I just don't understand the attraction

I've been playing with my Apple TV for about a day now. While I do agree that it sucks that there's no HD content right now, I would point out two things:

(1) I'm certain that Apple will be releasing HD content soon. It would be absolutely moronic to create a hardware set-top box that connects through component and HDMI without plans to create HD content. My guess is that the first group of videos to shift over to HD content will be TV shows -- what's the point, though, in shifting videos over to HD content in the middle of a season? My guess is that they will be releasing HD content in September to coincide with the new season.

(2) I've downloaded a couple of things from the iTunes video store, including the second season of Monk and the free episodes of Andy Barker, P.I. and Raines. Now, Monk is not HD content and I'll agree that it doens't look pristine on my 20" iMac, but when I put it on my 42" plasma, it looks really good. (Remember that the plasma supports a lower resolution than your computer.) I'd say it looks better than digital cable, but not as good as HD. (I've only seen a few episodes of Monk in HD anyway since it's a USA show.) Andy Barker and Raines actually look rather close to their HD counterparts -- I switched between my Apple TV and my recorded HD cable set-top box, and the difference was there, but negligible.

----

As for the people to which the set top box is targeted -- I guess I'm part of that group. I pay about 80 dollars a month (in Washington, DC) for a bunch of channels, but I really only watch about 6 shows. When I move up to NYC this May, I'll be able to get satellite for about 50 dollars a month. Now, even using the NYC number of 50 a month for 12 months a year, I'll be paying $600 a year for cable. But I really only care about watching 6 shows.

Switch now to Apple TV. The cost of Apple TV was $300. The HDMI cable was $20. Assuming that each show's season pass costs approximately $35. Then I'm paying $210 for content. The total I'll be paying for my next year's worth of content is going to be $530, a savings of $70. The next year, my costs will just be for content -- $210.

Lets assume that we get HD content at a pricing scheme that's the same as that on Microsoft's Xbox. The price for content is $2 for standard definition and $3 for HD. Then I'll increase the costs of my season passes to $53 per show. This will change this next season's costs to $320 + ($53 x 6) = $320 + $318 = $638. So slightly over. The year after, the cost will drop to $318. Either way, I end up saving money.

But, of course, this is dependent on each individual's own television watching habits.

I have no need for an Apple TV because I already have a Toshiba HD-A1 HDDVD player (I know the format is supported by Microsoft, but oh well, I like it) and a DirecTV HD Receiver. So, I don't need any more viewing mediums for my Home Theater.

As a side note, if you haven't seen King Kong in HD yet, do it. It'll blow your mind! The movie itself wasn't so hot, but the special effects make up for it.

eric said:

hmm, apple set top box with a narrow audience that apple probably should have outsourced or stayed away from in the first place?

sounds familiar.

Click to expand...

I see the parallels as well. The set-top box has been a tough sell from the start. Phillips, Commodore, Apple, Gateway and a long list of others have tried and failed over the years. Unless it's billed as a dedicated gaming box, the prospects have been bleak for everyone who's attempted it. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the ergonomics of a computing device attached to a TV are difficult, if not impossible, to work around. Witness the difficulty people have had in entering WEP/WPA passwords on the AppleTV - the answer has been "use a less complicated password" - not a good one in my opinion.

I too have wondered about the usefulness of the AppleTV. At first glance, it looks like a cool idea to be able to bring iTunes content directly to your TV. I just don't like the fact that I have to stream it from another machine. No thanks! It certainly has no appeal to anyone other than Mac users. I could imagine a market for it if in addition to the streaming capabilities, it doubled as a DVR box or even if it pulled down content directly from iTunes (sort of like a pay-per-view or "OnDemand"-like system). But as it stands, I don't see the killer app - especially since it requires a widescreen TV, but doesn't display HD content.

FWIW, I think I agree 100% with the sentiment of the OP. Until iTunes and this box can provide HD-content, I'm just not interested and even then, I would buy it as a curiosity more than as a killer new bit of tech.

Wow, a lot of Apple products I completely forgot about. One thing is certain about those past products, Apple was always way ahead (too far ahead) of the curve in great tech ideas. Hopefully this first gen is just the beginning of something greater and doesn't flop like past products. Maybe what Apple needs to learn is to stick with the product, keep innovating and improving, and good things will happen down the road.

fleurya said:

Wow, a lot of Apple products I completely forgot about. One thing is certain about those past products, Apple was always way ahead (too far ahead) of the curve in great tech ideas. Hopefully this first gen is just the beginning of something greater and doesn't flop like past products.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, considering the three flops that were already mentioned in this thread, that would make this their 4th gen try at this.
They haven't got it right yet, nor do I think they will.
They need to simply leave it go and forget about it.

I guess I am part of the narrow audience who the apple TV is targeted to. I received my apple TV last Thursday and I am very happy with it. I really wanted it for playing music and giving me control of my music collection where I want to play it - on the stereo attached to the TV. I used the airport express to do the same thing but I really hate running upstairs to change the song/playlist when I got tired of a song - especially during a party. During the party last Saturday, we were serving up music in style in the living room. Even my drunk friends could figure out how to play it.

I do have a few free vids I have downloaded from iTunes and they actually look good on my 50" TV. There are clearly limitations to the product, but overall, I am pleased with it.

studio34 said:

Even my drunk friends could figure out how to play it.

Click to expand...

Drunk friendly. I love it!!!!!!!!!! <*sips glass of cold sake*>

So. My question is, can it do Dolby Surround Sound 5.1 or better?

fleurya a troll? please. the guy with 10 posts not contributing to the discussion? hmmm.

Click to expand...

My post count really shouldn't matter seeing as, well, everyone is new at some point.

But, OK, I apologize. My knee jerk reaction was based on other forums where a post like that is definitely meant to stir up trouble. I'll try and get a better read on the crowd next time before reacting.

dtravis7 said:

IF it did a few more things, for the price I would buy it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. For $299, I'm not touching that thing unless someone gets it for me as a gift. I love the idea of being able to watch movies and tv shows purchased through iTunes on my TV though. Before Apple TV, you would either need to connect your computer to the TV or burn the content onto a CD/DVD. This makes things a lot easier. But, when I saw the price, I immediately decided it was not something I needed.

I want to add a couple of cents worth.

Firstly, the lack of HD content on iTunes has nothing to do with this product, so I am not sure why the two have been connected. The lack of HD content is more down to how most people still view iTunes content (i.e. on iPODs) and the bandwisth needed to get this content up and available. Incidentally, what's available on the Xbox Marketplace is exceptionally limited and the Xbox360 HDD can only store one, or at best 2 movies - transferring 2 gig movies between a media centre PC and the Xbox is not exactly fun either.

On media centre, it's all a matter of taste, but whilst media centre apparently offers more functionality, it's no where near as stable and sometimes doesn't even get the basics right, compared to Front Row.

Finally on Apple TV, the attraction is the design and convenience of the unit, but it's a bit of a rich boy's toy I agree. I have failed miserably to hook up my MacBook to my 1080i TV satisfactorally - the image is always blurry and doesn't scale well - so this might be something I look into. BTW, iTunes content on a standard TV does actually look acceptable, slightly better than say standard cable transmissions but not quite as good as HD content.

As pointed out, for better or worse, Apple has always made some effort to put out a product here and there that would be considered "revolutionary" (and I use that term with my best Steve impression). Well, to be certain, I think every move they make is self embossed with what Apple deems "the next level." Yeah, there's not too much to deny that the company reeks of self importance.

Is this a bad thing? Not so much.

How else should a business sell a product? As "the most standard of standard?" I don't think many would argue the Apple image is a highly important cog in Steve's machine.

And to their credit, they are mostly successful... I mean I save my apple packaging! And I am sure most of you do to. (I just lie and tell people I'm not crazy and in love with cardboard boxes... I keep 'em for... uh, resale )

Apple's most successful product ever is the iPod. I remember the first iPods... expensive, limited and sexy. People claimed this device would never sell, it cost too much, it's not practical, blah blah.... I think we all know how that ended up.

So... iPhone, Apple TV, etc. They may go the way of the Pippin (Thanks for that! I forgot about that!) or it's possible Apple may have another iPod on it's hands... and that would be most definitely worth it for the company.

Apple TV... not for me at this point. ApTV isn't necessarily a limited market though (anyone downloading iTunes content and owns a modern TV is the target market correct?) With LCD/Plasma soon to be in most homes... by the time ApTV matures some things should align quite nicely!

I think the sour grapes is the fact we are lacking any Mac announcements. Sure, iPhone is a cool looking gadget, but I certainly hope it's not delaying Leopard! I hope all this focus on the Apple TV is not the reason we are waiting on some system refreshes. And the people who really follow this stuff (i.e. not your average consumer... but your tech geek and industry folk) aren't looking for Apple TVs primarily... We want 12inch MBPs and G5 powerbooks (haha).

Apple dropped the "Computer" from it's name... although, all these devices (iPod, iPhone, ApTV) are essentially computers.

...But then so again is my toaster nowadays.

Each to his / her own.

I wanted a decent interface for playing my music on my stereo. I've used a couple of devices which wirelessly stream music, but the displays are tiny and impossible to use when you have a ton of albums by the same artist. Using Apple TV as the interface is brilliant - huge screen allowing me to play whatever I want.

Also - pictures. I take thousands of pics every couple of months but my family never gets to see them - or it they do, it is on my iMac. Being able to call up slideshows on the big screen is great.

I agree that the video podcasts are not that great quality (although some are) and I live in the UK so our iTunes store doesn't even sell movies or TV programmes so I have no comment. I'm sure it will come however, and I'm sure the quality will improve.

Cheers,

Jack.

merkhet said:

As for the people to which the set top box is targeted -- I guess I'm part of that group. I pay about 80 dollars a month (in Washington, DC) for a bunch of channels, but I really only watch about 6 shows. When I move up to NYC this May, I'll be able to get satellite for about 50 dollars a month. Now, even using the NYC number of 50 a month for 12 months a year, I'll be paying $600 a year for cable. But I really only care about watching 6 shows.

Switch now to Apple TV. The cost of Apple TV was $300. The HDMI cable was $20. Assuming that each show's season pass costs approximately $35. Then I'm paying $210 for content. The total I'll be paying for my next year's worth of content is going to be $530, a savings of $70. The next year, my costs will just be for content -- $210.

But, of course, this is dependent on each individual's own television watching habits.

Click to expand...

If you want cheap HD, pick up a HD rabbit ears set from Radio Shack. I pick up all the local channals in HD plus a few others basic cable does have and paid $40 for the antenna. Quality is amazing! The Office, Leno and Earl plus every football game in would care to watch in HD for free. I am never paying for cable again! And I Netflix what I can't see for $18 a month.

Sorry for the off topic bit there, I also don't understand Apple TV. $300 to watch your iTunes content on your tv doesn't seem like it's worth it. Doesn't the iPod video export to TV's? If so, couldn't most people do that??

Bryan

I think the problem is in the name. It's not TV, it is just another fancy PC to TV media adapter.

I don't think downloading clips or browsing clips on the PC should be labelled TV.

If it did the sort of things a Slingbox does then it would be great.

The cost differential between downloading TV and paying cable is merely temporary, as well. TV ad revenue is dropping like the glide path of a `63 Chevy Biscayne -- this being attributed in large measure to Tivo/DVR (which Nielson either doesn't measure at all or only measures under quite strange protocol).

The networks will soon start charging for download shows more as more folks start accessing programming that way. So I would be cautious in any analysis to justify Apple TV based on cable/satellite savings.

My bigger question (an off topic) is why anyone wants to watch a movie or tv show on a 2.5" iPod screen. After the "revolution" to get every home equipped with a 50" or better plasma tv, watching anything on an iPod just seems, well, faddish.

D3v1L80Y said:

No, fleurya isn't a troll.
He is merely pointing out a simple fact of reality.
Apple TV isn't made for everyone. He is part of that group.

Click to expand...

Well include me in his group. Apple TV? I bought a S-Video cable and was watching movies on my 36inch HDTV this weekend. Yeah just plugged it into my powerbook and VOILA instant media center

Also I own tivo with an original lifetime membership so I don't need another item that does half the things my Tivo does.