David Pogue Reviews the Apple TV

necro81 writes "David Pogue of the NY Times has devoted his weekly column to the newly released Apple TV. He also has a video blurb to go with it. He compares it to the XBox360 and Netgear's EVA8000, which also deliver content traditionally trapped in a PC onto a TV set. Apple TV Pros: setup is as easy as can be, it's small and silent form factor will be good for home theaters, and the interface and remote control are intuitive. Cons: HDTV only, playback is limited to formats playable within iTunes, and no internet functionality other than movie trailers."

HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[stratjakt]

Moronic. Turns out it's not that much more useful than my Xbox 360, and infinitely less useful than a hacked xbox media center.

I mean OH MY GOD APPLE I LOVE THIS YOU HAVE REINVENTED MY TV! It now has YOUR STORE ATTACHED TO IT!

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

That is a lot of crap to do just to support a non-DRM encrusted format. The blurb even said you need QT Pro, which means more money for Apple to just play a file. No thanks, I will stick to MythTV.

Re:hacked

[ocelotbob]

The AppleTV's been out for 1 day, obviously the hacks at this point are at the quick and dirty level. If you fully RTFA, you'll learn that they're working on ways to streamline the process, and should have something a lot nicer soon.

Re:HDTV (component 480i counts) only?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It didn't take long for someone to start bashing Apple or mock its users. Jeez..

Besides Apple TV seems to be easily modifiable (Probably more so than your xbox media center).

Anyway, Apple delivers a product that works AS ADVERTISED. Nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you need DVR, Tivo has a product for you.

Or just maybe, you can have a media server in another room and just use the Apple TV to view the content remotely (and without the noise of cooling fans). I think it works out of the box this way (just import your video into iTunes).

I'm sure a neat hack is coming real soon that will provide more features. I know I may get one just to play with and try to merge it with elgato's eyeTV.

The Apple deal

[The_Abortionist]

Trade freedom for interface.

While Apple makes use of OSS, it has the complete exact opposite philosophy. This is very interesting and could make a good thesis subject.

Many OSS supporters like Apple too (as seen in this forum)! I guess at the end of the day, it's all about not wasting their time too much on useless stuff. In a way, they are like someone who claims to support every environment initiative, but drives a gas guzzling SUV because of safety, power, prestige, etc.

Re:What's the point?

[2nd Post!]

1) Cheaper because it has no subscription costs
2) Easier because it does less

Both of these points were very salient to the iPod's success. Apple expects them to be key drivers for the AppleTV as well.

Re:If you have MYTHTV?

[wizbit]

Ever tried to setup a remote frontend for Myth? Fiddled with lirc for freakin days to get it right? NFS shares? This stuff is probably trivial to some, but for me it was a major pain in the ass. If the AppleTV is really as easy to setup as Pogue is claiming - literally plug in an HDMI cable and the power cable - I'm buying one for every room in the house. Let the MythTV backend do the recording. Apple has apparently made a really spectacular frontend.

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[HaeMaker]

Didn't stop them with iPhone.

Summary wrong: Apple TV doesn't support just HDTV

[patiwat]

The summary is wrong.

Summary: Cons: HDTV only

Article: The heartbreaker for millions, however, is that Apple TV requires a widescreen TV -- preferably an HDTV. It doesn't work with the squarish, traditional TVs that many people still have.

Apple TV will still work if you don't have an HDTV. It just requires a widescreen TV.

Re:hacked

[JimDaGeek]

While as a geek I think it is cool to hack the hardware to offer more features, I don't think you should have to do that for a device you pay for to just watch some content that you record. Xvid [xvid.org] is open, so there is no reason for Apple to not at least include Xvid playback support. The only thing I can think of is that Apple wants the AppleTV to be nothing more than a player for iTMS content. If that is the case, then no thanks.

Re:What's the point?

[badasscat]

The point YOU keep making is there are more features on the TiVo.

The point I am making is that those extra features aren't important.

They are important when you're dealing with video rather than music.

The really important thing that either Apple failed to realize or just discounted for whatever reason is that while there has always been something of a defacto standard in music formats (mp3), there has never been a similar standard in video formats. They are now trying to impose h.264 as a standard, while supporting their own earlier QuickTime formats, but seriously - other than stuff you've purchased on iTunes (which can't be that much because they don't offer that much), how much video do you really have stored in these formats?

Mac owners probably have more than PC owners but even they probably have all sorts of .wmv and other files lying around. PC owners have a mixture of divx, xvid, .wmv, avi files of various types, some quicktimes, some mp4's, some mpeg1 and 2's, etc.

What would be "easiest" for most people would be to have a device that supports all of these formats equally, so they don't even need to think about video formats anymore. What Apple is doing is not easy; they're forcing you to ensure that all of your video is in a format that they support, either through transcoding or by purchasing it from them.

If the Apple TV supported all of these formats and supported up to 1080p through HDMI, then yes, you'd have a useful device there. As it is, it is not a very useful device, nor is it particularly easy to use for anybody that already has a lot of video on their computers.

I mean, when you have to hack the thing to get it to recognize the most popular downloadable video format on PC, something is not right.

Re:Huh?

[ClosedSource]

I think it's instructive to remember that there are far more minimally successful or unsuccessful Apple products than there are very successful Apple products. Actually, the iPod is the only one that is a market leader.

So the odds that this product will be a big winner are not that high if Apple's overall performance is considered.

Re:What's the point?

[vought]

i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv.

It's an iPod without a battery, but with HDTV out. Instead of a cable, it uses wireless to sync with iTunes.

It does what the iPod does - lets you move media that's stored on your computer to other places. Instead of pluggin in headphones and toting it around with you like the iPod, you plug AppleTV into your TV sit on the couch.

Got it now?

Re:Shouldn't this be the "iTV"?

[TheRaven64]

There is a big difference. Cisco doesn't make many (any?) products directly aimed at the Mac market, and so doesn't provide much added value to Apple. Elgato primarily focusses on the Mac market, and is respected amongst Mac users.

Pissing off Cisco costs them nothing. Pissing off Elgato costs them goodwill from some Mac users and may cost them a supplier if they cause Elgato to re-focus on non-Mac platforms.

Re:What's the point?

[jtn]

Alternately, Mr Troll, Apple has usually (USUALLY) come out with products that do as advertised with the minimal amount of fuss and agony. Most Apple-purchasers do not buy for the brand as that would just be silly.

Re:hacked

[dr.badass]

Xvid is open, so there is no reason for Apple to not at least include Xvid playback support.

It already does. I have hundreds of XviD-encoded videos, all of which I am confident will play on AppleTV. They already play in iTunes and on the iPod. How is this possible? Easy. I just chose not to encode them with non-standard features, and not stick them in non-standard formats like AVI or MKV.

I don't think anyone should have to compensate for the fact that open source projects don't devote much energy to making it easy to produce widely-compatable videos. For example, mencoder defaults to using AVI, no matter what codecs you've chosen, and only mplayer will play such files.

I think a stronger case could be made for them to try to support Windows Media -- at least there's a reason for so much content to exist in that format.

Re:Seems like a lame device

[jelton]

Let's do some number crunching, shall we?

Time Warner digital cable: $61.30/month x 12 months = $735.60/year.

I want to watch the following shows, which cost the following amounts on the iTunes Music Store:

• Lost $34.99
• Robot Chicken $19.99
• Venture Bros. $19.99
• Inside the Actor's Studio $9.99
• The Daily Show $119.88
• The Colbert Report $119.88
• South Park $23.99
• MythBusters $25.87
• The Shield $21.89
• The Riches $22.99
• My Name is Earl $36.99
• The Office $34.99
• Scrubs $34.99
• Law & Order $35.99
• NOVA $29.99
• Battlestar Galactica $34.99
• Stargate SG-1 $37.99
• Stargate Atlantis $37.99
• Psych $28.99
• Total $722.38/year

What's that, I can get all the shows I watch on iTunes and get movies and play my music all through one interface? I can't imagine why people would go for this...

The only downside is that that you can't browse cable tv offerings at 3:00 AM, the shows aren't currently HD and the price break is dependent on how much content you use. I expect that, within the next year, Apple will offer a subscription-based service (betcha it's still tiered, based on usage) and will start offering HD content. It may not be exactly the same thing as cable+DVR but it's pretty close to being competitive. Not too bad for version 1.0.