, I am very happy with the new lineup! :D
 
Isn't that sort of the point of a device called "classic"? Wouldn't "new classic" be a contradiction in terms?

It's a legacy product which they keep around because some customers won't let it go. If they changed the interface it wouldn't be "classic", and it already holds a whopping 160 GB, so where would they go from there? They could boost storage capacity to 320 GB (the current largest 1,8" drives), but for who? People who simply must have 1,000 albums ripped to Apple Lossless? It would be the smallest niche Apple ever catered to.

The form factor a may be classic (they essentially killed the scroll wheel in this 2010 lineup) but the iPod HDD (which is what they should call it) should still be blessed with some nice goodies:

- better battery life (im sure batteries have improved since 2008)
- signature scroll wheel still works
- larger screen
- 160GB is plenty so keep it
- faster processor (the processor lags with album art coverflow)
- accelerometer that flips between coverflow and stops hdd from spinning when ipod is dropped like how like the accelerometers work on the laptops
- no need to connect to appstore - just keep it as a music player
- basically a hard disk version of ipod nano 5th gen ala return of the iPod mini

Will apple do this? most probably not.
 
Sorry, late to the party. First day back on the job (I'm a teacher). Just watched the keynote. Here's what I say:

1) iPod Shuffle - home run. Apple listened to what people wanted, admitted faults with the last shuffle, and killed it with this one. Great - they'll sell the hell out of these at 50 bucks.

2) iPod Nano - worst iPod ever. A complete step-down from the previous version. Too small and frail, ugly, and more limited functionality than the last version. It's seriously a piece of crap.

3) iPod Touch - nothing blew me away as far as improvements, but it'll sell like crazy. If it ain't broke...

4) Apple TV - this isn't what consumers want. Bummer. The $99 price might save them. Some people will just give it a try since it's Apple at that price, but it'll sit next to their tv unused except for a few hardcore netflixers who don't have a wii, ps3, or xbox. I'm actually glad I have the old version. My hacked first gen apple tv is still way cooler than that show renting machine.

iPod Classic still for sale? Thank God.
 
Yeah, and if I have a TV with Component cables, but no HDMI this device is useless. :(

Next year begins the analog sunset. Manufacturers are not permitted to sell new boxes with component video after December 31st, 2010. All existing models with component video have to be phased out by the end of 2013. Apple is obviously thinking forward. Component video is dead.
 
Next year begins the analog sunset. Manufacturers are not permitted to sell new boxes with component video after December 31st, 2010. All existing models with component video have to be phased out by the end of 2013. Apple is obviously thinking forward. Component video is dead.

Yet companies like COX cable won't let me use my HDMI connections.
 
Cool Stuff

Not sure about that Nano, at first it looks kewl but when i think about how i use my 4G Nano..i just slip it into my jeans pocket or hold it in my hand while running (so i can shake it any time to shuffle song). That thing doesnt look to jeans pocket friendly, nor easy to operate with such a small touch screen. I would NEVER wear it exposed with the clip. The shuffle, fine, but this thing..nah. Too be decided though, i have to see it first.
 
How anyone can think the new AppleTV is some sort of upgrade baffles me. I loved (and constantly used) the ability to turn on my TV, scroll through iTunes movies and if I found something I wanted to buy I could buy it. I could worry about syncing it to my Mac later (especially considering we only have MacBook Pros in the house, no desktops). Now? I have to go to my Mac and purchase it, wait for it to download, then keep my MBP open and running, and stream it to the AppleTV.

The entire process seems so unecessarily complex I cannot fathom how they came to this point. Blaming the studios is not the right answer, either.
 
Just listening to the (lack of) audience reaction to this portion of the event versus the remainder, clearly the :apple:TV is fail-sauce.

And for those of you experiencing stuttering live play right now....this is a nice demo of life with the new :apple:TV service as well.

Oh look, the streaming is all jumpy now. Perfect example of why streaming has downfalls, when you're trying to sell me streaming. Irony at it's finest.

Only streaming on apple tv? I think this feed has proven STREAMING DOESNT WORK.

Pretty accurate. Streaming is not something I would want to rely on.


$99 is not that impressive of a price for what you get.... I mean i can stream netflix and crap from my computer with my ps3 and my xbox.. with my ps3 i still have a hd and i still have a BD player?!

So again 99 isnt that impressive for a hub..

Much better value in buying a DVD player that streams netflix or a PS3. Even new TV's have apps and netflix built in. AppleTV is a waste/dead


so, do I have this right ? The new AppleTV is basically the same as the old but without local storage? (so they could shrink it down in size and price)

Pretty much, but you still find people here excited about it. Go Figure

Sorry, late to the party. First day back on the job (I'm a teacher). Just watched the keynote. Here's what I say:

1) iPod Shuffle - home run. Apple listened to what people wanted, admitted faults with the last shuffle, and killed it with this one. Great - they'll sell the hell out of these at 50 bucks.

2) iPod Nano - worst iPod ever. A complete step-down from the previous version. Too small and frail, ugly, and more limited functionality than the last version. It's seriously a piece of crap.

3) iPod Touch - nothing blew me away as far as improvements, but it'll sell like crazy. If it ain't broke...

4) Apple TV - this isn't what consumers want. Bummer. The $99 price might save them. Some people will just give it a try since it's Apple at that price, but it'll sit next to their tv unused except for a few hardcore netflixers who don't have a wii, ps3, or xbox. I'm actually glad I have the old version. My hacked first gen apple tv is still way cooler than that show renting machine.

iPod Classic still for sale? Thank God.

I think you got it spot on. The shuffle and Touch will sell like hotcakes. The rest dont look like a hit at all. Apple knows the loyalists will buy but will everyone else jump on the bandwagon. Should be interesting.
 
It's not misguided at all. YOU'RE part of the niche. Who in their right mind would pay $4.99 to stream a 720p movie when they can get full HD on demand from cable/satellite for the same price? With most people using Netflix and Hulu on top of that, AppleTV will NEVER be a mainstream product. Most people have absolutely no use for it. If YOU happen to like it then great, but you're part of a small niche (mostly people who blindly cough up money for whatever Apple puts out).

You are misguided if you think that the content provided by cable/sat is FULL HD. What do you think this means? It can't be any better then 720p/1080i upconverted at the box or auto by the TV to 1080p if your set is capable.
 
Gigabit would provide absolutely no benefit over 100Baset T. Keep in mind that the content being streamed is already compressed, even 100Baset T is probably at least five times faster than what is required for streaming H264 compressed 720P content, or even 1080P for that matter. Going any faster with the ethernet speed would be completely pointless.

Gigabit for ATV or any device streaming 1080i or 720p not needed.

Streaming full 1080p, that is another story. It all depends on how many streams are being viewed across you network at any one time. Also, what other devices are also accessing the network, internet, etc. If your network was managed then you can get away with lower bandwith but most homeowners do not have managed networks.
 
Sorry, you can dress 720i/p up anyway you like, it's still 720i/p.

You are right 720p or 1080i is 720p or 1080i.

However, that is not the point of what I said. while the output on a device may be 1080p (i.e. Boxee box, VUDU, Upconverting DVD player, SAT box, etc) the content being shown was not rendered in 1080p. It was either 720p, 1080i or if an older movie, possible upconverted from 480p.

If you hookup an ATV at 720p or a cablebox at 1080i, it will auto upconvert via the TV to 1080p. Does that mean I now have 1080p content. No.

Same with all of these other devices. Blueray is the only movie STUDIO medium that is capable of a full 1080p signal (or HD DVD if you still have one of those). Also, Blueray does not mean that the content is guaranteed to have been shot originally in HD. There are Blueray movies that were upconverted and look horrible since they never were shot with HD cameras.

None of the content shot by TV networks is in 1080p either. So all of those shows or sporting events are either 1080i or 720p.

So you are right. 720p is 720p no matter how you dress it up. Apple is at least giving you the output native. Not dressing it up and calling it 1080p like most devices.

Personally, I would rather have the native signal and use an external video processor (or receiver with built-in 3rd party video processing) designed to upconvert it to 1080p to get the best possible picture I could vs. relying on the methods used by these other devices or TV's for that matter that auto scale the content to 1080p.
 
Streaming is not something I would want to rely on.

I stream EVERYTHING. Not a hitch or a stutter. The only issue I have is in fast forwarding or rewinding and that is more of a problem with the lag on the remote and speed of the first gen aTV's processor.

Streaming works great. It is the future, so get used to the idea of not only not actually owning your content, but not storing is locally either.
 
What they should've done with the Nano is make the touch screen about the same size as the last generation's screen or maybe a little bigger, keep the camera and give it a Home button at the bottom. That would put some meat around it rather than just being a ridiculously tiny screen. Basically, make it just like a little iPod Touch (you know, like people actually wanted?), but keep the aluminum and different colors. I bet that's what next year's rev is gonna be. This year's Nano is last year's Shuffle. Swing and a miss!
 
Classic remains....

It looks like Apple won't kill it until they get an equivalent capacity iPod touch. It rather looks like they're trying to kill the Nano instead.

It doesn't matter much to me though; I expect the Classic I have to last a long time. Heck, I'm still using iTunes 8.2.1 which does everything I want. I sure am not interested in social networking with iTunes. In fact it has been a pretty long time now since Apple came out with any new product that got me excited.

Seriously, Ipod Shuffle, is it me or they took a few steps back to an old design?

Back to a better design, in my opinion.

May be your 85 years old dad is in techy minority then.

Like my 92-year-old dad, a retired electronics engineer who as a hobby has built his own computers, regularly does content production, database programming, etc.
 
It's not misguided at all. YOU'RE part of the niche. Who in their right mind would pay $4.99 to stream a 720p movie when they can get full HD on demand from cable/satellite for the same price? With most people using Netflix and Hulu on top of that, AppleTV will NEVER be a mainstream product. Most people have absolutely no use for it. If YOU happen to like it then great, but you're part of a small niche (mostly people who blindly cough up money for whatever Apple puts out).

You clearly don't know me at all, sir.

I haven't bought a Mac since 1997. I bought my wife an iPod Touch this past year for Xmas.

Don't presume to know me.
 
You are right 720p or 1080i is 720p or 1080i.

However, that is not the point of what I said. while the output on a device may be 1080p (i.e. Boxee box, VUDU, Upconverting DVD player, SAT box, etc) the content being shown was not rendered in 1080p. It was either 720p, 1080i or if an older movie, possible upconverted from 480p.

If you hookup an ATV at 720p or a cablebox at 1080i, it will auto upconvert via the TV to 1080p. Does that mean I now have 1080p content. No.

Same with all of these other devices. Blueray is the only movie STUDIO medium that is capable of a full 1080p signal (or HD DVD if you still have one of those). Also, Blueray does not mean that the content is guaranteed to have been shot originally in HD. There are Blueray movies that were upconverted and look horrible since they never were shot with HD cameras.

None of the content shot by TV networks is in 1080p either. So all of those shows or sporting events are either 1080i or 720p.

So you are right. 720p is 720p no matter how you dress it up. Apple is at least giving you the output native. Not dressing it up and calling it 1080p like most devices.

Personally, I would rather have the native signal and use an external video processor (or receiver with built-in 3rd party video processing) designed to upconvert it to 1080p to get the best possible picture I could vs. relying on the methods used by these other devices or TV's for that matter that auto scale the content to 1080p.

My question is this:

How long will it be before someone jailbreaks the AppleTV and fixes it so it can run 1080p videos? Not long, I wager.

Also, if a user runs a wired network (no Wireless N), and streams a 1080p movie trailer from Quicktime to their AppleTV, will it play it back at native resolution, or scale it down to 720p, or simply refuse to play it?
 
How anyone can think the new AppleTV is some sort of upgrade baffles me. I loved (and constantly used) the ability to turn on my TV, scroll through iTunes movies and if I found something I wanted to buy I could buy it. I could worry about syncing it to my Mac later (especially considering we only have MacBook Pros in the house, no desktops). Now? I have to go to my Mac and purchase it, wait for it to download, then keep my MBP open and running, and stream it to the AppleTV.

The entire process seems so unecessarily complex I cannot fathom how they came to this point. Blaming the studios is not the right answer, either.

For one, the new AppleTV doesn't require you keep your MBP on to access the iTunes store or content, for one. In that regard, it's self-sufficient.
 
Sorry, late to the party. First day back on the job (I'm a teacher). Just watched the keynote. Here's what I say:



4) Apple TV - this isn't what consumers want. Bummer. The $99 price might save them. Some people will just give it a try since it's Apple at that price, but it'll sit next to their tv unused except for a few hardcore netflixers who don't have a wii, ps3, or xbox. I'm actually glad I have the old version. My hacked first gen apple tv is still way cooler than that show renting machine.

What do you think customers DO want?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.