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

lazyrighteye

Contributor
Jan 16, 2002
4,091
6,304
Denver, CO
Too Early To Tell?

I think Apple is either making assumptions concerning these two products based on its past successes with the ipod (I'd call this attitude "hubris"...) or it's basing its rush to market these two products (tv and phone) on information that we don't have -- that, or a combination of both these things.

OS X 10.5 , 10.5.1, .mac, or ichat might have added functionality that would make either or both of these products more attractive to most people, but in their current stand-alone iterations I can't see most people rushing out to buy either of them unless they are some kind of an early adopter AND apple fanatic. I'd be very surprised if itunes movies/tv show sales take off in the near term but can see that its not in apples best interests to bundle dvr functionality in the apple tv due to the current reliance on itunes for revenue -- they'll make more overall hardware sales if an apple-tv-based dvr app is integrated in the OS and especially if an updated and price-tiered .mac service is part of the equation. Integrating visual voicemail into ichat and/or .mac would also boost sales. But personally, I have no desire for a combined ipod/phone (I rarely use my ipod) and I intend to buy a MythTV box and add 1TB of hdd space rather than use an Apple.

I too wonder if we just aren't in-the-know enough to understand the full picture. I'm guessing (or is it hoping?) we are not.

As stated above, today, I am not seeing a good reason to go out and buy a new HD set so I can watch what little the iTunes Store has to offer. Nor am I interested in breaking any contracts with current carriers just so I can get an iPhone.

While I agree that DVDs are done, there is a huge gap between what the iTunes Store offers and what I want to watch/own/lend/etc. Again, maybe there are aspects of Leopard, dot Mac, iTunes, etc. that will change my mind.

And if Apple is serious about that 10M stat, at&t better offer not only to cover my broken contract fee but also some tasty packages if they even THINK they have a chance at hitting 10M. Again, we know nothing about what at&t will offer - contracts, fees, etc. That too could change my mind, once public.

The short of it: we're ALL going to have to wait and see how this plays out. Something tells me these 2 products aren't as completely "neat but how?" as we all seem to think.

But what do I know?
 

Maccus Aurelius

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2006
542
0
Brooklyn, NY
If the ATV was able to actually play VIDEO_TS files, that would be sweet. Rip and play DVD's! :eek:

Of course....it would need a much much larger HD, and perhaps even a FW port for an external HD since regular DVD movies can be up to 8GB in size.
 

Krevnik

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2003
4,100
1,308
Looks like apple tv may work for you then. But what about people who actually watch tv. Sports, news, weather, reruns. For somebody that watches 2 shows and nothing else cable does seem to be a waste for you. From what I've been reading your in the minority though and that doesnt bode well for this product.

I may be in the minority, but I hardly watch just two shows. :)

The thing that tipped it for me was that I decided to do the actual math, of what I was getting, and how I used it... and how much I could get if I switched over to the a la carte model. It worked out to about 24 seasons of TV a year a la carte... or a year of cable.

So, I follow maybe about 10 shows 'loyally' at any one time, for about 20 a year. Remove the half (likely more, but I am being general) that are on the broadcast... and huh... I can cut my TV bill *in half* just by using rough numbers. I would call that a success. While there will be plenty of people who don't pull out the numbers I do, the savings for some could be quite substantial. While I will miss services like On Demand, they never worked well enough in my area to be worth the price I am paying. Regularly, I would wind up having to wait to see something, because On Demand wasn't working, and two whole areas stopped working about 3 months after I got cable, and haven't worked right since (for over a year)... and was one of the key things that I wanted On Demand for.

Now, if you are a sports nut that need live broadcasts of the game, you have my condolences. Until IPTV hits, there is no way to escape the cable cartel on that one. :/
 

ChrisCarr

macrumors newbie
Mar 1, 2007
5
0
Columbus, Ohio
:apple:Tv is to specialized, but is there a better solution?

I think they missed the boat by not launching it with rentals and with a tuner so i can record and watch tv shows on my mac or my tv.

I would definitely buy :apple:Tv if it had DVR functionality. The thing that really gets me going is that Apple really doesn't have a great DVR solution. Elgato's EyeTV isn't as nice as Vista's media center and since I won't go near a MS PC I only have the one choice. Apple knows how to make an interface that works... why not finally clean up the DVR world? I am trying to figure out how to build a MacMini to be the all-in-one box for my TV... that isn't looking to pretty either.

I truly think Apples missing the ball on the TV experience. They are not making it easy...
 

Lucy Brown

macrumors member
Feb 26, 2007
50
0
I cant imagine that we will never see these options implemented in :apple: tv. They only make sense. I would buy one if it had the capabilities that we have been discussing here. I might even pay more than $300. I think the feedback on this item is overwhelmingly negative. If the sales reflect that then the ball will be in Apples court. Time will tell.
 

Aequitas17

macrumors newbie
Mar 1, 2007
1
0
San Diego
Another Apple Marketing Blunder

I love Apple and I love even more that Apple is getting out there and really starting to turn the market. However, the new ad and marketing campaign that Apple has taken up is poor at best IMO. Part of what makes Apple so great is that they have always been better without necessarily having to get in your face about it. It was sort of a graceful and quiet superiority. Now, the best way for Apple to get the word out and open to the general public is to insult the opposition to the point of petty criticisms and to make people feel like they are stupid for even considering another option.

Other phones being worth $0?? Wrong Tim. These companies have been in this game a LOT longer than Apple has and although the iPhone is a great product and revolutionary in some regards, it does not negate the utility or value of other products. The reason those phones come so cheap is because the carriers eat the cost in order to get customers to sign on. Apple wasn't willing to undertake that strategy. Fine. But don't go insulting every other phone manufacturer out there just because you're taking a different avenue.

Again, I miss the old, more humble but still better Apple...
 

tribulation

macrumors regular
Sep 3, 2006
185
0
jackson hole, wy
I might even pay more than $300. I think the feedback on this item is overwhelmingly negative. If the sales reflect that then the ball will be in Apples court. Time will tell.

At least make maybe a basic and full model - even if it's on the expensive side. Look at the Tivo series 3 boxes, they go for about $800 right now. Even if Apple charged the same, they would in no way loose money on the development, and people would hoard it.

I totally know what you mean on the Mac vs Win DVR options. Elgato is neat but it's just not there. Apple could do so much with it, plus make it into a set top box format = all the streaming :apple: TV parts as it has now, plus a complete DVR experience-Apple-fied, and a web browser would be great. The technology is there, it was there years ago. They totally missed the boat on this one I think. As so many have said, sales will tell it all......

I also still think that the elgato solution type of thing [like the many windows media center boxes] with a cable jack built in, or cablecard compatible are nice, and would be ideal. But, in the interim, a simple RCA or composite video in/out [to/from your normal cable box], and a method for :apple: TV to control your cable box [mainly just change the channel] via IR wand or using the direct cable connection - which actually does work excellently on my Tivo would be so darn nice. Something so simple would open the box up to so much more potential. With that, I'd pay $600-700 [like a series 3 tivo is now] without hesitation.

And on Friday nights when I wanted a new movie, they would most likely get my business from buying a new movie through iTunes. But without that essential dvr feature, it will never make it into my home theater setup, and they'll never have the chance to get my money. A total shame.

Maybe :apple: TV 2 will have it, maybe they'll learn their lesson with this release [or maybe I will, who knows, but I doubt it on this issue]. But version 2 is at least a year away, which is way too long. sucks.
 

Maccus Aurelius

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2006
542
0
Brooklyn, NY
I agree about the marketing. Apple needs to reconsider the way they market their computers. The ads can be amusing, especially the Vista one, but in the end they only end up being a somewhat immature approach to creating better brand awareness. All of the commercials focus more on emphasizing faults rather than boasting on merits, which is what they should be doing. The iPod ads are far better because they focuz only on that product, and give only that positive image to associate with the product while leaving competition out of its advertising. This is just like those stupid AMD v Intel competitions that AMD has on their website.
 

Llewellyn

macrumors newbie
Apr 16, 2004
12
0
Why no DVR

I think Apple is gearing this product towards a market that is not as tech savy as most of the people on these forums. These consumers want something really simple & elegant which just plain works. Like the iPod & iTunes. Its a product designed to bring people who don't currently download any kind of movies or tv into the download market.

If Apple was going to do a DVR then the product would need to be far more complicated. They would have to support a wide variety of communication and equipment standards from around the world (ie PAL) or limit the markets they enter.

How would they interact with existing premium services from cable and satelite providers? I had a lot of trouble making my EyeTV work with my Shaw Cable box because the DVR didn't have the ability to control the cable box which was needed to unscrambled my channels.

Sure there are solutions to these problems, but why bother when there is an enormus market of people who don't need to have a dvr at all?

As the market develops I think apple will expand to meet the needs of consumers. AppleTV is just a start.
 

pubwvj

macrumors 68000
Oct 1, 2004
1,901
208
Mountains of Vermont
I would pay $499, IF it allows me to run my normal Macintosh applications. I want a palm sized Macintosh for on the go to replace my Handspring Visor Deluxe (PalmOS). It must have open development and applications just as I have on the Mac.

I would pay $699 IF it ALSO had 80GB of storage. Then I could do like I do with my iPod and use it for nightly backup of my desktop system (PowerBookG4).

The phone contract is not actually all that interesting.

Cheers

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/
http://NoNAIS.org
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,330
1
Bay Area, CA
There is a HUGE difference in quality if I plug my DVD player in with 3 cords or 5. component inputs have been around for a LONG time, and have been on a good ol' regular TV.
They've been around about 10 years and didn't make the transition from high-end to maintstream until recently. The quality difference between composite and component at 480i is pronounced, but there is no advantage over S-Video, which many more sets have.
I
Hell my 8 year old DVD player had component outs and that was way before the HD craze
Y-Pb-Pr came into the mass market in late 1997. It was available exclusively on high-end sets. It was before the HD craze, certainly, but it's only been in recent years that it's been added to additional sets. WEGA screens and other CRTs with the input are not strictly SDTV. It was the de facto standard for HDTV connections through the early 2000s, and now it is used for ATSC input and for progressive scan-capable sets. Second-generation DVD players included the outputs for progressive scan and HDTV sets.

I was mistaken when I said that there were no consumer SDTVs with the connection; I haven't looked at the CRT television market since around 2002. Component input has taken over as the ATSC tuner input method of choice, for SDTV broadcasts in anticipation of the switch to full digital TV.
 

hampy

macrumors newbie
Oct 31, 2006
19
0
Vancouver, BC
Very interesting discussion, it's good to see the ATV (can't bring myself to pimp for Apple with the symbol) and the iPhone discussed side by side. Also good to see that the general feeling is one of disappointment/surprise/disgruntlement about Apple's decision to avoid DVR functionality. The COO's reply on that question was hilarious: "It doesn't have DVR because it's not that kind of product," is the gist of it. Um, that's the question, dude -- why isn't it that kind of product?

I think we have to face up to the fact that Apple is moving from being a company that makes great hardware/gadgets (Apple Computer) to a company that tries to control the content played on great gadgets and the means by which you link them to the outside world (the new 'Apple'). I find this shift to be very disheartening, and I hope that we can all make some noise about it because it definitely threatens the soul of the Apple we love.

Take the ATV: everyone has a computer, everyone should have a DVR. But millions of people have a computer and no DVR, and still rely on their VCR instead. So why not just create an elegant and totally user-friendly DVR that's linked to your Mac, then no-one needs to use a VCR any more? That's a huge market right off the bat -- but you only make money from selling the box. It's not a content revenue stream, it's a one-off hardware sale.

Instead, Apple wants to use iTunes to support a boutique/a la carte model of content provision. Since most people are reasonably happy with some kind of cable package -- or, in countries like the UK, you get a very good slate of channels simply through paying the (compulsory) TV license fee -- this new 'a la carte' model is all about Apple's revenue and nothing to do with customer convenience. If Apple cared about customer convenience, then they'd provide the DVR with the ATV and also sell the TV shows and movies through iTunes. The more functions, the better the device -- right? Wrong, because they're trying to push the a la carte model and they want to make a ton of money from it.

Ditto for the iPhone. If you're going to charge $600 for a phone, and it's going to do so many other cool things (esp. the audio and video iPod capabilities), why in God's name would you force people to sign up with Cingular for two years? Sell us the phone for what it costs, then let us decide whether to go with Cingular, or with a prepaid option, or whatever else. Cingular may be the best/only GSM option for the USA, but in the rest of the world there are options and prepaid is very popular. But, again, Apple is looking to limit your choices and to lock you into content/access provision that Apple either directly controls or profits from.

I hope we can send a strong message to Apple by boycotting the ATV -- and I'll certainly be boycotting the iPhone as long as it's locked to one of these rapacious carriers. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here -- in spite of Steve's pious comments about DRM, Apple is moving in a very unappealing direction. I'm all for a company that designs fabulous gadgets from the ground up, and provides all the hardware and software solutions I need. But I don't want Apple to tell me how I should get my TV shows, I don't want Pixar/Disney to make all my movies, and I don't want the company to lose sight of the individuals who actually consume their products. It's time to make a stand!
 

dcranston

macrumors member
Apr 1, 2004
52
0
Apple TV and missing the point

That might be true, but I don't see it as a sustainable revenue source. Why would *anyone* buy a TV show for $3 or whatever it costs [$.20 is too much if on a per-show basis]? Maybe the very, very seldom chance of missing an episode [which doesn't happen with a DVR anyways], and 1/1000 people would maybe buy that single episode. But that's about it. While Apple can make miracles, there's no way, absolutely no way that they will make money off of charging for TV shows, per show, when I can get them via cable [all TV shows, 1 price].

I think you're completely missing the point. When was the last time you looked at Season Passes on iTunes? They:

1. Cost less than $1.99 (often substantially less : Daily Show is ~ 50 cents)
2. Automatically download as they become available (no maintenance on your part)

This is what makes Apple TV work. DVR is a solution to a temporary problem: Cable & TV Networks give us shows on arbitrarily defined "networks" that have a linear time schedule they need to fill up. iTunes + Apple TV makes it all about the content. You could care less what network its on, what a "conflict" is, what advertisers try to push, you just buy content you think is worth your time to watch.

You can see the value proposition start to add up already if you only watch some TV daily... For example, I watch Monk, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Office, and Psych. With iTunes, I pay around $25 / month, depending on how many episodes are released. I also occasionally buy other shows, so my monthly total generally winds up at about $30. I dropped Cable immediately : why? Because cable *starts* at $55/month here, and that's for basic cable. I agree that if you come home and veg out for hours watching television, the Apple TV + iTunes solution doesn't make sense, but you've got to agree that when all the major companies really want you to have a subscription model, that's probably because they make more money off of the consumer (ie: you, the consumer, are getting screwed).

Just my 2 cents. I agree $299 is a bit much, but for $299 I'll have all my iTunes TV Shows, auto-downloaded, available to me, all the time on my television, for $25 / month less than I paid for basic cable. Guess what? In a year (plus however long it takes before this darn thing ships), I'll have saved $25 x 12 months = $300 off of Cable.

Turns out, my Apple TV is free.
 

dcranston

macrumors member
Apr 1, 2004
52
0
I hope we can send a strong message to Apple by boycotting the ATV

Yes. That will show the world. Long live cable companies, the true heros in fighting for consumer rights!

Glad your priorities are in order.
 

hampy

macrumors newbie
Oct 31, 2006
19
0
Vancouver, BC
Yes. That will show the world. Long live cable companies, the true heros in fighting for consumer rights!

Glad your priorities are in order.

Very sardonic. Not everyone lives in the US and depends on cable companies. I imagine a lot of people in the UK and Europe would be totally perplexed by the ATV.

And regardless, why not have the freedom to choose whether to buy shows directly through iTunes or simply to have a cable package and record your shows onto a DVR? It's Apple that is preventing us from doing both by designing a device with limited functionality. That's the issue here.
 

marktesssing

macrumors newbie
Feb 17, 2007
28
0
Basically, I don't get Apple TV either. Who is Apple targeting with this thing?

Personally, I'm in the enthusiast category. I have a home server with all of my DVDs in their original (PAL MPEG2) format and all of my CDs in FLAC lossless format. That server also carries a DVB-C cable tuner which is able to stream any feed (including HD) in its original MPEG2 or H.264 format over the network.

Never will I buy any device that can not provide 1920x1080p full HD to my LCD screen, will not let me view HD content from other sources and will not support open standards or read DVDs off network drives.

Apple has this weird idea that iTunes truly is the centre of people's media experience. Yeah right. It's a device for the clueless.

First of all, I agree with you..its a device for the clueless. But do you know how many clueless there are out there? a lot.
For your setup ATV is not for you. its for the people who already buys from iTS and watches on their computer screen. Thats why there is no tuner or dvr. soon get rid of cable, sat and tivo. watch only what you want when you want. tivo is, watch what you rec after a broadcast.

1080p.. It will have to be widely broadcasted before it will be available on iTS, or an option on ATV. another 2 year. But by the time ATV is released or soon after 720p will be avail from iTS.
 

dcranston

macrumors member
Apr 1, 2004
52
0
Very sardonic. Not everyone lives in the US and depends on cable companies. I imagine a lot of people in the UK and Europe would be totally perplexed by the ATV.

Fair enough, point taken. I just felt 'boycott' was a bit of an overuse.

And regardless, why not have the freedom to choose whether to buy shows directly through iTunes or simply to have a cable package and record your shows onto a DVR? It's Apple that is preventing us from doing both by designing a device with limited functionality. That's the issue here.

That's quite a fallacy. Apple is not "designing a device that prevents" anything. Show me why you can't use a TiVO in your home entertainment system? Is Apple blocking your ability to use a DVR? Couldn't you have.. *gasp*... both?

By your logic, I could argue that TiVO is designing a device with limited functionality since it forces me to get tv shows through broadcast tv or cable and won't let me buy season passes that auto-sync without ads, or auto-update as I receive new podcasts.

The real issue is that you want Apple to design everything, and the Apple TV doesn't fit your needs entirely. That's the issue here.
 

hampy

macrumors newbie
Oct 31, 2006
19
0
Vancouver, BC
That's quite a fallacy. Apple is not "designing a device that prevents" anything. Show me why you can't use a TiVO in your home entertainment system? Is Apple blocking your ability to use a DVR? Couldn't you have.. *gasp*... both?

By your logic, I could argue that TiVO is designing a device with limited functionality since it forces me to get tv shows through broadcast tv or cable and won't let me buy season passes that auto-sync without ads, or auto-update as I receive new podcasts.

The real issue is that you want Apple to design everything, and the Apple TV doesn't fit your needs entirely. That's the issue here.


Well, for me the question here is straightforward. Tivo can't do both, since it's not linked to iTunes. Apple can. But Apple chooses not to, because they've made a cold financial decision to focus on content delivery rather than producing one simple gadget that does it all. There's no technical obstacle or cost issue here preventing Apple from including DVR, hence the weird obtuseness of Tim Cook's statement about the ATV. For me, it simply reflects a new desire on Apple's part to limit functionality and accessibilty and to funnel the consumer toward Apple-controlled content delivery systems.

It would be like not including an optical drive in a laptop, on the understanding that Apple would rather have you pay for movie downloads on iTunes than play the DVDs you already own. (Hence the comments of some people here that the ATV should have included a DVD player.)

I'd love a box that combines a DVR with the ability to send my videos/recordings wirelessly around the house. And since I love Apple products, I'd like it to be made by Apple. I don't feel as if I'm some kind of speciality user, or I'm being picky here. I've used Elgato's Eye TV pretty happily in England (connected to a Mac Mini), but the ATV seemed like a more promising and user-friendly device that would bring the added bonus of video streaming. From the responses of many people on this thread, I'd judge that I'm not alone in feeling underwhelmed at what Apple is offering. Though perhaps I'm whistling in the wind with my broader fear about the kind of company Apple may become in the next few years.
 

joepunk

macrumors 68030
Aug 5, 2004
2,553
13
a profane existence
Harsh words eh

"A lot of people pay zero for the cell phone. Guess why? That's what it's worth,''

Harsh words, Mr. Cook, harsh words.

Please don't be blurting harsh words about our cheap (and long lasting) phones that make basic calls because that is all we need.
 

skellener

macrumors 68000
Jun 23, 2003
1,786
543
So. Cal.
1080p.. It will have to be widely broadcasted before it will be available on iTS, or an option on ATV. another 2 year.

As far as I know, there are no plans for any broadcast networks to use 1080p. It's either 720p or 1080i. The bandwidth is far to high to broadcast 1080p. It was originally to be used as a production format only. Things change.

To get 1080p content it will most likely be in the form of HD media (Bluray/HD-DVD) or internet downloads (Apple TV only uses a 720p spec).

See Apple's website - 1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html
 

mrthieme

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2006
209
0
The real issue is that you want Apple to design everything, and the Apple TV doesn't fit your needs entirely. That's the issue here.

Yes. I fall squarely into that description. I have owned a great deal of AV equipment, and never have I found one peice that has the ease of use, and attention to usability that Apple products have. IMHO the major problem with AV systems is having multiple remotes, components, and interfaces that make interacting with it harder than it has to be. I know Apple could help with that problem, it is just condensing and refining existing tech, nothing revolutionary. ATV solves a very narrow problem in my view, and probably does it very well, but I'm hoping for a fix that is more broad in scope in the future. Hopefully Apple does it for me before someone else does.
 

mattibek

macrumors member
Feb 16, 2007
44
0
Lexington, KY
I am finally understanding the use of the :apple: TV. If I choose to get rid of my cable service then it could save me money and I don't have to watch commercials. But I'm still in the camp of include more. I don't see why :apple: thinks we want just another device to stack on the TV. I agree with others, wheres the DVD drive, and DVR combo. It's not got anything to do other than elegance for me. One device with one (tiny) remote and the ease of Frontrow, instead of ugly DVR's and DVD players. Just take a mac mini and cram in a DVR and your set.
 

Macitis

macrumors newbie
Sep 8, 2004
6
0
$500-$600 for an iPhone ? Yes

Check this out. :eek:
1. Goldvish “Le million” = $1,000,000
2. Vertu Signature Cobra = $310,000
3. Sony Ericsson Black Diamond = $300,000
4. Vertu Diamond = $88,000
5. Motorola V220 Special Edition = $51,800

X. Apple iPhone $499 - $599 :cool: :apple:

Which, would you buy ?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.