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.
Official: The New Apple TV
- Thread starter GermanSuplex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Watch the presentation. There's a little bit of photo functionality shown there. I'm guessing there is a buffer, but you have to have your Mac turned on. Turn off the Mac and either:
- whatever fits in the buffer will be the basis for a photo slideshow, or
- there is no photo slideshow until you turn your Mac back on, or
- it streams photos over the Internet until you turn your Mac back on
I think the majority of you guys are missing the point when apple made the 2nd gen ATV. Jobs said that the ATV wasn't a big hit. So why should Apple put more technology in this? Even After they did the survey? Consumers wanted it to be more affordable. $99 bucks! That's $150 cheaper then the first one.
Not a fan of the new Apple TV...
It's got an A4 chip in it so it MUST be iOS based, so they would have had to rebuild the software from scratch... And... In this day and age... after all they've done with iOS, they decide to write it so it looks EXACTLY the same as it did before! sorry but that's really lame... REALLY lame.... and i've not even mentioned the fact they haven't allowed apps on it!!!
I'd have forgiven all this if they had put BBC iPlayer on it
Also, No HD... Now, i'd be ok with that as long as you had the option to unchain the thing from iTunes... Nope, they didn't even bother doing that... So now, not only do you actually NEED a desktop machine with an AppleTV you also NEED it to be permanently on and acting as your server! The big joke here is that steve seemed to claim they wanted this to be accessible to non-techies... yeah, stripping out ALL internal storage and only allowing you to use it if you also own a desktop machine permanently running iTunes is really the way to go... Surely, giving it a 1TB drive and/or the option of plugging in externals would make it piss-simple to use and you could buy one even if you didn't own a computer!! All they've given non-techies is a rather expensive box to rent content, which most of the time you can buy the original cheaper on DVD.
Even if they didn't want to put a HD in, they could have at least allowed me to stream directly from a network drive so i can by-pass my desktop machine!
Looks like i'll be sticking with my patchstick'd v1 Apple TV with 1TB external drive for a while longer.... Great bit of kit... Always on, all content synced so no streaming/itunes issues (yes, i do have an AEBS and i STILL get issues) and i don't have to have my bloody desktop machine on all the same acting as a server....
Trouble is, one day my ATV will go bang (it's quite old already) and i'll have to buy one of the new ones to replace it... I just hope there are some decent hacks out for it by then... It's such a shame Apple don't see as much potential to this machine as it's users do...
It's got an A4 chip in it so it MUST be iOS based, so they would have had to rebuild the software from scratch... And... In this day and age... after all they've done with iOS, they decide to write it so it looks EXACTLY the same as it did before! sorry but that's really lame... REALLY lame.... and i've not even mentioned the fact they haven't allowed apps on it!!!
I'd have forgiven all this if they had put BBC iPlayer on it Also, No HD... Now, i'd be ok with that as long as you had the option to unchain the thing from iTunes... Nope, they didn't even bother doing that... So now, not only do you actually NEED a desktop machine with an AppleTV you also NEED it to be permanently on and acting as your server! The big joke here is that steve seemed to claim they wanted this to be accessible to non-techies... yeah, stripping out ALL internal storage and only allowing you to use it if you also own a desktop machine permanently running iTunes is really the way to go...
Surely, giving it a 1TB drive and/or the option of plugging in externals would make it piss-simple to use and you could buy one even if you didn't own a computer!! All they've given non-techies is a rather expensive box to rent content, which most of the time you can buy the original cheaper on DVD.Even if they didn't want to put a HD in, they could have at least allowed me to stream directly from a network drive so i can by-pass my desktop machine!
Looks like i'll be sticking with my patchstick'd v1 Apple TV with 1TB external drive for a while longer.... Great bit of kit... Always on, all content synced so no streaming/itunes issues (yes, i do have an AEBS and i STILL get issues) and i don't have to have my bloody desktop machine on all the same acting as a server....
Trouble is, one day my ATV will go bang (it's quite old already) and i'll have to buy one of the new ones to replace it... I just hope there are some decent hacks out for it by then... It's such a shame Apple don't see as much potential to this machine as it's users do...
True, but he also said that all the people that did buy it, absolutely loved it and used it a lot... So why piss them off by limiting the device even more than it was already?
I admit, the price is nice, but they've not actually evolved the device at all.... They still don't know what they have or what to do with it... IMHO
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why do you believe that using 1080p chip instead of a 720p MAX chip would have made it cost a lot more than $99? Look around: there's lots of little set top boxes with 1080p chips in them that cost <$99. I'm confident that Apple can buy 1080p chips from the same sources that all those other guys buy from. And I'm confident they can get just as good a price on them.
And it wouldn't be putting more technology in the box. It would be choosing one chip instead of another. I'd bet given the popularity of 1080p over 720p (as demonstrated in so many other boxes where it is the chosen option), that economies of scale would have probably saved Apple a few dollars on cost... had they used 1080p instead of 720p. Who else is using 720p MAX graphics in their set-top boxes?
Yes, it's great that they hit $99. But they could have probably hit $99 with 1080p too. Don't fool yourself.
refurbs? YOur first list contains a refurb. There is no box under $99 that does 1080p and has an optical drive. Hence you're full of sht. Not because you want what you want. But because you exaggerate to pretend what you want is so damn ready for primetime.
That BD player, also has no wireless unless you buy an adapter, doesn't stream from computer and is certainly going to have a shtty slow interface as most br players do.
Ridiculous.
The Roku does 1080p???? BS. MOre crap you've shoveled up for MR readers. It doesn't do 1080p. Not today. Another fantasy. Yes it SAYS it will support 1080p playback via a software update later this year. We'll see how well that works when it actually does show up.
The rest of your arguments are equally full of sht. You are the one that mentioned price initially by touting all these other great 1080p boxes for $99.
I'm just pointing out that Apple never has competed on price at the low-end. So you're never going to get a dirt cheap box that barely does what it says it does. So the Apple box may be 10 or 20% more.
And if these other devices are so great why haven't you bought 2 of 'em?
1080p will come when its ready for primetime. I don't expect it too soon. Multple 1080p streams aren't going to do well over wi-fi in most homes. Most folks don't have hdtvs bigger than 50" so 1080 is lost on most from normal viewing distances. 1080p takes up much more streaming internet bandwidth too. And it requires another pricepoint most likely. Also nobody else streams 1080p nor broadcasts it. Yes It's so ready for primetime but no cable company or satellite company broadcasts in 1080p.
To me it seems you're arguing why vanilla ain't chocolate. This is Apple. They aren't the all you can eat spec/feature/codec company. Never have been. Not sure why you spend time rapping about why a leopard ain't a turtle.
So that rumour about Apple hiring a new design team to work on the new AppleTV UI didn't really pan out...
I'm sure this will turn into something cool (probably via hacks at first) - there's no way the hardware is limited to 720p. It's 2010, not 2005! Even the iPhone 3GS could handle 1080p when the artificial iTunes limits were bypassed, so it's foolish to think the A4 can't push 1080p. I'm guessing, as soon as it's hacked we'll see new patches to enable the default UI to playback 1080p files (m4v and mkv) from network shares just like ATVfiles. And that's when I shall dive in...
I'm sure this will turn into something cool (probably via hacks at first) - there's no way the hardware is limited to 720p. It's 2010, not 2005! Even the iPhone 3GS could handle 1080p when the artificial iTunes limits were bypassed, so it's foolish to think the A4 can't push 1080p. I'm guessing, as soon as it's hacked we'll see new patches to enable the default UI to playback 1080p files (m4v and mkv) from network shares just like ATVfiles. And that's when I shall dive in...
I did watch it. Jobs had it in a screen saver mode, but it was with the Apple photos. He never mentioned anything about how the screen saver mode would work, only how photo slideshows would.
My family loves how the photos just float across the tv when the device is not busy, and if the current Apple TV cannot do this on the fly over syncing, I am going to be very upset.
Look, you can offer 1000 of these old arguments against 1080p. What about the FAT-based people who want to download a very long movie like Godfather or Return of the King in 720p? Some of those can exceed 4GB too. Perhaps there shouldn't be any 720p if we're going to worry about this particular issue?
First, I could care less about iTunes having 1080p content for rent. I could care less. I could care less. My own desire for 1080p hardware has NO RELATIONSHIP associated with 1080p software (content) for rent/sale from iTunes.
But, even if they did put 1080p optional movies in there, this little problem is easily addressed in the "are you sure" box when you are choosing to download any movie...
"You have selected the 1080p version of this movie
1080p movie files are very large, and may exceed the storage available on your Windows computer. Because of their size they will also require a longer amount of time to download and/or stream, even on a fast Internet connection. Would you like to proceed anyway, or would you rather download a smaller 720p of 540p version?"
Is that really so hard? We already get the "Are you sure" screen, even if we want to download an SD video. And the above would even let them insert a little dig at their (Windows) competitor.
So, in summary: I could care less about 1080p rentals/sales in the iTunes store. My 1080p is self made, already here at my house. My home network has the wide pipes for pumping it to the HDTV... no pipe issue. Comcast doesn't bill me more for files pumping from my Mac to myTV, so no tiered cost issues. I'm all Mac here, so no FAT issue. I've seen "the chart" but everyone at my house CAN see the difference, like night & day. Etc. All these lame old justification excuses do not apply to my situation. But this isn't about just me. Others may want to download 1080p, just like some people with dialup might want to download 720p or SD. They'll quickly learn what does and does not suit their own situations and adapt accordingly. That would be much preferable to Apple deciding for us.
Will there be some people with FAT who try anyway? Sure. But there's people who buy OS X software and try to install it on Windows machines and vice versa. So should we ban OS X software so that Windows people don't have to suffer through that misery too?
You've made about 20 comebacks to why I should be happy with 720p. It's terrific that it works for you. Congratulations. Had this box arrived with 1080p platform, you could have still got every bit of the same experience and quality out of your 720p files. Every bit. But don't try to make those wanting a higher quality of resolution happy because it works and/or makes sense for your own needs.
My viewpoint and we BOTH would get what we want out of it. Your viewpoint and only YOU get what you want out of it. See the difference?
You seem to be confusing my understanding why Apple left 1080p with saying that people shouldn't need or want 1080p. That's not what I'm saying at all... I fully get that you want 1080p and that some people have a need for it. That is not my argument.
My argument is that it doesn't make sense for Apple to include 1080p playback when they have no 1080p content and the box is designed to stream iTunes-bought content to the television. Yes, it streams mp3's and one or two other formats that were standard before iTunes even came out, but for the most part, the box is designed as an iTunes-store media centric device first and foremost. There are other solutions to your needs if 1080p is a make or break deal.
Apple has always not done some things that apparently seem to shortchange the device at first glance, but make more sense when you think about it. This is how I see it.
AppleTV is a big fail for me. It won't even stream any mkv or AVI files. Granted, not everyone is going to need that function, but for me it was the deal breaker. I'm going to go buy one of those Western Digital TV Live Plus HD Media Players which can basically do everything the AppleTV can and then some. I was holding out on buying one until I saw the official AppleTV announcement to confirm what it could do or can't do.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
trip1ex, you sling what you want sling. If anyone is full of sht, I think it's pretty easy to tell who.
You ask for examples and I found them for you. There's plenty more where that came from, and I only included a refurb example just to show how low 1080p chipsets can go.
You reply by adding more variables, like where's the wifi? Why don't you just demand that it has an Apple logo on top?
I haven't bought the other boxes because I'd much rather buy it from Apple. My media is stored in iTunes and I have bought a few things from iTunes that are DRM'd (so they can only get to my 1080HDTV if I pump them through something from Apple).
I can say plenty of positives about Apple, but I don't worship them, nor attack people who find fault with something they've done. You take it like I'm calling your kid ugly or something.
I would much rather buy this box... but it came up short on a key feature important to me. People like you seem so stuck on Apple that anyone who points out shortcomings- or PERSONAL wants- as I have done, clearly has to be wrong and "full of sht".
Congratulations. Enjoy it as you like it. Ignore that it could have been a bit more and drawn in a bigger number of buyers, which would have helped Apple motivate more Studios to play ball with Apple.
Sling the names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been more. Apple chose for it to not be more. And cheerleaders like you keep working hard to tell people like me why we're wrong for wishing it could have better met our needs.
You ask for examples and I found them for you. There's plenty more where that came from, and I only included a refurb example just to show how low 1080p chipsets can go.
You reply by adding more variables, like where's the wifi? Why don't you just demand that it has an Apple logo on top?
I haven't bought the other boxes because I'd much rather buy it from Apple. My media is stored in iTunes and I have bought a few things from iTunes that are DRM'd (so they can only get to my 1080HDTV if I pump them through something from Apple).
I can say plenty of positives about Apple, but I don't worship them, nor attack people who find fault with something they've done. You take it like I'm calling your kid ugly or something.
I would much rather buy this box... but it came up short on a key feature important to me. People like you seem so stuck on Apple that anyone who points out shortcomings- or PERSONAL wants- as I have done, clearly has to be wrong and "full of sht".
Congratulations. Enjoy it as you like it. Ignore that it could have been a bit more and drawn in a bigger number of buyers, which would have helped Apple motivate more Studios to play ball with Apple.
Sling the names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been more. Apple chose for it to not be more. And cheerleaders like you keep working hard to tell people like me why we're wrong for wishing it could have better met our needs.
Anyone who can't notice the difference between 720p and 1080 is either: using magnifying glasses for lenses in their spectacles, or is using a tube television. Try comparing avatar for instance on blu ray and regular dvd.
I also don't understand why they even bothered to put a usb port for the service on this thing. With being able to stream, why not just update wirelessly? Or is this for apple employees to use if they need to run some diagnostics? I would think they would just pop it open some how to do maintenance.
I can't believe how tiny they made this thing though. Looks very nice.
I also don't understand why they even bothered to put a usb port for the service on this thing. With being able to stream, why not just update wirelessly? Or is this for apple employees to use if they need to run some diagnostics? I would think they would just pop it open some how to do maintenance.
I can't believe how tiny they made this thing though. Looks very nice.
Just because you want 1080p doesn't make you full of crap.
You're full of sht because you are outright lying in some cases. Stretching the truth in others.
And because you make so many vague gobbleygook arguments it just adds up to a bunch of crap.
Go read the links you posted. It's obvious you quickly googled to get those and didn't even read them yourself. IF you did you wouldn't have posted 'em.
The biggest sign you're full of sht is you aren't in a rush to buy all these great ATV competitors you tout.
because if you weren't full of it then you would own one of those fine products. gotta put your money where your mouth is.
True, but he also said that all the people that did buy it, absolutely loved it and used it a lot... So why piss them off by limiting the device even more than it was already?
I admit, the price is nice, but they've not actually evolved the device at all.... They still don't know what they have or what to do with it... IMHO
I think the price is nice because the new apple tv is the printer, and someone is banking on selling a lot of ink.
The difference between those 2 sources is largely due to the crazy high bit rate on the BR as compared to DVD. Plus, you're comparing a 480p to a 1080p. Almost anyone would see the difference there.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Please identify a single lie that I told. One.
I assume this refers to finding specific examples of 1080p hardware in set-top boxes that cost $99 or less. You said it couldn't be done. I found a bunch of them in seconds. There's many more where that came from. You can easily find 1080p hardware in settop boxes for $99 or less- and a lot less if someone is open to refurbished- all it takes is a search. Your "stretching the truth" implies that only Apple could do it, or that it was only possible with 720p MAX, etc.
Posting these particular responses doesn't change anything. Anyone can see which one of us is right by doing the simplest of searches.
Or, as I explained, we're an Apple household. We've got all our media in iTunes. We need an iTunes way to accomplish what we want to accomplish. Our 1080p home movies rendered with Apple software (some as old as the 2006 edition of iMovie) are stored in iTunes. They play there just fine- just like 720p or SD video. They just can't move from iTunes to our 1080HDTV (8+ years old by the way). The 2006 version of
TV didn't have enough horsepower to push any video above a minimal incarnation of 720p from iTunes to an HDTV. Now, unfortunately, the 2010 version of TV appears to also have been capped at 720p.I can easily buy a Blu Ray box, or a WD box, or a Roku, or Boxee, etc for <$99, $99, or a lot more than $99. But all of those can't work with iTunes DRM content and all of those are somewhat locked out of the niceties of some iTunes benefits. Nobody's UI competes with Apple's in terms of ease of use and family friendly.
So, the solution that would work best almost has to be an Apple solution. And Apple let me down by releasing this "update" without much update in it's graphics horsepower. I'm obviously not alone in this disappointment.
Now, I hope that the UI is released as a new "Front Row" and I'll probably do what others in this situation have done: buy the overkill of a Mac Mini and then dedicate a whole computer to the one little function of being a 1080p-capable
TV. That would cost way more than a WD box, a premium BD box, Roku, Boxee, PS3, X-box, etc solution, but that is the ONE way to meet my wants for HD playback beyond the most minimal incarnation, within something that can fully utilize the iTunes configuration.
Most simply, the
TV appears to bring forward the terrific UI from the TVs we already own, running on a better processor (which is great vs. the sometimes sluggish one in the 2006 version), as well as Netflix and a few other (IMO) lesser features. It is fully iTunes-friendly, so it can capitalize on our investments in iTunes, such as getting our libraries organized as we want them, and manage DRMd content we've bought from Apple. Unfortunately, it is still gimped with 720p max video playback which is too bad for those of us that hoped that the rest of the HD standards would finally be incorporated.The Mac Mini solution would give us hardware overkill for this purpose, as we would get something easily capable of 1080p but also all the other stuff that makes it a whole computer, that would largely go unused as a dedicated
TV-like device. As such, it will also cost a lot more than $99 (or the $229 I paid for the old version of TV). Unfortunately, the TV interface is not a stand alone offering from Apple, and the "front row" software is the TV interface from about 4 versions ago- far inferior to the one associated with the new- or old- TV. Yes, there are options like Plex and XBMC, but Apple does the UI's best when "family friendly" factors come into play, and we still desire full iTunes compatibility with whatever solution is chosen. Bottom line: if all our media is in iTunes and we like it like that... and especially if we buy any DRMd media from iTunes... we have to have an Apple-created solution for the link to the HDTV. Unfortunately, this new
TV- while no doubt better in some ways the the 2006 version, still appears to fall short in this one important (to some prospective buyers) way... for no apparent reason other than a choice to limit it to the lowest HD standard.Other companies prove without a doubt that 1080p hardware could have been in this box for around this price. For me, I'd be happy if they released a pro version for several times the $99 price even if the one difference was 1080p. I'm not overly hung up on the price or "smaller" (case), but it should have covered all of the HD standards as a 2010 new release.
You've done the name calling as if to pretend that anyone still reading this thread will believe the stuff I've written is false- that (apparently) one can't find 1080p playback hardware for $99 or less (they most certainly can). If you're posts convince anyone to believe you by not believing me, that's fine. However, it's certainly easy for anyone to do a quick search to verify for themselves. Such a search should prove that Apple could have easily put 1080p playback hardware in this thing- probably for the same retail price.
But they apparently did not do that, leaving those for which that particular feature was the ONE thing we really wanted to see in a new version looking for an alternative option. In my case, I hope for any one of 5 possible scenarios:
- testing on the new TV reveals that it can play 1080p video and Apple just chose not to announce it (yet)
- the TV UI is released as a stand alone update to Front Row so that the Mac Mini can be a "pro" version
- A pro (1080p) version is announced soon
- somebody else (google?) releases 1080p-capable hardware in an TV-like settop box that throughly reads the iTunes XML file to maximize the iTunes benefits (our playlists, etc) within an TV-like interface
- Someone else codes a stand-alone UI- an alternative to Front Row- by basically striving to clone the many nice "family friendly" features within the TV UI, and releases that as software for the Mac Mini or other 1080p hardware.
Obviously, the latter 2 cannot possibly address iTunes DRMd content, so I hope for any of the first 3. My gut guess is that the Mac Mini path looks like the best shot of all in this list.
Now, I hope that the UI is released as a new "Front Row" and I'll probably do what others in this situation have done: buy the overkill of a Mac Mini and then dedicate a whole computer to the one little function of being a 1080p-capable
Trust me - download the new Plex 9 and give it a test drive on your Mac. It's free, takes minutes to download and install, you have nothing to lose. Of course, it will take longer if you decide to set it up properly and have it index/catalog/metatag your library for you - but it does it automatically, so just leave it alone for a while and come back when it's finished.
I was disappointed with the new Apple TV - which is fine as a rental-only box, but Apple seems to have consciously decided to marginalize the user base that relies on local media content (a strange decision, as supporting both seamlessly would have been a no-brainer, even without syncing or local device storage)...that caused me to look closer at Plex, and after a few days I'm blown away.
Plex is really the media center Apple should have made.
In a perfect world, someone will sort out quickly how to hack the new Apple TV to run Plex, in which case I'll buy the hardware and happily upgrade the user experience
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Colinmack, thanks for the feedback. I've generally heard "not user friendly" and that's important in my household. But I know they just released a new version, so I appreciate the endorsement of it. I'll check it out.
Maybe that on a Mac Mini becomes THE answer I was seeking with this new
TV.Colinmack, thanks for the feedback. I've generally heard "not user friendly" and that's important in my household. But I know they just released a new version, so I appreciate the endorsement of it. I'll check it out.
Maybe that on a Mac Mini becomes THE answer I was seeking with this new
Dude, one word: patience. Stop wasting your money and give this battle between Apple, the Studios and the Cable companies a year or two. If you want user friendly, spend the $99 on Apple TV and live with limitations until the dust settles.
I quickly ready through your posts about your home movies, which is why I have a bunch of Mini DV tapes sitting in a box waiting for the format war to end.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Appreciate that. For me the HD recorded on MINI DV tape dates back at least 4 years ago, when I bought the first
TV. I've been waiting through those 4 years for it to sort out. It's just as easy to imagine 4 more years as it is to imagine just another year or two.Is your feedback along the lines that (the brand new) Plex + Mac Mini is NOT the way to go? If so, why? (knowing that I've got
TVs right now that can play 720p).Appreciate that. For me the HD recorded on MINI DV tape dates back at least 4 years ago, when I bought the first
Is your feedback along the lines that (the brand new) Plex + Mac Mini is NOT the way to go? If so, why? (knowing that I've got
I'm sure Plex is great and the Mac Mini is cool, but I promise you the technology is going to move past that like it's standing still once Hollywood sorts this out. This is all about controlling the revenue stream and protecting the intellectual property rights. As I've said elsewhere, Hollywood doesn't want Apple to do to TV and movies what it did to music. I think Apple is pricing Apple TV very close to cost to get as many users as it can so it can bring in the rest of the content providers. It can't win this battle any other way. It may lose, but if it doesn't I promise you that there will be an Apple TV unit in the next couple of years that will satisfy you.