[Salsa]

Originally Posted by krove 

...While it would be nice if Apple could create a single box to do ALL of this, IT IS A PIPE DREAM!...

There are already media players that can play DVD's, MPEG1/2/4, DivX, WMV, etc., and they cost less than $300. Check out Snazio, D-link, Buffalo, and Tvisto. That is not a pipe dream. In fact, for $130 you can buy an Xbox, load the media center software, and have VLC in there playing anything you want. The only limitation is the CPU isn't powerful enough for HD h.264, but for a few extra bucks you can get component cables and play everything else in HD up to 1080i.

...Apple wanted to extend your computer's media to the TV...

No, they didn't want to extend my content to the TV, they just wanted to extend their own content to my TV. I wont pay $300 for that.

[cdoubleu]

Setting iTunes' DRM aside...

Originally Posted by Salsa 

There are already media players that can play DVD's, MPEG1/2/4, DivX, WMV, etc., and they cost less than $300. Check out Snazio, D-link, Buffalo, and Tvisto.

... as Mac users we have a problem - I couldn't find a product from these companies that claims to be fully Mac compatible. (The Snazio product looks nice but it does not claim Intel Mac compatability nor does it seem to be available in the US)

Originally Posted by Salsa 

No, they didn't want to extend my content to the TV, they just wanted to extend their own content to my TV. I wont pay $300 for that.

I think that's been the best comment anyone has made so far.

[mikeschr]

Everyone's saying they don't want an AppleTV because it doesn't do this or doesn't do that. It's only supposed to be one thing: It's an iPod that outputs its menus and content to your TV. Maybe it'll be something more in the future, but right now, that's what it is.

Assuming it's functionally similar to an iPod, it does one big thing that Front Row doesn't do - it plays from video playlists. I have my Mini at the TV, and all my video content ripped into iTunes, and I have to use the iTunes interface, because Front Row doesn't play video playlists. That means using a mouse rather than a remote control - I'd much rather use a remote control. That might make the AppleTV attractive enough to me to get one to use at the TV, and to put my Mini somewhere else.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by cdoubleu 

Setting iTunes' DRM aside...



... as Mac users we have a problem - I couldn't find a product from these companies that claims to be fully Mac compatible. (The Snazio product looks nice but it does not claim Intel Mac compatability nor does it seem to be available in the US)

I'm not an expert here, but I think I saw that it is uPnP and DLNA compatible. In that case, you can use EyeConnect software available from Elgato. They have an inexpensive user group price that you can find via Google.

By the way, I haven't totally given up on Apple. This product, as we now understand it, would be a stupid one for them to release. Apple isn't stupid, so I still have hope that there are some killer features we don't know about.

I think that's been the best comment anyone has made so far.

Thank you. :-)

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

Everyone's saying they don't want an AppleTV because it doesn't do this or doesn't do that. It's only supposed to be one thing...

Yeah, so why buy it when you can get something else for less money that does much more?

...it does one big thing that Front Row doesn't do - it plays from video playlists...

Yeah, but VLC can do that on your Mini or even a $130 Xbox. Apple TV has no market unless you already have hundreds of Fairplay protected videos you haven't seen yet.

[mikeschr]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

Apple TV has no market unless you already have hundreds of Fairplay protected videos you haven't seen yet.

Or you'd rather use a remote control than a mouse.

Just to make it easier, I'll agree with you. Yes, since you have no use for an AppleTV, no one else will have a use for it either, and none will be sold. Let's alert the media.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

...Apple TV has no market unless you already have hundreds of Fairplay protected videos you haven't seen yet.

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

Or you'd rather use a remote control than a mouse.

Just to make it easier, I'll agree with you. Yes, since you have no use for an AppleTV, no one else will have a use for it either, and none will be sold. Let's alert the media.

Oh, right, like Apple invented the remote control. You're right, there is no other media player out there that has a remote control. Cough, cough...

[icruise]

Come on now. You don't have to have ANYTHING from the iTunes store for the Apple TV to be useful. Its main advantage over other media devices is that it allows you to use the content you already have in iPhoto and iTunes. I personally have a huge number of songs, videos, and photos in these programs (arranged in various custom albums/playlists) and being able to access all of that through an easy-to-use interface is much more attractive to me than using some generic media device. This to me is actually more important than having Fairplay compatibility (although that's a nice plus as well). I have a fair amount of iTS music but no video whatsoever. Yet I use iTunes (and iTunes-compatible video formats like h.264) for all of my videos because of the iPod, so I could use it with the Apple TV if I wanted.

The main thing holding me back from wanting one is that the videos I have are too low-res to be comfortably viewed on an HDTV. They're optimized for viewing on the iPod. Also, I converted almost all of my videos myself from my own DVDs, so watching the DVD is usually the better choice, but I do see the attraction of having everything (especially ripped TV shows) available at the touch of a button.

[Salsa]

iTunes music isn't even relevant because it's so easy to strip off the DRM. The video is another matter, but, like you, the few shows I have are all only 320x240, so I'm saving them to watch on my iPod when I'm sitting in a waiting room or air port or something.

I capped most of my video to my Mac long before Apple introduced the iPod w/Video, so compatibility wasn't an issue. In fact, I bought the original EyeTV many years ago when it could only record MPEG1. That made a lot of sense back then because it could be used for VCD at a time when nobody had DVD burners.

Anyway, even if I had a couple iTunes videos in 640x480, I still wouldn't spend $300 just to watch them on TV. It would be cheaper to just repurchase those same movies in DVD format or plug my iPod into my TV with a cable.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by cdoubleu 

...Handbrake's default settings do not seem to produce a file that is compatible with AppleTV...

That will be a problem for many people. Even if it were compatible, the Handbrake files lose all of their chapter marks. That's a big issue for me and the type of DVD's I refer to all the time. The reason I keep so many DVD's on my hard drive is because they are reference or instructional. I need to be able to jump to the specific chapter. Hence, I use MacTheRipper instead of Handbrake.

...I will wait to see exactly which formats the AppleTV can support.

I'm totally with you on that.

[icruise]

Why wouldn't handbrake files be compatible? What exactly do you mean by "default settings"?

I agree that the Apple TV doesn't make a lot of sense just yet, but it doesn't take a genius to see that it's a precursor to offering HD content in the iTS. Microsoft already rents HD video on Xbox Live, after all.

[Salsa]

TV Tuners

I forgot to mention the issue of TV tuners. A lot of people here are complaining about the lack of TV tuners on the Apple TV. I'm not among them. HD DVR's already exist and serve a different market. You need a computer with a lot of horsepower for that work and it's expensive. I don't want to spend $1,000 on the set top box for every TV. Do you? Tivo is already in that market and they are losing money. Apple could add iTunes compatibility and a nice interface, but they can't sell it for less than half of what it costs to make. That's what it would take.

It makes much more sense to throw a $150 tuner onto my Mac. Then, I can watch that content from every TV in the house that has a cheap network media player. Some media players are smart enough to include multi-room features. Sync mode plays exactly the same content on multiple TV's so you can move back and forth between the family room and kitchen during dinner or between the bedroom and bathroom while getting dressed and never lose track of your show. Portable pause lets you pause a show on one TV and then resume from the same spot on another TV.

If Apple comes out with a $150 HD TV tuner that has built-in h.264 encoding, then the Apple TV might make sense for a lot of people who have something less than a quad core Mac Pro and don't already have a lot of video in other formats.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Why wouldn't handbrake files be compatible? What exactly do you mean by "default settings"?

That was Cdoubleu who said that. I think he means that Apple TV's specs require a very specific format and Handbrake rips to 720x480 which isn't officially supported by Apple TV. I also noticed that Handbrake doesn't default to h.264. I'm not sure if either of those two issues will be a problem though.

I agree that the Apple TV doesn't make a lot of sense just yet, but it doesn't take a genius to see that it's a precursor to offering HD content in the iTS. Microsoft already rents HD video on Xbox Live, after all.

So, if I already have an Xbox that plays HD movies and cable or satellite PPV for HD movies, why would I spend the $300 for Apple TV?

Maybe Apple should have made a deal with Nintendo. It wouldn't have cost much to throw a Fairplay player onto the Wii and then Apple could have used that to sell the HD iTunes movies. That way, people wouldn't have to pay the extra $300 that nobody else charges.

[rnp614]

So you're saying that the current Elgato products dont work so well? Or are you saying that only Intel procs work that well with the tuners?

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by rnp614 

So you're saying that the current Elgato products dont work so well? Or are you saying that only Intel procs work that well with the tuners?

The current Elgato products work fine, but encoding into h.264 requires a very powerful CPU, like a quad core Mac Pro. If they came out with a tuner that had built-in hardware compression, then you might be able to use it on an iMac, but still not dual tuners.

People don't realize how CPU intensive h.264 is. I have a dual G5 and it took me about thirty or forty hours to convert an hour of HD video from MPEG2 to h.264. Then, I didn't have enough horsepower to play it back.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

That was Cdoubleu who said that. I think he means that Apple TV's specs require a very specific format and Handbrake rips to 720x480 which isn't officially supported by Apple TV. I also noticed that Handbrake doesn't default to h.264. I'm not sure if either of those two issues will be a problem though.

Well, with Handbrake you have to make sure you use the right settings for the iPod as well, so I don't see that as an issue. In any case, anything that plays on the iPod should easily play on the Apple TV, and when the Apple TV comes out we'll know what the optimal specs are.

So, if I already have an Xbox that plays HD movies and cable or satellite PPV for HD movies, why would I spend the $300 for Apple TV?

The answer is that YOU wouldn't, but I for one would never be satisfied with something like a modded Xbox for my media (and I have one).

Maybe Apple should have made a deal with Nintendo. It wouldn't have cost much to throw a Fairplay player onto the Wii and then Apple could have used that to sell the HD iTunes movies. That way, people wouldn't have to pay the extra $300 that nobody else charges.

How on earth would such a deal work? The Wii has no capability to play video -- even standard DVDs. It's not HD compatible, and it only has 512MB of internal storage.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

That means using a mouse rather than a remote control - I'd much rather use a remote control. That might make the AppleTV attractive enough to me to get one to use at the TV, and to put my Mini somewhere else.

I havent gone through all the tech specs of the Apple TV, but if video playlists are all that diferentiates it from using a Mini, id be really annoyed with apple pulling a stunt like this. They could just implement video playlists in FR and iTunes if they want, but if they strategically left that out so people would buy AppleTV, im definately not going to bite.

$300 is too a high a price to pay for video playlists, when it could just as easily be implemented in FR and iTunes.

Heck, i wouldnt be surprised if a developer is writing playback software w/ video playlists right now that'll play anything and everything (VLC is an example)...and it's free !

A friend of mine (Windows guy), has a product similar to the AppleTV, except it plays quite possibly everything except DRM-ed stuff...that means MPEG 1/2/3/4, DivX, Xvid, h.264, WMV.... and it lets him hook upto his computer and access the HDD. comes with a remote as well.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Well, with Handbrake you have to make sure you use the right settings for the iPod as well...

But most of the people who rip for their iPod used 320x240, so they don't even need an HD media player. They can use a cheap SD player.

The answer is that YOU wouldn't, but I for one would never be satisfied with something like a modded Xbox for my media (and I have one).

Actually, I wasn't talking about the modded Xbox in that quote. I think Microsoft sells movies through the Xbox 360.

Now that you mentioned the original Xbox, do you have XBMC 2.0? I've never tried it. What do you not like about it?

How on earth would such a deal work? The Wii has no capability to play video -- even standard DVDs. It's not HD compatible, and it only has 512MB of internal storage.

In that case, the deal wouldn't work at all. Apple wont get a deal from MicroSoft or Sony or satellite or cable, so I guess they are out in the cold. It seems that anybody who has an HD TV already has some kind of PPV device already, so why should they spend $300 for a second one? Apple must have something up their sleeve.

[rnp614]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

The current Elgato products work fine, but encoding into h.264 requires a very powerful CPU, like a quad core Mac Pro. If they came out with a tuner that had built-in hardware compression, then you might be able to use it on an iMac, but still not dual tuners.

People don't realize how CPU intensive h.264 is. I have a dual G5 and it took me about thirty or forty hours to convert an hour of HD video from MPEG2 to h.264. Then, I didn't have enough horsepower to play it back.

so what exactly is the point of h.264? Is this just a compressed format?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

Now that you mentioned the original Xbox, do you have XBMC 2.0? I've never tried it. What do you not like about it?

It's an older one and I don't really use it for media much, but my main complaint would simply be that it doesn't interface with my sizable and well organized media collection on my computer. I don't want a separate device.

Originally Posted by rnp614 

so what exactly is the point of h.264? Is this just a compressed format?

h.264 is basically a more advanced form of MPEG-4 that gives you better quality at smaller file sizes.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by cdoubleu 

...The Snazio product looks nice but it does not [...] seem to be available in the US...

What makes you say that? The Snazio website even lists prices in U.S. currency.

Welcome to the one-stop shop for the Audio, Video and Photo enthusiasts

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

I have my Mini at the TV, and all my video content ripped into iTunes, and I have to use the iTunes interface, because Front Row doesn't play video playlists. That means using a mouse rather than a remote control - I'd much rather use a remote control. That might make the AppleTV attractive enough to me to get one to use at the TV, and to put my Mini somewhere else.

Take the video files out of your Music folder and put them in your Movies folder. Then you can play them with FrontRow and your remote.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's an older one and I don't really use it for media much, but my main complaint would simply be that it doesn't interface with my sizable and well organized media collection on my computer. I don't want a separate device.

Why doesn't it interface with your computer?

h.264 is basically a more advanced form of MPEG-4 that gives you better quality at smaller file sizes.

Yes, that's exactly true, but I would add that it uses more CPU power to get that extra compression.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

Why doesn't it interface with your computer?

I mean I want something that will work with iTunes, iPhoto, and the like.

Yes, that's exactly true, but I would add that it uses more CPU power to get that extra compression.

Very true.

[cdoubleu]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Why wouldn't handbrake files be compatible? What exactly do you mean by "default settings"?

I made the original comment. I was questioning an earlier comment that assumed that if it had been ripped via Handbrake and played fine in iTunes then it would play fine in AppleTV. The specs of the supported formats for AppleTV are very restrictive. There are mp4 and H264 files that can be ripped by Handbrake that play fine in iTunes but do not conform to the specs of the AppleTV.

Of course if you take the time to set up Handbrake so it rips in exactly the right frame size and data rate as supported by the iPod then it should work fine on AppleTV. But for me that means I have to reencode all my DVD rips (which stream fine using iTunes and Frontrow).

I would assume that if the AppleTV is has restrictive as stated then it has been deliberately crippled to not play the other frame sizes because there seems to be no technical reason why it couldn't play, for example, a H264 at 720 x 480.

[Salsa]

The more I think about Apple TV, the more it seems that there must be some very big features there that Apple hasn't told us about yet. The announced product just isn't competitive with what's out there in the market.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I mean I want something that will work with iTunes, iPhoto, and the like...

Like I said, I haven't tried XBMC yet, but I think I heard that it does work with iTunes through EyeConnect.

[icruise]

I know that Connect 360 will allow you to use your iTunes/iPhoto files on the 360, but it doesn't work with iTS files and at the moment only WMV video is supported (which is the deal killer). I don't really know anything about XBMC 2.0.

[Salsa]

I've heard that XBMC 2.0 (which runs on the original Xbox) is U-PnP and DNLA compatible. You use EyeConnect software from Elgato to serve it media files from your Mac. The Xbox CPU doesn't have the power to play h.264 HD content, but it will play just about all the other DRM-free audio and video formats. Basically, it has VLC running under the hood.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by cdoubleu 

...The Snazio product looks nice but it does not claim Intel Mac compatability nor does it seem to be available in the US)...

As far as U.S. availability, I posted the URL for the web store several posts back. Here it is again: Welcome to the one-stop shop for the Audio, Video and Photo enthusiasts

As far as Mac compatibility, the Snazio site claims full Mac compatibility. Here is a link and a quote. SnaZio* Net DVD CinemA HD

SnaZio* Net Cinema is seamlessly integrated with iTunes, iPhotos, iMovies and EyeTV to directly access your Playlists, Photo Albums, VideoPodcasts, AudioPodcasts, Movies and even recorded shows from a remote Macintosh machine and deliver everything right in your living room. Integration and Easy content management is what makes it a Digital Media Hub for Mac.

I haven't tried the Snazio, but the Apple TV looks like it falls way short as a device to stream video from your Mac to your TV.

[macintologist]

The Mac MIni can play any type of file with Perian installed, and VLC as a supplement for anything that doesn't work with QT and Perian.

Perian - The swiss-army knife of QuickTime� components

Apple TV on the other hand is limited to .mp4 and .mov h264 and mpeg4 which IMO is retarded.

[krove]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

There are already media players that can play DVD's, MPEG1/2/4, DivX, WMV, etc., and they cost less than $300. Check out Snazio, D-link, Buffalo, and Tvisto. That is not a pipe dream. In fact, for $130 you can buy an Xbox, load the media center software, and have VLC in there playing anything you want. The only limitation is the CPU isn't powerful enough for HD h.264, but for a few extra bucks you can get component cables and play everything else in HD up to 1080i.

And I wonder how usable these solutions are. What do their remotes look like? Do they work with Macs and iTunes seamlessly? How successful are they in the marketplace? Do mere consumers know they even exist? Rather, I think these products are the MP3 players of the pre-iPod era: existent but just eking by, waiting for Apple to seize and direct the market.

Originally Posted by Salsa

No, they didn't want to extend my content to the TV, they just wanted to extend their own content to my TV. I wont pay $300 for that.

This is wrong. Again and again, I think I've said it more than a few times in this thread: You can you whatever properly-encoded content from wherever you want with Apple TV. Ripped DVDs, other video, music, photos, etc. The only restriction is format, not DRM.

[krove]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

The current Elgato products work fine, but encoding into h.264 requires a very powerful CPU, like a quad core Mac Pro. If they came out with a tuner that had built-in hardware compression, then you might be able to use it on an iMac, but still not dual tuners.

People don't realize how CPU intensive h.264 is. I have a dual G5 and it took me about thirty or forty hours to convert an hour of HD video from MPEG2 to h.264. Then, I didn't have enough horsepower to play it back.

H.264 is not the only format Apple TV supports. they also support MPEG-4, which is less processor-intensive for encoding and playback (but takes up more space), [edit] which someone apparently already said.

[mikeschr]

The other feature of iTunes (and by extension, AppleTV) that is essential to me is the Last Played attribute. I have my system set to only play content that hasn't been played in the past year. AFAIK, that eliminates VLC and XBox from consideration. If Apple were to update Front Row so that it would play video playlists, and update the Last Played attribute, that would be the best of all possible worlds for me. If I'm lucky, they'll make my entertainment choices easier by doing that. If they don't, though, I still could see getting an AppleTV, and repurposing my Mini.

Another option is to use my iPod and the DLO Home Deluxe, which apparently shows the iPod menu on the TV. But that's $199, and for $100 more, I can more or less get another iPod (which is essentially what the AppleTV is).

Regarding H.264, all my content has been ripped into H.264 by my dual-core iMac or Mini, in real-time for a double pass. I don't see that as time-prohibitive at all.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

...Regarding H.264, all my content has been ripped into H.264 by my dual-core iMac or Mini, in real-time for a double pass. I don't see that as time-prohibitive at all.

I bet that wasn't WS 720p, was it? The file I converted was WS 1080i. There is no way a Mini will convert that with two passes in real time.

[mikeschr]

No, that's correct. I have very little 720p content. My stuff is all ripped from my DVDs or from the iTunes store.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by krove 

And I wonder how usable these solutions are. What do their remotes look like? Do they work with Macs and iTunes seamlessly? How successful are they in the marketplace? Do mere consumers know they even exist?

Yes, they have remotes. Yes, they play your iTunes playlists. Yes, people tech savy enough to at least have a lot of video on their computers know about these products. They are constantly getting reviewed on sites like C-net and Endgadget.

Rather, I think these products are the MP3 players of the pre-iPod era: existent but just eking by, waiting for Apple to seize and direct the market.

OK, if you want to make the iPod analogy, let's go there. Apple had a patent on their killer feature, the click-wheel that made navigating thousands of songs possible. They had lots of other smaller improvements that were easier to copy. Still, the iPod could play MP3 music. It would have been crazy to tell people to go back and re-rip all there music to a new format. Here, Apple hasn't announced any patented killer feature in the Apple TV. It might have a slick interface, but if it can't play the video people already have, people will just get something that can.

This is wrong. Again and again, I think I've said it more than a few times in this thread: You can you whatever properly-encoded content from wherever you want with Apple TV. Ripped DVDs, other video, music, photos, etc. The only restriction is format, not DRM.

That's not good enough. There are media players that can play the standard formats. The AppleTV wont play what we already have, it's really geared for selling Apple's video. Children who are starting from scratch wont find this to be serious limitation, but that isn't much of a market.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by mikeschr 

No, that's correct. I have very little 720p content. My stuff is all ripped from my DVDs or from the iTunes store.

It sounds like you don't have a lot of video already on your Mac that you want to watch on TV. You might be a great candidate for AppleTV. But, what are you going to watch? DVD's? You would have to walk to your Mac, rip the DVD to your hard drive, and then walk back to AppleTV and play it there - without any menus. Why not just play them in your DVD player?

The Xbox 360 and PS3 can both play music, photos, and video from your home network. Tivo has the Home Media Option available. DirecTV and Dish have PVR's that they give to customers for free. They will also play some content on your network, although the software might still be in beta. It probably wont be long before we see the same thing from the cable companies. Almost everybody with an HD TV will have at least one of those above options. Why would they spend another $300 on Apple TV?

If they already have a lot of content they want to put on the TV right now, the products like Snazio, D-link, Buffalo, Tvisto, etc. are available and will play it, but AppleTV wont. The AppleTV might have a nicer interface, but what will it do? At the moment, it looks like the only killer feature is that it plays movies you buy from Apple at $15 each when pay per view is free for the hardware and only $4 for the movie.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

That's not good enough. There are media players that can play the standard formats. The AppleTV wont play what we already have, it's really geared for selling Apple's video. Children who are starting from scratch wont find this to be serious limitation, but that isn't much of a market.

Apple's own FrontRow will play much more than AppleTV will. What you said about Apple wanting to extend their own content to your TV with AppleTV rings true. Makes me wonder why they didn't cripple FrontRow as well.

[Salsa]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Apple's own FrontRow will play much more than AppleTV will. What you said about Apple wanting to extend their own content to your TV with AppleTV rings true. Makes me wonder why they didn't cripple FrontRow as well.

Yes, you get it. I think a lot of people here are reflexively partial to anything that Apple does. I don't see a use this box. If we don't already have a lot of video on our Mac, what are we going to watch? DVR's now come free from the cable and satellite companies. If we rip DVD's to the Apple TV approved format, we lose the menus, the extras, and even some resolution. If we take a lot of home movies with our digital cameras, the footage might not be compatible. I chose my camera specifically because it shot MPEG4 video, but it turns out that the audio isn't compatible with iTunes. A lot of cameras shoot into WMV or something else.

[iDaver]

I see AppleTV and other similar devices as a way to eventually bypass cable companies that charge outlandish prices for their tv packages. I could actually buy all the video content I desire from iTunes and get away cheaper than with Comcast. Of course I still currently need Comcast for the pipe. That too will soon be changing in my area. Hopefully one of these days, TV will be cheaper as a result of new competitive options. It makes me furious how TV providers are just trying to make an extra buck off the switch to HDTV. The idea behind HD was to improve TV, not to make it more expensive.

[Hawkeye_a]

Never thoght about that. that would bereally interesting..... deliver content, on-demand (iTMS) without ads, for a "fixed" price that can be streamed directly to one's TV. that is a way of by-passing the cable companies. sorta like bypassing CD/Music retailers. hmmmmm

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

The Xbox 360 and PS3 can both play music, photos, and video from your home network.

I have both of these, and while the 360 will stream from a Windows computer (in a semi-clunky way) you are very limited in the formats it supports. The PS3 as far as I know has no streaming options at all. It does play local video pretty well, though. I downloaded the iPhone intro keynote to a USB flash drive (in h.264 and a fairly high resolution) and it played great on the PS3 and looked pretty good on my HDTV).

I think the main problem with your argument against the Apple TV, Salsa, is that you seem to think there is a huge market of people with existing video libraries on their computers that they want to play on their HDTVs. In reality, the number of people with large video libraries is pretty small, particularly among Apple's user base. Apple is not going to be courting this kind of market. They want the huge (and relatively non-technical) market that the iPod has captured. True, the Apple TV is ahead of its time in the sense that almost nobody has video content that can take full advantage of its capabilities, but it seems to be a sort of pre-emptive strike, so they can have a bridge between the TV and the computer before they really start expanding the iTS's video offerings (particularly with HD). A lot of people are going to see the iTS's video offerings as nothing but novelties unless there is an easy-to-use, seamless solution for viewing that content on their TV.

So yeah, there is no question in my mind that Apple TV would not even exist if it weren't for the iTS, but that still doesn't mean that it's useless if you don't buy iTS videos (and up until now, I have not).

[Hawkeye_a]

What Apple is doing with AppleTV (formats supported), would be if they released the iPod with no MP3 support, only AAC.

While you argue that most computer user's dont have video content, it would be sorta like saying that most people dont have MP3s, WAVs, etc....

I wish the AppleTV would support all the MPEG formats along with DivX and Xvid.

Cheers

[icruise]

The difference is that MP3 has become ubiquitous, while video formats like DIVX, while popular among some segments of the population, have not. I know that nobody in my family, for example, had any idea what DIVX is, and while they have very large MP3 collections (my Dad in his 60s has thousands), they have nothing when it comes to video. Nothing, that is, but some video podcasts and the like, which would work with Apple TV and the iPod. Hardcore nerds (and I use the term affectionately) who have huge video libraries aren't really the target market.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Hardcore nerds (and I use the term affectionately) who have huge video libraries aren't really the target market.

Correct; the target market is those who are ready and willing to buy video from the iTunes Store; apparently nobody else. So AppleTV is a vehicle to increase iTunes Store sales, unlike the iPod which worked the other way around.

[Salsa]

How many MP3's did your dad have when the iPod came out six and a half years ago? Most people had never heard of MP3 and didn't have broadband. The people who bought iPods already had large collections of music in MP3 format, they knew about Napster, and they had broadband. The people who bought iPods in the first year were young and at the front of the tech curve, not the laggards.

Some people didn't start to put music on their computers until after they bought an iPod. In a sense, they had to convert all of their music to a new format, but they had a compelling reason to do it, they wanted to take their music with them. The people who have a lot of video in other formats don't have to convert them to anything else because the other players can play those other formats. Anyway, the vast majority of people who bought the early iPods were early adopters who already had MP3 collections.

DivX is not ubiquitous, but VCD, DVD, MPEG1/2/4, DivX, Xvid, and WMV collectively are as ubiquitous today as MP3 was in 2000. DivX is the standard for people who illegally download video, like MP3 was to audio. There is still very little content being uploaded in iPod format. Have you looked at the usenet video groups? It looks like it's more than 90% DivX/Xvid and most of the rest is WMV and DVD (video_ts). Most digital cameras are not iPod compatible either.

iCruise, you say that Apple TV isn't for people who already have a lot of video content, but why else is somebody going to pay $300 to stream content to their TV? To buy TV shows that they can already watch for free on their DVR? To buy movies for $15 that they can already watch for $4? I think that's what you are saying. Even with expanded offerings at the iTMS, it would be mostly just for buying the shows that we want to watch over and over, or shows that our DVR missed when it was broadcast.

I just don't understand why Apple isn't adding support for the video people already have and targeting them until the iTMS can replace our cable and satellite providers. That's the approach Apple took with the iPod. They initially targeted early adopters who already had MP3 collections and then the mainstream consumers came along and ripped CD's for it and bought content from iTMS.

[Salsa]

Let me clarify, I don't think Apple is stupid. I think they are very smart and know something that we don't know. They are obviously not trying to compete against other media players. They see themselves as competing against Blue-ray and HD-DVD players. Most people, even ones with HD displays, don't have a hi-def DVD player. So, the idea is that they spend $300 instead of the $600 competition, and then iTMS sells the movies for less than the hi-def discs. The the media already on your PC, TV shows from iTMS, and games are secondary. Still, I don't see why they don't support the common formats, like they did with the iPod. It's a mystery. As far as I can tell, the cable and satellite providers are in a good position to compete for the movies sales too, not to mention Xbox 360 and the PS3. If they took the iPod strategy, they would initially target the people who already have a lot of content on their computers. Then, when people look to buy hi-def movies, they would buy the format that plays on the device they already own. I have a lot riding on this because I bought stock in Apple ten years ago and the increase in value over the past couple years has turned my stake in Apple into a large share of my portfolio. I think it's time for me to sell off some Apple shares to rebalance my portfolio. I'm worrying too much about Apple's future. For what it's worth, I'm less worried about the iPhone even though there has been more concern about that device in the press.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Salsa 

Let me clarify, I don't think Apple is stupid. I think they are very smart and know something that we don't know. They are obviously not trying to compete against other media players. They see themselves as competing against Blue-ray and HD-DVD players.

This assumes that Apple begins offering HD content soon.

Is it possible there is some kind of technical reason for AppleTV not supporting more formats? Like suppose there isn't enough memory in the device or something silly like that. It's a bit baffling to me, since FrontRow does support more formats.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm trying to build a 'TVPC' out of a stock G4 Cube. It has plenty of RAM, but otherwise standard at the moment. I have a 17" ADC TFT for it, and intend to hook it up via ethernet in my bedroom to watch video or stream EyeTV from my old PowerMac and Xserve. I have to use CyTv since there is no way of adding USB 2.0 to a Cube, and firewire EyeTV boxes cost a bomb. I thought about upgrading it to play 720p, but it turns out the bus is the bottleneck. I had some of the guys at Cubeowner test footage with their tricked out Cubes, I think one of them ran it acceptably, and to match it would cost as much as a Mac Pro. Without being as good.

I think the Mac Mini makes a great TVPC, but if thats all you want it for, and you don't need to surf the web on your TV, and you have another, bigger Mac, then you may as well save some cash and get an Apple TV. Plus I think the Mini itself is still slightly overpriced.