[randombob]

Muchomac --

The thing is building in 1080p capability over 720p capability doesn't leave out the "normies" to satisfy videophiles & audiophiles. Having that option pleases both. the average joe might not be able to tell the difference, so what's it matter to him? you're right, it doesn't, and as such it's not going to affect his purchase decision at all..

BUT the videophile/audiophile IS turned off by the lack of support for the better format, and DOES avoid it. So they lose sales where they didn't have to.



Philbert ?

Yes tech always moves forward, I'm aware and so much as said so (may have been a different thread). However, I'm working ON that assumption, not against it. You "Future-proof" something by making it with tech that will be viable as long as possible. You don't go out and buy a carbureted car the day before the world switches to fuel injection if you want to be up with the times. Same thing here.

I'm not trying to say that 1080p will be the standard in 2100, but surely you realize you're making my point. Tech WILL move on, and in that shuffle the lower end of things is always the first to fall off. In this case ? HD content ? that'll be 720p. Apple could have made this thing viable for longer and more capable if it could handle the top of the stream that is out there right now, being fairly well assured that it's going to be someday the 720p of now ? still around.

Yes again, I know the bandwidth limitations, I understand all that, but don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that h.264 didn't exist. Ways will be had to get that content to us, but if the hardware can't do it, then there's a) going to be a need to repurchase new hardware sooner, and b) little incentive to innovate at a good speed to deliver that content.

ATV is 80% there. It needs better H/W capabilities, a DVR, and more storage. Hell, it needs to be a Mac Mini I guess. Hell, it needs to be a Time Capsule really, with the ATV software being controlled from the computer, and you just controlling the content remotely.

[Evgeny Vo]

Here are my 2 cents.

Apple's rentals pricing is too high. Not only for the reason that there is Netfix with cheaper prices and Blockbuster around the corner with the same price, and much longer rental time, but also the fact, that downloaded movie you would need to watch on a computer, not TV (for watching it on TV you need to purchase additional equipment, or have even much more expensive LCD high quality monitor/TV, you have to factor it in). Watching a movie on regular computer CRT or LCD screen is less than adequate experience.
I'm not sure if Apple even realizes the potential that they have now with their devices and distribution system in place now. Movies and music is just a little token, to compare to basically any and all audio, video, and digitally printed content they can get from the people globally and distribute through their iTunes system and use on their beautiful mobile or other devices. Of course, they would have to compete with other companies, who realize that potential too. So, Apple, don't get cheap, good start here is to offer low prices and high quality service. Don't repeat the mistake that leading content providers by having a too high prices and by waiting for all those years to make use of great formats like MP3 and Mpeg4, who lost billions of dollars to small, but numerable firms in Asia, Russia and Europe that had the vision and used the opportunity to produce and sell in those formats. They not only lost money, they lost the momentum, the recognition and will go down a history. And get us the book reader for Iphone and Ipod Touch for Christ Sake...:-))

[pejobass]

Hi,



24 hours to watch the moie is absolutely not realistic. I realized that after having had our first daughter....

We usually take 2 or 3 nights to watch an entire movie and this is the reality of many families with kids. I don't realy understand what would be the finacial damage to have a renter be able to watch a movie over let's say 48 or 72 hours.

Totaly not Applelike"!



Andrea

[muchomac]

Why no 1080p? My guess is it would drive up the cost of the AppleTV and what Jobs wanted to do was drop the price so more people would buy. 1080p TVs are more expensive than 1080i or lower res TVs.

And once again how big do you think the file size will be for 1080p vs 720p? How long will that download be? If you want the average viewer to adopt the rental approach you have to make sure they can start watching the show soon after clicking on it.

I also read that of the 50,000 titles on DVD there's only 400 in 1080p format right now. So why add to the cost of the AppleTV when there's so little content. More content will come you say? So will a revision of the AppleTV.

[muchomac]

pejobass, I agree with you. We have a small child too and as much as we'd like to enjoy a movie in one evening it often doesn't happen. It would be better if they let you have 2-3 days, but then I'm thinking what they're trying to avoid is you telling your friends/family how cool the movie/AppleTV was and inviting them over the next night. Apple wants everyone to buy their own AppleTV!

[bpeacock22]

Agreed. At the price of HD rental, Netflix is still the better value. And I've grown accustomed to planning ahead so that I have the movie I want for the weekend (or whenever). I'd have to see a demo of streaming HD content before deciding to go that route.

[randombob]

muchomac said:

So why add to the cost of the AppleTV when there's so little content. More content will come you say? So will a revision of the AppleTV.

Quote

EXACTLY my point. Don't you see? This is my point. it will come. So will a revision to the ATV. that makes investment in a 720p-only box a stop-gap measure, and for me and many others simply a waste of $200+. The content will come. Adding in 1080p support? More costly? Doubt it. Having the capability there? Not much difference really. Maybe they haven't figured out a way to compress 1080p content for streaming quite yet? No problem, downconvert for now. Then when they DO figure it out? Hey we got the right hardware to play it baby. And also, it would allow people who have 1080p content elsewhere to stream that, so it's not just about bandwidth limitations on downloads, they're essentially saying that even if you already own 1080p content, you're sh!t out of luck, see you in a few.

With it ONLY be 720p, they most definitely will be updating the box later. And that means further expense that really was unnecessary in the first place, as they could have just incorporated it now.

And please don't feed me lines about mass adoption, etc etc. heard of 802.11n? I hear a rumor that apple put that into their computers some 2 years ahead of the ratification of the draft standard. Seems they're not quite afraid to "future-proof" their tech otherwise, huh? All I wanted was that same sort of forward-thinking added to this box.

1080p capability does not somehow preclude 720p content; it is an addition, an extra bit of headroom for the future, much the way building in 802.11n into computers now, when most everything is 802.11a/b/g ? it's about keeping the hardware viable longer.

[MacCheetah3]

HI
You're forgetting a few things...

1) Broadcasted ( cable / satellite ) TV is still 1080i at best ( which is essentially 720p or close enough ). Why? Mainly bandwidth. HD broadcasted programming is still considered a premium service. Apple isn't exactly behind considering the distribution method. Blu-ray DIsc and HD-DVD are 1080p but local media. My fastest Internet connection is 6Mbps and that's the pretty common max around the area. We don't have 15Mbps cable Internet nor FIOS around here. 6Mbps is even nice but I know a lot of people still at 1.5Mbps or less broadband.

2) 1080p HDTVs are finally at reasonable prices and selling fairly well but by no means at a rate that would entice full 1080p on most devices / services.

3) Speaking of bandwidth, Let's talk bandwidth and storage. ~10.5GB ( 1080p ) vs. ~7.15GB ( 720p ) for a film like Transformers ( 2007 version ). That's a pretty significant difference. ~32% less. That's so much more bandwidth for Apple and that much more for the customer to download and wait for.

4) Performance. It seems pretty consistent that most think the AppleTV is a 1GHz Pentium M or mostly comparable CPU, 245MB PC2-3200 ( DDR2-400 ) RAM, 64MB DDR2 nVIdia GPU, and 2.5" HDD. Not bad for a set top box but by no means a "scorcher." THe AppleTV is dedicated, so it doesn't need as high of specs to process multimedia as a computer ( which does a lot of multi-tasking and has a notably more demanding GUI ). However, while it would appear the AppleTV could very well fall within Apple's recommended HD processing specs for video up to 720p, it falls notably short for 1080p: Apple - QuickTime - HD Gallery - System Recommendations That's means a more expensive unit ( hardware ) to purchase. MY 1.8GHz single G5 ( nicer version with 900MHz bus ) with 1.5GB RAM back when was able to push 1080p but I couldn't be doing anything else but watching the QT trailer.

5) Only movies within the last couple years at best have been originally produced in HD, so it would be a lot of just upconverted films anyway.

P.S. I don't know how it happened but I meant in response to randombob

[icerabbit]

Owners of a 5G and 5.5G iPod CAN NOT RENT movies. You are only allowed to buy.

I heard the little detail as well in Steve's keynote stream and sure enough. Some sites have confirmed the 5th gen is out of luck.

[randombob]

again you guys keep pointing to current spec & broadband traffic. But I'm not arguing that, nor have I tried. I agree with that, guys.

but you're failing to look into the future. Like I said in the last post in response to muchomac's "there'll be an Updated Apple TV to buy" statement, that's exactly my point. Now instead of buying ONE machine to get you current for the next 4-5 years, you'd have to buy two. What's more expensive? ONE apple TV priced slightly higher, capable of outputting 1080p, or TWO apple tv's, one that's spec'd like I just mentioned AND another that you had to buy in the meantime that only does 720p?

The answer is obvious. So to stay current as long as possible, now it will cost more. That's what I've been saying. Yes 720p is more prevalent now, but like I said, building in 1080p support now does not preclude 720p content now or in the future. However building ONLY 720p capable hardware DOES preclude 1080p content in the future. Where we could have had both, now we only have one.

[muchomac]

randombob, in an ideal world, yes they should have included 1080p and the upcoming 1440p as well as both BluRay/HD-DVD and a DVR to compete with TiVo. I'd also have liked them to include HDMI revision 1.4 since we all know that's coming like 802.11n a few years ago
but we all know that businesses like to stretch out their product cycle.

our point is that they've served the majority of the consumer market, even 720p is cutting edge to the majority of American consumers, as we keep pointing out, considering the amount of content available

and I'm happy with the lower price point enough now that I'd buy a unit

if it were published and proved that they could have added any of the above mentioned features without driving up the price point, then I agree with you, shame on Apple

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
If I were to guess, Apple isn't wiling to jump too far ahead. 1080p is going to take plenty of years to become mainstream and better solutions of distributing it will probably be available. Plus at a business point, if they released a 1080p unit now, they wouldn't have anything to release for about another 5 years or more except software enhancements.