Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iTunes Store Terms Suggest Impending Apple TV 3.0 Software Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My
TV contains over 300 movies, 1000 TV show episodes, 400 home movies, 15000 songs, and 12000 photos. Some of the music was purchased from the iTunes store, the remainder of the content is from non-iTunes sources (CDs, DVDs or my own personal creation).Yes, you have to be willing to take the time to rip your DVDs with Handbrake for the
TV to use non-iTunes content, but this is the analogous process as getting non-iTunes music from your CDs to your iPod. Having said that, the TV would be a worthwhile gadget to me if I used it only for my music, home video footage, and photo slide shows. The fact that I can get my video content off discs and have it all readily accessible in such an intuitive format for me and the family is a bonus.
Interesting observation. Isn't that like saying, "seems to be that people here are either men or women?"
Not really... it's more like "the people who hate Apple TV haven't used it"
Not exactly. I think the implication was that those who hate it haven't actually used it.
My
So you broke the law about 16300 times? Thanks for sharing.
I see how you arrived at the number, but I don't see any evidence from his post about subverting copyright law in gathering his source material. Placing CD tracks in iTunes is unquestionably in the clear. Ripping DVDs (that you own) is a gray area, but I think it will ultimately be fine, from a legal perspective.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
1080i or 1080p MP4 content will go into and play in iTunes just fine (on decently powered computer hardware). It will not sync or stream to
TV.It is not translated on the fly, nor downscaled to 720p.
If you want that content on
TV you have to choose to render it for TV, which generally means that it is rendered at something like 960 x 540, cutting the 1920 x 1080p resolution in half. This still looks pretty good- better than DVD- but it is cutting your source video in half in both width and height to support TV playback.You can also render it to
TVs version of 720p, though I'm yet to find settings that will play back 1080p camcorder video renders to TV 720p without a lot of jitter when the camera is panning. 720 resolution at 24p at about 6Mbps max is just not enough (what I would call barely HD).
Weren't you the one who posted about "What if your iPod could only play iTunes content?" What are you talking about if not ripped CDs, which is perfectly legitimate?
Yeah, I know the video thing is a little gray and people can be smug about it. But I figure if I've got the DVD disc safely packed up in a box in my basement and I want a digitized copy of it on my
TV for my own personal use in my own house, I can sleep OK at night.Wishlist :
A) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
B) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
C) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
And movie rentals could be nice as well.
A) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
B) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
C) Movie Rentals/Purchases.
And movie rentals could be nice as well.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
While that's popularly tossed about, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. You can render 1080p camcorder video as Apple-endorsed MP4 with something as simple as iMovie. It will import and play in iTunes. But it can't even get sent to
TV, nor does it appear likely that existing TV hardware could play it back (even if it could get sent there). iTunes is much more capable than
TV. Quicktime which is at the root of both iTunes and TV is much more capable than either, but Apple chooses to handicap what iTunes will play in spite of what Quicktime can do (in total), and further handicap what TV can play in spite of what iTunes will play (in total).My thinking is that the device hooked to the biggest screen in the house, probably hooked to the best quality speakers in the house, controllable by what is probably the best remote control in the house, should probably be the most robust & capable bit of kit for what it does in the house. Now if only Apple would decide that
TV should push the limits of Quicktime, rather than arbitrarily choosing to make it the weakest link in the whole chain.
I don't know of one Apple TV owner who hates their device, and I know quite a few people that own one. Most people would have figured out that they don't want it in the first 10 or 14 days, which would only result in a 10% restocking fee (if any, given the lenience of an Apple Store Manager) when returning it.
You know what would be really cool, but a weird request? Supporting VPN or some other similar concept. My in-laws are novices on their crappy computer, but I bought them an Apple TV, which they like. But, they rely on me to manually sync the foreign movies (and other movies not available via iTunes Store) that I get for them, either by coming over with a flash drive, or remoting in, or using SuperSync to selectively match up my library with theirs. It would be nice if their Apple TV (that they are very familiar to operate) would be able to reach, not just over the internet to the iTunes Store, but to another machine in another home, running iTunes that would stream out the video at will.
I guess it would be sort of like Flickr, but for movies and videos, or like a private YouTube channel, something with MobileMe, or maybe just linking to one iTunes account... I dunno...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You are EXACTLY right. And your last paragraph nails the whole issue (not just the Plex option).
Can you guys post links to support this. I've been looking, but I can't find anything definitive. Especially not for a circumstance like the AppleTV, where files need to be on a shared network. Not trying to get on a high horse here, I've gotten thousands of songs ripped myself, but the law's the law so please clarify...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Sure if you want to take the "Apple is right, BUYERS are wrong" stance. Didn't Ford also get credited with something like "They can have any color of car they want, as long as it is black"? If we accept that maybe BUYERS can imagine what they want, perhaps that Ford quote better applies to this situation?
People asking for Bluray drives and DVRs want faster horses. The rest of us want cars. Of course, you probably all want cars too, you just don't know it yet
Or, people want a more "future proof"
TV solution that is a good match for what the playback device- their TV- can handle today (and yesterday). We can spend about the same cost that Apple asked for TV to get a BD box that can play our movies back at much higher quality than what TV can yield. Some of those boxes also have some TV features (albeit generally more poorly implemented) and some coveted TV features NOT available.I don't really want a BD player in the next-gen, but many BUYERS would BUY if they could kill both birds with one stone. I don't really want DVR functionality in the next gen, but many BUYERS would BUY if they could kill those 2 birds with one stone. Based on other hardware in the marketplace, it is OBVIOUS that Apple could deliver on both of these wants and probably leave
TV pricing about where it is IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT.Or, they could try to make us want any color of car as long as it is black, and NOT win those BUYERS who are waiting for the feature(s) they want. Even Ford came around eventually (and perhaps he learned that insulting his market's intelligence with "only WE know what you want to buy" is not necessarily the best attitude for maximizing the sales of his products).
Wirelessly posted (SAMSUNG-SGH-A821/1.0 SHP/VPP/R5 NetFront/3.4 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.0 configuration/CLDC-1.1)
I see the AppleTV being very similar to early iPods: insufficient capacity, basic features and innitially low adoption within the market. Now remember how the iPod evolved: hardware had incremental step-ups in storage with interm software updates, slowly added new features (colour screens, radio via inline radio remote, photos, video, and remember those clickwheel iPod games).
AppleTV already has a few advantages that iPod didn't: a mature iTunes store, a way to connect to the store out of the box without having to go via a computer, and finally the Apple brand as it is today. there aren't many households without at least one product from Apple
I see the AppleTV being very similar to early iPods: insufficient capacity, basic features and innitially low adoption within the market. Now remember how the iPod evolved: hardware had incremental step-ups in storage with interm software updates, slowly added new features (colour screens, radio via inline radio remote, photos, video, and remember those clickwheel iPod games).
AppleTV already has a few advantages that iPod didn't: a mature iTunes store, a way to connect to the store out of the box without having to go via a computer, and finally the Apple brand as it is today. there aren't many households without at least one product from Apple
You simply don't understand the argument. "Faster horses?" Please. Blu-Ray and DVR technologies are readily available. No need to reinvent the horse.
I understand your argument perfectly, but I think you just demonstrated that you don't understand mine.
We all know that Blu-ray and DVR technology exists, so did horses back then. Instead of building a device that ties together 'old technology' (what the hell's wrong with my horse you darn whipper-snappers, it goes plenty fast enough, now get off my lawn), Apple is simply betting that physical media and cable distribution are eventually on the way out, and they've determined that it's strategically in their best interest to try and accelerate and capitalize on it.
You can debate the timing, you can debate the current model/economics around bandwidth, net neutrality, buy-in and content availability from the studios/networks, advertising revenue sources, etc...but it will happen. And given Apple's domination of this same transformation around music distribution (despite similar arguments at the time that turned out to be completely off-base), I'm comfortable with the odds that they're on the right side of the argument.
I personally think the Apple TVs biggest problem is that it's a few years too soon for what it's really good at.
XrossMediaBar(XMB) is just an awful interface. I was really hoping Sony would throw it out with their 3.0 and add better media integration, but they think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In general, the PS3 A/V media menus are pretty minimal in what you can do. While you can go to the web browser and do pretty much anything, it's not effortless by any means, and the browser does not start up instantly when you need it either. If someone was web development handy, they could probably put together a nice PS3 customized GUI to do plenty of cool things (but you'd still have to futz around with getting the browser started up).
Hardware-wise the PS3 is a far more capable device.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I know my fellow Mac lovers won't love this, but iPod didn't really pop until the iTunes ran on Windows. It wasn't incremental hardware/software enhances that did the trick; it was giving a much BIGGER market of hungry BUYERS what they wanted. That's what I think is lacking with
TV; it is not- in its current form- a match to the mainstream CE market. If it had a few relatively minor enhancements, it would quickly leap to the front of the pack, get the "BUZZ" and have broader market acceptance.Right now, every time its covered in the press, it seems the shortcomings are the story, relative to the typical Apple dazzle. Read/watch what the world says about Macs and iPhones/iPods vs. stories about
TV. The former are often billed as best-in-class, and the latter is not.