Orders for New Apple TV Arriving in Customers' Hands [Updated]

[gugy]

I never said that very few people own 1080p sets. I said very few people own large HIGH QUALITY 1080p sets.

I will not get into a spitting match about which models are which. However, I will say that that over 90 % of the 1080p sets sold are low or medium quality models. There are very few videophile sets sold as they are still very expensive.

Please note that I am NOT saying that 90% of the 1080p models are junk. In fact my Sony KDL-46Z4100/B | 46" BRAVIA® Z Series LCD Flat Panel HDTV is only a medium grade set. It is very good but it is not videophile quality.

Still none of my family nor friends own a better quality model.

Again, given my marketing background, most people tend to over estimate the quality of the products that they own.

I think all comes down to the fact better sets and larger ones are getting cheaper as time moves on. The amount of people getting quality sets will only continue to grow as tech gets better.
Also, streaming quality, speeds will improve as better compression too. Maybe Apple can still get away with 720p for now but they will not be able to ignore it for too long.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

A 1080p movie uncompressed would probably be in the Terabyte range.

Using the compression level in Blu-Ray (~25 megabits per second), you can get a full movie in around 20 gigabytes (no, I didn't do the math, its just an estimate).

It is possible to download 1080p movies. There's no question about that. But streaming them (downloading them at least as fast as it plays) is tough. In order to stream a 25 megabit video file, you need more than 25 megabits of bandwidth (accounting overhead). Since the average person's internet is probably (again, just a guess) hovering around 6 megabits, you have to ask yourself a simple question:

at 5 megabits per second, what looks better: 1080P or 720p?

The answer is, of course, 720p, which is why Apple uses it. It's a good tradeoff that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of angry tech support calls when Joe Blow in Oklahoma can't stream a movie over his shaky DSL line.

Streaming 1080p is only worth it if you've got the bandwidth to support it, and only people willing to pay an absolute premium on internet connectivity have that.

Of course, just like Apple offers SD video and 720p video of shows & movies, they could also include a 1080p version (when the Studios would become interested in allowing them to do so). Then, there's something to download that fits everyone's bandwidth speeds, instead of just choosing something for us. About 1/3rd of the U.S. is still on dialup. I'm so glad that Apple didn't decide that 320x200 was the way to go so that those roughly 100 million people could enjoy a fairly smooth video stream. 720p would be way too big and way too difficult to stream for those 100 million people.

Besides, the U.S. is not the only market for this little box. There's many countries out there that totally smoke our average broadband speeds.

 

[Cappy]

Wayyy too many people get caught up in the 720p/1080p arguments without taking everything into consideration. These two articles do a good job of going over it.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/why-hd-movie-downloads-are-a-big-lie/511
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/dont-believe-the-low-bit-rate-hd-lie/959

I would recommend though not getting too caught up in the whole "lie" aspect of the articles...just read and understand what the factors involved are. The reason I state that about the "lie" aspect is that it's a bit like complaining about itunes using 256k for much of their music and wanting uncompressed. Most people can't tell the difference so 256K and even 128K is "good enough".

The same argument could be applied to the digital/analog arguments for tv.
Without getting into too many details of strengths over one another analog broadcasts over cable can actually look better than digital but so much bandwidth gets eaten up, that it's just not worth it.

Digital and compression is here to stay and it's about being "good enough" for the basic consumer. If you want the best picture, yes, you probably want to go Blu-Ray for now but make sure you have the equipment to truly show it off and eyes to appreciate it but be prepared to possibly be owning the next Laserdisc form of media.

 

[philipk]

The only reason to purchase this device is if you've completely locked yourself into the Apple ecosystem.

For the rest of us sane folks, get an equally-priced WD TV or the tons of other media players that let you play any format you want without forcing you to do live conversions or streaming. You won't even be limited to 720p either so you can, you know, choose to use 1080p videos.

If you are so anti-Apple, why bother to READ the MacRumors site and POST comments?

That would be a complete waste of your time. It also serves only one purpose - to cause trouble.

If this were a general forum on HDTV then you have the freedom to post your opinion. However, on the MacRumors:Forums you are doing nothing but a trouble maker.

I don't plan on going to a WD TV forum and state why you don't need 1080p.

 

[locust76]

I also have a BS in marketing, and I run my own marketing consulting company and have a long, very successful career in marketing. You seem to forget the basics like "know they customer" and "the customer is always right". When I was in school, and in all the continuing education and experience since, I've never come across something that says "whatever Apple says or delivers is THE right thing for all potential buyers".

I could have saved 4-years of college if someone would have just said, "all you need to know about marketing is this: whatever Apple says goes." Too bad you weren't around to set me straight then.

It's not about "whatever Apple says goes," it's about Apple's user experience. The typical Apple user is an Apple user because they don't want to see the word "Buffering" across their screen, nor do they want to wait for their instant-on-demand movies.

Apple knows their core. Just because people like us bemoan the lack of ultra-high-end features doesn't make us their core.

The typical Apple user (and I'm talking about 90% of them) have absolutely no idea why HD is HD, nor do they know the individual frame dimensions of each type of HD, nor do they give a flying ***** about interlaced or progressive frames, 1-pass or 2-pass encoding, constant or variable bitrates.

They have a bottom-of-the-line internet connection and a *****ty WLAN router tucked away in some corner, yet:

They want movies. In HD. On Demand.

Apple delivers:

Movies. In HD. On Demand.

Apple knows that their customers want the Apple experience. If 1080p 25 megabit progressive encoded Blu-Ray quality H.264 video and lossless surround sound was possible on the lowest common denominator internet conneciton, Apple would surely do it.

 

[benoitgphoto]

Here we go again...

A 1080p movie uncompressed would probably be in the Terabyte range.

Using the compression level in Blu-Ray (~25 megabits per second), you can get a full movie in around 20 gigabytes (no, I didn't do the math, its just an estimate).

It is possible to download 1080p movies. There's no question about that. But streaming them (downloading them at least as fast as it plays) is tough. In order to stream a 25 megabit video file, you need more than 25 megabits of bandwidth (accounting overhead). Since the average person's internet is probably (again, just a guess) hovering around 6 megabits, you have to ask yourself a simple question:

at 5 megabits per second, what looks better: 1080P or 720p?

The answer is, of course, 720p, which is why Apple uses it. It's a good tradeoff that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of angry tech support calls when Joe Blow in Oklahoma can't stream a movie over his shaky DSL line.

Streaming 1080p is only worth it if you've got the bandwidth to support it, and only people willing to pay an absolute premium on internet connectivity have that.

Why every single thread about Apple TV swing to an endless debate on 720p vs 1080p.....

Locust76 has here one of the best explanation on why Apple went to 720p instead of 1080p...it's common sense. I would add the following...Apple TV is not targeted to US only where unlimited bandwidth cap are common...other countries like Canada and others, standard common Internet plans have 30 GB to 60 GB cap...so a Blu-Ray quality 1080P at about 20GB will consume one to 2 third of the common bandwidth...then it's easy to understand the 720p compromise. It's not even a "You can't tell the difference between both on a normal distance blah blah blah" thing...it's a choice that can make the Apple TV to be used by more people and then make Apple take the market and make $$$. If Apple would have gone to 1080p only , I can guarantee you that they would not even sold as near as much what they actually sold the new Apple TV and we are not even counting the content from iTunes store.

 

[mambodancer]

No, it only streams iTunes content from your computer.

You should be able to stream web video from your iPad/iPod touch/iPhone when iOS4.2 is released.

It Streams video from YouTube and Netflix if you have a netflix account. It will stream audio and video from any connected iTunes library.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's not about "whatever Apple says goes," it's about Apple's user experience. The typical Apple user is an Apple user because they don't want to see the word "Buffering" across their screen, nor do they want to wait for their instant-on-demand movies.

Apple knows their core. Just because people like us bemoan the lack of ultra-high-end features doesn't make us their core.

The typical Apple user (and I'm talking about 90% of them) have absolutely no idea why HD is HD, nor do they know the individual frame dimensions of each type of HD, nor do they give a flying ***** about interlaced or progressive frames, 1-pass or 2-pass encoding, constant or variable bitrates.

They have a bottom-of-the-line internet connection and a *****ty WLAN router tucked away in some corner, yet:

They want movies. In HD. On Demand.

Apple delivers:

Movies. In HD. On Demand.

Apple knows that their customers want the Apple experience. If 1080p 25 megabit progressive encoded Blu-Ray quality H.264 video and lossless surround sound was possible on the lowest common denominator internet conneciton, Apple would surely do it.

The lowest common denominator is dialup. Per that argument, Apple shouldn't even offer SD content for download.

And I appreciate that Apple is apparently all knowing to you, but I would paint Apple customers as customers who pay up for quality- perceived or real. The hardware in our Macs vs. the same hardware in PCs often seem to involve us paying up for the Apple difference. I find no fault in that- just paid up big time for an i7 Quad iMac with SSD myself.

However, here you are turning it around, assuming that these same people who pay up for Apple quality electronics wouldn't pay up for better quality HDTVs, etc. Very soon, I'm replacing my old 1080HDTV with a new one, that costs a lot more than average. I am an Apple customer. I like great quality- especially in technology.

 

[blizaine]

Don't forget the yearly gold subscription you will have to buy...and that cost is going up...not down at the end of the year...PS3 is a better option at this point..

PS3 is the better option for what? They both have strengths. I have both. With media viewing my time is spent 50/50 between the consoles. With gaming my time is spent 75/25 with the XBox on top. PSN just can't compete at this point. XBox is so far ahead, I don't mind paying a yearly fee.

See my sig for my xbox gamer tag and psn ID and add me

 

[Mistrblank]

Another thing I would like to ask anyone who knows is about converting movies.

I currently use Handbrake, but this has not been updated for ages.

Anyone have any alternative offerings I could look at? I may cover this in a future video.

Uh, it hasn't been updated because it doesn't require an update. I assure you the version available is quite fine.

 

[Mistrblank]

I'm pretty annoyed with this. I preordered this thing right away. I got my email that the item shipped yesterday and that it had a delivery date of October 1st. Well I just looked this morning and that date has now slipped to October 5th! It's sitting in Hong Kong right now. October 1st woulda been fine but I leave town on the 3rd

Same, ordered first day of preorder availability and not scheduled to deliver until the 5th. I'm kind of pissed about this too. Terrible product launch, especially given how awesome the iPad launch was.

 

[philipk]

However, here you are turning it around, assuming that these same people who pay up for Apple quality electronics wouldn't pay up for better quality HDTVs, etc. Very soon, I'm replacing my old 1080HDTV with a new one, that costs a lot more than average. I am an Apple customer. I like great quality- especially in technology.

You do not want nor need ATV. You are not Apple's target market. End of discussion.

Currently, the only product to meets your needs is Blu-Ray. No one else has a product that meets your standards.

NONE of the other 1080p delivery options give you what you want. Read the following links.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/why-hd-movie-downloads-are-a-big-lie/511
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/dont-believe-the-low-bit-rate-hd-lie/959

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You do not want nor need ATV. You are not Apple's target market. End of discussion.

Currently, the only product to meets your needs is Blu-Ray. No one else has a product that meets your standards.

NONE of the other 1080p delivery options give you what you want. Read the following links.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/why-hd-movie-downloads-are-a-big-lie/511
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/dont-believe-the-low-bit-rate-hd-lie/959

That's great Phillip. So here's something else from zdnet: http://m.zdnet.com/blog/carroll/why-i-now-hate-apple/1925
Are they the authority "end of discussion" on that too?

Again I wish my first marketing professor would have took me aside and said, "whatever Apple says, or whatever zdnet says when they support something Apple says, goes." Maybe I was absent that day?

But I bet when zdnet says something against Apple, they won't be your goto authority on those points.

 

[philipk]

That's great Phillip. So here's something else from zdnet: http://m.zdnet.com/blog/carroll/why-i-now-hate-apple/1925
Are they the authority "end of discussion" on that too?

Again I wish my first marketing professor would have took me aside and said, "whatever Apple says, or whatever zdnet says when they support something Apple says, goes." Maybe I was absent that day?

But I bet when zdnet says something against Apple, they won't be your goto authority on those points.

Don't take me out of context. I said "end of discussion" to the statement that ATV was not for you.

As I wrote to another poster, if you are an apple hater, why waste your time at MacRumor:Forums?

 

[benoitgphoto]

The lowest common denominator is dialup. Per that argument, Apple shouldn't even offer SD content for download.

And I appreciate that Apple is apparently all knowing to you, but I would paint Apple customers as customers who pay up for quality- perceived or real. The hardware in our Macs vs. the same hardware in PCs often seem to involve us paying up for the Apple difference. I find no fault in that- just paid up big time for an i7 Quad iMac with SSD myself.

However, here you are turning it around, assuming that these same people who pay up for Apple quality electronics wouldn't pay up for better quality HDTVs, etc. Very soon, I'm replacing my old 1080HDTV with a new one, that costs a lot more than average. I am an Apple customer. I like great quality- especially in technology.

Hmmm I don't agree...You are assuming that Apple TV is targeted to Mac users when actually it's not. It is targeted to HDTV users who also are either Mac or PC users with some might actually own an IOS device (iPhone, iPad or iPod touch). And IMO, common denominator is not dial-up, it's the internet connection and bandwidth used by the majority of users so potential Apple TV/iTunes store customers. Considering that, 1080p is not actually an option for Apple if they don't want the Apple TV to remain a hobby...

 

[locust76]

The lowest common denominator is dialup. Per that argument, Apple shouldn't even offer SD content for download.

And I appreciate that Apple is apparently all knowing to you, but I would paint Apple customers as customers who pay up for quality- perceived or real. The hardware in our Macs vs. the same hardware in PCs often seem to involve us paying up for the Apple difference. I find no fault in that- just paid up big time for an i7 Quad iMac with SSD myself.

However, here you are turning it around, assuming that these same people who pay up for Apple quality electronics wouldn't pay up for better quality HDTVs, etc. Very soon, I'm replacing my old 1080HDTV with a new one, that costs a lot more than average. I am an Apple customer. I like great quality- especially in technology.

Actually if you want to get snarky about it, the lowest common denominator is a scratch pad and a pen or a cave wall and some dye. But since we're being realistic here, and the people who WOULD buy Apple ALSO most likely have broadband (yet don't know a megabit from a hole in the ground), you have to assume that:

A) IF someone wants movies on demand they will have broadband and
B) IF they have broadband, they will have *****ty broadband and
C) IF they're buying Apple products, they want them to "just work" without any hassles.

Not all Apple users have the biggest baddest Macs, nor do they even necessarily have Macs at all. The $99 price point of the Apple TV should already tell you that it's not a Cadillac product, but more of an iPod Nano. i.e., "iTunes for Everbody."

Since this is a "for Everybody" product, you have to make "for Everybody" compromises, which means good-quality 720p at a modest bitrate versus good-quality 1080p at high bitrates or crap-quality 1080p at modest bitrates.

I seriously don't see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Some of you people think that because you have XYZ that everybody has XYZ.

I work as a system administrator at a local ISP here in Germany. Typical broadband speed is a little higher here than it is in the US, according to this chart.

Our base product? DSL 6000.
Our highest end product? VDSL 50000.
Our most popular product? DSL 6000.
Number of VDSL 50000 subscribers? can be counted on one hand.
I'm sure it's no different in the US.

And we service middle-class suburban communities. These people can afford more, yet they choose not to because 6 megabits is "good enough."

720p at 5 megabits is superior in quality to 1080p at 5 megabits. End of story.

 

[stomachdoc]

Just picked one up at Natick, MA store. Box is smaller than Airport Express

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Don't take me out of context. I said "end of discussion" to the statement that ATV was not for you.

As I wrote to another poster, if you are an apple hater, why waste your time at MacRumor:Forums?

Because I'm not an Apple hater, I own almost everything that Apple puts out. I also own a couple of the former editions of the TV. I'm wanting to replace them with a new one if it happens to have this feature, which is why I asked someone with one to test in the first place.

You obviously believe it doesn't have that feature. And though it would hurt you in no way whatsoever, you continue to sling stuff like somehow it matters to you. I can't possibly prefer 1080p. There's no point in 1080p. Because XX% can't see the difference, it makes no sense to be interested in that difference. And so on.

What do you care? I bet I have more Apple stuff than you. One might say that makes me a bigger Apple lover than you. Your reaction to just a question I ask about a new Apple product is as if I've punched your kid in the mouth or something.

Now I'm an Apple hater for maybe not liking this particular thing exactly as Apple serves it up, if it can't do something I'm hoping it can.

 

[dwd3885]

By the way ESPN3 is only good if your provider in your area supports its. JYI

i know. i have mediacom and they support it. i would go ps3, but no espn3 there yet.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Hmmm I don't agree...You are assuming that Apple TV is targeted to Mac users when actually it's not. It is targeted to HDTV users who also are either Mac or PC users with some might actually own an IOS device (iPhone, iPad or iPod touch). And IMO, common denominator is not dial-up, it's the internet connection and bandwidth used by the majority of users so potential Apple TV/iTunes store customers. Considering that, 1080p is not actually an option for Apple if they don't want the Apple TV to remain a hobby...

Sure it is. You are making an assumption that had they rolled it out with 1080p, all rental content would have to become 1080p. 720p and SD content in the iTunes store now would play just as well on 1080p hardware, much like older games written for weaker graphics card play just as fully on new graphics cards. Apple gave us iPods years ago that could play lossless quality audio, but it didn't force all iTunes content to go lossless.

Personally, I could care less if there was EVER any 1080p/i rentals/downloads from iTunes. My use for current TVs I own involves creating my own content. I have 1080 camcorders. Apple gives me tools to process & render that footage at full resolution. It will go into iTunes and play there, just like 720p or SD video. Up to now, it just couldn't pump from there to my 1080HDTV.

So, here's a new TV. I'm asking a question about a hopefully undocumented capability, and an army of people seem to take that as me wanting everyone to go 1080p in everything. Not at all. Just like building tethering into an iPhone before it could be used, or quad core chips in iMacs before much of anything could use that, I'm just asking someone who actually receives one if it can do something important to me. If so, I'll buy 2 of them. If not, I'll wait or consider something else.

People happy with 720p or less, more power to you! It's great that it certainly can do what you want it to do. I'm genuinely happy for you. Am I allowed to see if it can make me happy too?

 

[thewardssd]

AppleTv in stores...

I just picked mine up at the Apple store in San Diego. I got the last one for the day. Their shipment only had 10 so they didn't recieve too many....

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I seriously don't see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Some of you people think that because you have XYZ that everybody has XYZ.

Are you kidding me? I guess in response I'll say, "Some of you people think that if it is good enough for you, it is good enough for everybody, because whatever you have XYZ, everybody has the same XYZ.

720p at 5 megabits is superior in quality to 1080p at 5 megabits. End of story.

That's correct. And SD at 5Mbps is better than 720p. And 320 x 200 at 5Mbps is better than SD. If you keep the bitrate the same, sure a higher resolution is going to yield poorer quality. Duh.

The point is though that those interested in 720p vs. SD or those interested in 1080p vs. 720p wouldn't be forced to download only one of these files. Each could choose whatever works best for them, just like we can choose 720p vs. SD quality now on our TVs. A 1080p TV will play 720p or SD downloads to their fullest possible quality, but it doesn't work the other way.

I take it from the onslaught that most people have great confidence that it can't do any more than the specs show, even though the old one could do a bit more than the specs (used to) show. I don't understand how something I would like to know for my own personal needs causes such pain to those who shoot down my wants with every bullet they can muster, but so be it.

If someone has a new TV, I'd appreciate it if you could test some 1080p render and see if it can play it back. If it can, I'm buying 2. If not, I'll wait, go Mac Mini, or seek something else. I don't really care that a bunch of others don't like what I like, nor believe that I'm foolish for desiring higher resolution video playback on a device to marry to a high resolution display. Thanks to anyone who can do a quick test and give me a definitive answer.

 

[sirozha]

i still don't understand what the point of this device is?

It's not for you.

 

[locust76]

So, here's a new TV. I'm asking a question about a hopefully undocumented capability, and an army of people seem to take that as me wanting everyone to go 1080p in everything. Not at all. Just like building tethering into an iPhone before it could be used, or quad core chips in iMacs before much of anything could use that, I'm just asking someone who actually receives one if it can do something important to me. If so, I'll buy 2 of them. If not, I'll wait or consider something else.

Actually, processing 1080p video is not that big of a task these days, especially when you have a GPU at the ready (even if it is made by PowerVR).

In short: it is my opinion that the 720p limitation is artificial and that the hardware is capable of more.

Whether or not Apple will unlock that ability remains to be seen. I'd like to see 1080p. My TV supports it, I have the bandwidth to stream it, yet I understand the decision for 720p.

 

[jimmc]

ANY DIFFERENCE IN HARDWARE - US vs AUSTRALIA?

We're Americans currently living in Australia for business reasons. We use our existing Apple TV to stream movies, we have US-based iTunes accounts.

We note there are "restrictions" with a new AppleTV purchased from the Australian site (Netflix). If we buy an "Australian" AppleTV, will it work with our US-based accounts? I think Netflix may be blocked (although it works on an iPad using a US-based proxy server).

Any visibility on this issue would be appreciated.