Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next-Generation Apple TV Renamed 'iTV', Utilizes Apps, Lacks 1080p?

Considering all the major electronics manufacturers are incorporating internet apps into their models, this is going to be less and less useful in the home. Especially when those particular apps consist of a greater variety of services.

Why have one box that just handles iTunes video when you can buy a new piece of equipment that has DLNA and throws in Amazon, Blockbuster, Vudu, Netflix, CinemaNow, Hulu and other VOD services for you to pick from?

Samsung have Internet@TV, Panasonic Viera Cast, Sony Bravia Internet Video and Widgets, LG Netcast ...

adding internet services is a throwaway technology now, but I'm sure some will buy iTV just because of the Apple name and lack of knowledge about other devices.

$159 will get you a brand new upconverting 1080p LG Blu-ray player and the apps are thrown in for nothing.
 
ArcaneDevice said:
$159 will get you a brand new upconverting 1080p LG Blu-ray player and the apps are thrown in for nothing.
Click to expand...

Not in Australia. Also why buy a blu-ray player when that means having to rebuy and store bluray discs? We need more alternatives to this mentality.
 
It's an outrage and I am so much oh boy my blood pressure is up over this one.

I'll be the latest to gripe and complain that is might not have 1080 resolution. I believe it will have it though because otherwise who will buy the fing thing. That's like the PS3 being 720p only. I rest my case.
 
s1m said:
$150 here in Oz where you can't get a blu-ray play for $150) if I could get a device that can stream content from my iMac/external drives and use some of the apps I have on my iPad/iPhone whilst controlling it from my iPhone/iPad this would be a great (and at $100 almost disposable) product.
Click to expand...

DSE Aussie sells two Blu-ray players under AU$150, and others just slightly more.
 
RE: No 1080 support.

You have to remember this is an Apple consumer product that will be aimed towards the very average consumer - like all other Apple consumer products ( including software!)

The average consumer doesn't have a honking great 50" or larger TV and who can tell the difference between 1080 and 720, or even cares.

The average consumer wants to be able to *easily* get content from a device and watch it. 720 is *good enough*.

If you want 1080, the iTV is the wrong product for you. You will have to wait until 50"+ TVs reach the mainstream when the difference between 720 and 1080 is noticeable, as some say.

At $99, the iTV will sell like hot cakes.
 
s1m said:
Not in Australia. Also why buy a blu-ray player when that means having to rebuy and store bluray discs? We need more alternatives to this mentality.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to rebuy something? Are you going to rebuy digital download copies of your DVDs? Blu-ray players also play DVDs, so you don't have to rebuy them unless you want a better quality version.
 
s1m said:
Not in Australia. Also why buy a blu-ray player when that means having to rebuy and store bluray discs? We need more alternatives to this mentality.
Click to expand...

You get the award for missing the point.

For $150 you get an entire player with IP sources from multiple services thrown in.

And you really need to get away from the mentality that you have to rebuy discs. Is there an Aussie law that says you have to throw away DVDs as soon as you buy a Blu-ray player which can play them better than your old DVD player?

Buy one Apple box which plays only content from one service or spend $50 more (or less by the time iTV is released) and get a new optical disc player and many more IP video services to watch?
 
nebular said:
The average consumer wants to be able to *easily* get content from a device and watch it. 720 is *good enough*.

If you want 1080, the iTV is the wrong product for you. You will have to wait until 50"+ TVs reach the mainstream when the difference between 720 and 1080 is noticeable, as some say.
Click to expand...

No, the average consumer wants great quality at a good price.
I set up an endcap demo in my store of two 40" Samsungs.
One was 720 the other was 1080 both displaying King Kong BD.
The difference in detail was stunning.
 
nebular said:
The average consumer doesn't have a honking great 50" or larger TV and who can tell the difference between 1080 and 720, or even cares.
Click to expand...

The "average consumer" goes to the big box store and sees the +40" TV showing a Blu-ray demo.

They'll notice that the Apple over-compressed "not really HD" video looks like crap compared to what they saw at the store.

It's also likely that they picked up the "add Blu-ray Disc player and 3 Blu-ray Disc movies for $150 more" special, so that they have a clear A-B comparison to see how bad the Apple downloads really are.


Bubba Satori said:
I set up an endcap demo in my store of two 40" Samsungs.
One was 720 the other was 1080 both displaying King Kong BD. The difference in detail was stunning.
Click to expand...

Great confirmation - and the 720 Samsung wasn't showing overly compressed web video - it was the BD feed downscaled to 720p.

Imagine how bad the Itunes version of King Kong would look!
 
J Radical said:
Although there is a difference between 1080p capable and having 1080p content, I think not having either would be a deal breaker.

Streaming 1080p from the cloud might be a technical challenge, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to purchase 1080p content, store it on a local drive and stream it from there. Indeed, this feature is the absolute minimum apple should be aiming for, if they are serious about providing an alternative to blu-ray.

The other major turn-off for me is the implied lack of wired external storage. This thing MUST have a USB port for users with content saved to a HDD.

If steve insists on shipping a device gimped in either of these two ways, they'll continue to play no role in the living room of non-apple fans.

An additional, Apple-branded TV set, with all this stuff built in could be great, but we all know the pricing would be insane, and failure would be humiliating. I think Apple is afraid of this failure, and so refuses to commit to iTV/AppleTV/the living room seriously.
Click to expand...

I agree. Of course they can build a 1080p device.

The challenge is streaming from a cloud. If they roll it out to millions of customers and they have a poor experience due to bandwidth constraints (like ATT and the iPhone) or immature cloud, then it'll be very bad news.

As a result Apple _may_ undershoot with lower resolution & avoid fully committing (calling it a hobby project). IF it works then they'll bring in 1080p in a new model (getting you to re-buy).

Most of Apple's products undershoot when they first come out (ipod touch, appleTV, iPhone), but they usually have one compelling feature that will make it successful. And they will market that feature like crazy.


P.
 
marksman said:
It is funny how many people think the name of a tv station on a tiny little island is going to have an impact on what Apple names the device.
Click to expand...

Hmmm yeah, hilarious.:confused:

It will not be called iTV in the UK. Apple will not be able to reach an agreement with ITV, and Apple will not buy ITV (without a doubt the craziest notion in this thread....).

They could brand it differently in the UK, but I think it's more likely that the thing will be called something else.

Try to keep in mind that this is a rumour site.;)
 
Bubba Satori said:
No, the average consumer wants great quality at a good price.
Click to expand...
Nah, the average consumer just wants mediocre quality fast and cheap.

That's why people order cheeseburgers and Cokes and McDonald's. If you care about quality, you are already in the minority.

Let's not forget that Apple's customers are more affluent than the standard technology buyer. Forty percent of iPad buyers report an annual income of over $100K. Apple virtually owns the $1000+ PC market. 85% of Mac owners also have a PC in the house. The percentage of Apple owners who are AMEX cardholders is above that of the general population. I could go on and on with statistics about Apple users.

You're in consumer electronics sales. You notice because it's your job and if you didn't, you wouldn't be very good at it.

The average person walking into your store doesn't really notice.
 
shortcrust said:
Hmmm yeah, hilarious.:confused:

It will not be called iTV in the UK. Apple will not be able to reach an agreement with ITV, and Apple will not buy ITV (without a doubt the craziest notion in this thread....).

They could brand it differently in the UK, but I think it's more likely that the thing will be called something else.

Try to keep in mind that this is a rumour site.;)
Click to expand...

ITV actually owns a trademark in US too:

"IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Cinematographic and photographic films featuring dramas, comedies, musicals, sports, current affairs, music, musical performances, animated cartoons and programs, educational programs, children's programs, factual programs, news, documentaries, the weather, plays, quizzes, competitions, games shows, ..."

Owner (APPLICANT) ITV Network Limited PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY UNITED KINGDOM 200 Gray's Inn Road London UNITED KINGDOM WCIX 8HF
Attorney of Record Jonathan A. Hyman
Priority Date November 10, 2005
 
marksman said:
No support for 3D TV, Steve?

Did you not see freaking Avatar? You are losing it old man!
Click to expand...

Sorry folks, I missed something with Avatar.

Maybe it was the awful script.

Maybe it was the unbelievable characters (I mean ex army types who are clearly off their chops but still manage to get top jobs and command blind loyalty).

Maybe it was that they couldn't be bothered getting a voice coach for the lead male, whose accent kept switching from Australian to American and back all the way through...

Maybe it was that I kept feeling like throwing up every 20 mins and had to take the 3D glasses off...

No, that's not it. Here's where I get to...

Yes, the 3D imagery was very impressive, BUT I finally realised that the people who were most enamoured with the 3D experience of nature were those that rarely get out into nature in the real world, where the 3D experience is that much richer. Those who love 3D movies the most are the ones that stare at 2D images all day every day without even looking out the window.
 
I can't see an iTunes pricing model, where one doesn't even have copies of their media available to them without depending on the Internet, being competitive. On demand cable services give viewers these options for free or for less than iTunes could and people are already paying for cable.

Hey, Uncle Joe, can I borrow your copy of Spider-Man? Sorry, it's in the cloud. Nope.
 
cvaldes said:
Nah, the average consumer just wants mediocre quality fast and cheap.

That's why people order cheeseburgers and Cokes and McDonald's. If you care about quality, you are already in the minority.
...
.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Consumers today want convenience, consistency, affordable, now.
When iTunes became popular, it was still selling 128 bit/s audio, inferior even at that time. Apple just made it convenient.

I would argue that the iPhone/iPad is popular because of it's convenience (instant on, touch, mobile)

Same applies to McDonald, Walmart, 7-11.

P.

Edit: Walmart maybe a bad example... maybe Costco...
 
shortcrust said:
Hmmm yeah, hilarious.:confused:

It will not be called iTV in the UK. Apple will not be able to reach an agreement with ITV, and Apple will not buy ITV (without a doubt the craziest notion in this thread....).

They could brand it differently in the UK, but I think it's more likely that the thing will be called something else.

Try to keep in mind that this is a rumour site.;)
Click to expand...

Cisco owns "IOS," yet Apple somehow managed to strike a deal with them. I'm guessing that, as a corporate entity, Cisco is somewhat larger than ITV in the UK.
 
I'm sure it's been mentioned alot already but itv is the name of a tv channel here in the uk, or it used to be at least. I don't really watch much tv these days, but I'm 99.9% sure itv is still going.
All apple had to do was google 'itv' to find that much out.

Also I will most likely never buy an apple tv, they always seem lacking.
 
I think this is mostly BS... The biggest laugh was picking the name iTV. Whatever journalist came up with that one really should have done their research first. Apple would never be given the rights to use that name in the UK.

I do however hope the $99 price point is true..

Nice to still see apple tv rumours though :)
 
It'd be stupid for Apple to not put a webcam on this thing and give it FaceTime. STUPID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back