Apple TV's Pretty, but Xbox 360 Delivers Where It Counts

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/cDugei3VKyxyTv/Apple-TVs-Pretty-but-Xbox-360-Delivers-Where-It-Counts.xhtml' target='_blank'>http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/cDugei3VKyxyTv/Apple-TVs-Pretty-but-Xbox-360-Delivers-Where-It-Counts.xhtml</a><br /><br /></div><i>"I compared the Apple TV to Microsoft's Xbox 360 game console, which can more or less do the same things, acting like a bridge between a Windows computer and an HDTV set. After having my eyes gently caressed by the Apple TV's menus, the Xbox interface is like a slap in the face. It's garish and confusing, and you have to press more buttons to get where you want to go. However, the Xbox does your HDTV justice. Microsoft's Xbox Live marketplace has some movies in HD, and these look absolutely stunning -- better than most broadcast HD, and almost indistinguishable from HD DVD or Blu-ray discs, which provide the best video quality available to consumers right now. Even the standard-definition fare on Xbox Live looks much better than iTunes movies, despite nominally being the same resolution. They look almost as good as DVDs."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/apple-tv.jpg" /> <br /><br />This is exactly what I've been telling people for the past couple of weeks, when asked what I thought of the Apple TV. For the same price ($299 for the Core), you get a box that outputs high definition, that you can buy content directly off of, that streams videos and music from your other PCs, that plays DVDs, and...that you can play games on. The Xbox Live Video Marketplace content looks fantastic, even in SD. Sure, unlike the Apple TV, it doesn't come with a remote. Big deal, buy one for $20. Did I mention that the 360's remote <i>also </i>controls the volume? :lol:

[Felix Torres]

...plus it doesn't need a PC to play music photos or video; you can play them off a burned DVD or USB-attached storage.
It can even do its own CD-ripping.

As for the Apple TV; its been dissected and its parts identified: it runs off a low-power Pentium M (dohan class) running below 1GHz with a laptop NVIDIA graphics chip.
Top supported Video-clip resolution is 1280x720 at 24fps.

I'm sure a hardware update is coming Real.Soon.Now.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Yeah guys... Cause they're like totally meant to serve the same market...

:roll:

[Felix Torres]

Actually, if you listen to the Apple fans posting on the gaming boards all last week, MS introduced the 360 Elite because they were mortally afeared of the Apple TV. :lol:

Realistically, they *are* in fact competitors.
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a Set-top Box War going on; the main contenders are XBOX and PS3 from the console side, Moxie, Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta from the Cable STB industry, TiVo and RCA from the CE industry, and Apple from Sunnyvale, Ca. ;-)
With more players to come.
Especially from the PC side of the business, MCE PCs and more.
HP just announced they are getting into the gaming PC business Real.Soon.Now.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161496

All are after the same thing; pride-of place in the living room as the preferred front end to HD displays.
Things should start heating up in the second half of this year, which is why Apple rushed their half-baked box to market. They need a placeholder for what their true entry into the wars is going to be and they couldn't wait much longer to announce...something...

This is just the beginning.
Prepare yourselves for a lot of unexpected confrontations as the various players seek alliances and entry points onto the battlefield.
The 360 has a strong position but they are hardly the frontrunner; that honor falls to Scientific Atlanta/Cisco.

Things will get bloody, count on it.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Apple's Apple TV is target squarely at folks that have large libraries of iTunes Store purchased content and would like to watch that content on more than a computer or iPod.

So far nothing else serves that market.

The Apple TV does that task excedingly well and anyone calling it half-baked is probably not understanding what it does. It does one task which is extend the iTunes experience outside the desktop computer.

Calling it half-baked would be to insinuate that it doesn't do the task it was designed for well, and frankly I've heard no indication that it doesn't from anyone reviewing it.

Have I heard that people would like more functionality like PVR functionality and DivX / Xvid playback? Well duh, of course, but it doesn't have it because it wasn't meant to bring all your media to your television, just the stuff you purchased from iTunes.

[Felix Torres]

Half-baked means literally that: it does not deliver the full experience for which it was designed for.

Item: you can directly download content off the internet with the AppleTV; just trailers, not actual iTunes content.

Item: the box only spports wide-screen displays, but it only delivers SD-quality content

Lots of other failings have already been documented in the reviews that make it clear this thing was rushed to market incomplete. The very announcement of the product last november, when it only existed as Powerpoint-ware, not even an actual spec-sheet, indicates its a rush job.

Doesn't mean the final product is going to be junk; just the current implementation only delivers half the functionality of what it should for the mission it is clearly intended.

As the original article sparking this thread makes clear, it is *obvious* Apple intends to provide HD video content for sale on iTunes; else why bother putting a *second* video chip on the mobo? If audio and SD video were *all* Apple intended for the box, they would've saved the cost of the Nvidia graphics chip and used the video features on the Intel chipset they are using.

Check these articles to get a better idea of where Apple intends to go with this thing:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2951

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_TV_digital_multimedia_receiver_HDD_recorder/4505-6739_7-32306442.html

Apple has done this before, rush a product with less than full-functionality out the door to establish an installed based before shipping the software that enables full value.
The original iPod preceded iTunes the music store by a year or so, no?
The videp iPod preceded the video section of iYunes by a couple months, no?
Same thing here.

What they shipped is not the finished product.
If nothing else, I'm sure the finished product will include a volume control. ;-)

[Vincent Ferrari]

Half-baked means literally that: it does not deliver the full experience for which it was designed for.

Item: you can directly download content off the internet with the AppleTV; just trailers, not actual iTunes content.

That's not a failure, that's the design. The "experience it was designed for" was getting your iTunes content to your TV, not buying content.

Item: the box only spports wide-screen displays, but it only delivers SD-quality content

You're kidding right? 720p, when last I checked, wasn't standard def. Maybe we have different standards. The BOX delivers the only content on the store for it right now. HOWEVER, if you encode your own OR download movie trailers, it can handle full 720p. The store hasn't caught up yet, but that isn't a failing of the Apple TV itself.

Lots of other failings have already been documented in the reviews that make it clear this thing was rushed to market incomplete. The very announcement of the product last november, when it only existed as Powerpoint-ware, not even an actual spec-sheet, indicates its a rush job.

I don't see how that's any indication of anything. I guess product announcements are now rush jobs. Good to know. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about that in the future. I'll make sure you keep to that standard the next time someone pre-announces a product.

Doesn't mean the final product is going to be junk; just the current implementation only delivers half the functionality of what it should for the mission it is clearly intended.

What is it not functioning as?

It's supposed to get your iTunes content to your TV. If you can provide any means by which it does not accomplish the full spectrum of putting iTunes content on a television, then now would be a good time, otherwise calling it "half the functionality" is completely wrong.

As the original article sparking this thread makes clear, it is *obvious* Apple intends to provide HD video content for sale on iTunes; else why bother putting a *second* video chip on the mobo? If audio and SD video were *all* Apple intended for the box, they would've saved the cost of the Nvidia graphics chip and used the video features on the Intel chipset they are using.

Brilliant. The author of the article just figured out that Apple put a chip on the board to do what it does right now.

Check these articles to get a better idea of where Apple intends to go with this thing:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2951

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_TV_digital_multimedia_receiver_HDD_recorder/4505-6739_7-32306442.html

Apple has done this before, rush a product with less than full-functionality out the door to establish an installed based before shipping the software that enables full value.
The original iPod preceded iTunes the music store by a year or so, no?
The videp iPod preceded the video section of iYunes by a couple months, no?
Same thing here.

Sorry... Not seeing your point here... The iPod functioned perfectly fine without the iTunes store and the Video iPod did the same.

What they shipped is not the finished product.
If nothing else, I'm sure the finished product will include a volume control. ;-)

Everything else aside, that's kind of silly, no?

Do you control your DVD player's volume with your DVD remote?

Or your VCR's volume with your VCR remote?

I could see where it would be annoying but jeez, talk about nitpicking.

[Vincent Ferrari]

BTW: If the Apple TV and, for example a Tivo compete for the same television space, therefore making them competitors, do my toaster, blender, and coffee maker compete too because they compete for counter space?

By that logic, my toaster is a failure because it makes a crappy cup of coffee.

[Jeremy Charette]

What they shipped is not the finished product.
If nothing else, I'm sure the finished product will include a volume control. ;-)

Everything else aside, that's kind of silly, no?

Do you control your DVD player's volume with your DVD remote?

Or your VCR's volume with your VCR remote?

I could see where it would be annoying but jeez, talk about nitpicking.

The volume control for all my devices is my receiver. And yes, all of my remotes are setup to control the volume on my receiver. The fact that the Apple Remote doesn't control the volume on the Apple TV OR your receiver OR your TV is ridiculous. The five button remote is just not going to cut it in an entertainment center.

My point would be this: I want a convergence device. It should play my content purchased online. It should play DVDs (and maybe HD DVDs). It should be able to access the content on my portable devices and play it back. It should network to the other PCs in my house and play content from them as well. It should do it all in high definition. And I should be able to watch live TV on it as well. The Xbox 360 does all of that. The only thing it doesn't do is access content purchased from iTMS.

I don't want to have a DVD player, and an Apple TV, and a TiVo, and, and, and...I want one device that does it all. The 360 does that. Coupled with a Media Center PC, it does alot more. I will never buy an Apple TV because it does one thing that I'm not very interested in.

Oh, as for your kitchen counter, the toaster wins because it does everything including make you toast in the morning. 8)

[Vincent Ferrari]

I will never buy an Apple TV because it does one thing that I'm not very interested in.

That's fine. But it is doing the one thing it was set up to do, it does it perfectly, and that's the bottom line. Whether or not the iTunes store is your cup of tea is a different conversation. If it is, then you're golden. If not, the device wasn't intended for you in the first place.

[Jeremy Charette]

Which is precisely why Microsoft has 93% of the PC market share, and Apple has 7%.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Oh good. A market share argument is definitely a good one because marketshare obviously equals superiority.

(packs his stuff and heads to the next thread where people don't call their cars half-baked for not being able to mow their lawns)

[Jeremy Charette]

I'm not bashing Apple, or people who buy their products. But you have to admit that Apple operates in a "walled garden", and has for many years. They want you to buy a Mac, use your iPod with it, to buy stuff from the iTMS, which you then watch in SD resolution on your HDTV using an Apple TV.

Microsoft's solutions (Media Center and 360) allow you greater freedom and flexibility in how you choose to use them. That's important to me. I do have an iPod, and I do use iTunes and the iTMS. But I buy most of my music on CDs, and my music is ripped in MP3 format, not AAC.

My point was that Apple's walled garden ecosystem appeals to a small segment of the market. Most people would rather not be locked into Apple hardware and software, and want interoperability between their devices. Microsoft offers that, even encourages it. Apple doesn't.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Microsoft encourages you to use Microsoft's programs on Microsoft platforms with Microsoft digital music stores and movie providers.

Microsoft encourages people to buy Zunes, movies from XBox live, and media center PC's and Windows.

If Microsoft isn't a great example of a "walled garden" I don't know what is. Hell, look at the Zune. 1 player. 1 provider. This is a company that realizes that doing such is the only way to control the user experience end to end, something Apple realized long ago.

Before you bash the walled garden, you'd better be prepared because Microsoft has a buttload of mortar and cinderblocks and they aren't building an open house with it.

[Macguy59]

Before you bash the walled garden, you'd better be prepared because Microsoft has a buttload of mortar and cinderblocks and they aren't building an open house with it.

:lol: Well played but you're supposed to overlook the Zune :wink:

[Jeremy Charette]

I don't disagree that Microsoft has a walled garden, but they promote interoperability, something Apple doesn't. Plays for Sure, music subscription services, movie subscription services...these are things Apple doesn't offer. You can get your music from a variety of providers, as well as your movies. You can play them back on a variety of devices, not just those built and sold by Microsoft.

Microsoft isn't a content provider, they create platforms and tools to do that. Apple doesn't. Apple wants a piece of the action every step of the way, from the hardware and software used to access and playback content, to being the actual content distributor.

The only reason Microsoft released the Zune was because their efforts to support a 3rd party player failed. They've admitted as much. The only way for them to even hope of competing with the iPod was to get into the hardware business. They still support Plays for Sure on a variety of third party players. Meanwhile you can't play iTMS files on anything other than iTunes or an iPod.

Is Microsoft getting into the content distribution business? Yes. Do they want to? Not necessarily. Sure, it's profitable, but they've tried for years to leave that in the hands of others, and failed. They've seen Apple's closed ecosystem approach as a threat, and are trying to counter it, while still maintaining that interoperable approach. So far, it's a mixed bag, but it's more than Apple's willing to share.

I'm more interested in where Apple and Microsoft will be in a year than where they are today. These are just the opening shots in a long war.

[Felix Torres]

(packs his stuff and heads to the next thread where people don't call their cars half-baked for not being able to mow their lawns)

Wow!
You really don't like that adjective, huh?

So what should we call it?
alphaware?
proof of concept-ware?
Don't think its quite beta-quality myself but you seem to consider it a full competitive product ready to take the market by storm.

I'd beg to differ.
Except for the hackers turning AppleTVs into Apache servers this puppy isn't going anywhere *as is*.
The good news it it clearly won't stay *as is*.

Look, to use your own motor car analogy; if Toyota is selling a 2 ton pickup-truck with a honking big V8 engine, I rightfully expect it to be good enough to tow a trailer. But if Toyota sells that vehicle without a trailer hitch and offers no mounting points for such a hitch then clearly that truck is an incomplete product that does not do what competing products do and what the category is expected to do.

Similar example: Sony has of late made a habit of shipping products with incomplete functionality and then enabling the *promised* functionality with patch after patch over a period of months. PSX, PSP, even PS3 all shipped as incomplete products that lacked the software to deliver the features the hardware was designed to provide.

Apple already did it with the 802.11n functionality of their laptops. You did hear of this, right? The hardware was built and sold with 802.11n chipsets but the software only supported g-level wi-fi. To get n-level you had to pay extra.

That is what AppleTV looks like from this corner; the box is *clearly* designed to provide a set of features that are not supported by the software provided. And the Apple documentation makes it *clear* that at some point the product will do this.

They just expect customers to buy the incomplete product as-is and wait for the software to be ready to unlock the rest of the hardware functionality later. And with Apple's track record...
(Fool me once shame on you, etc)

This is buying a car with a navigation system but without the data DVD that enables the nav system to work. If somebody tried to sell this, most folks would shake their heads and walk away. More, if that somebody *already* had a history of *charging* for software updates that enable hardware features already in place, most folks would run, not just walk away.

Now, if you stop to consider the design decisions Apple made with the AppleTV:

- Intel CPU instead of a CE-grade multimedia processor (say, Sigmatel or equivalent) like those in the iPods and other dedicated streamer boxes

- MacOS instead of proprietary firmware, like the iPods and every other streaming media box out there

- NVidia graphics chip instead of the onboard graphics already in place with the Intel chipset

- HD-grade video output and USB 2.0 port

- Support for 1280x720 video (its not really ATSC-grade 720p but its pretty good) via H.264 MPeg4

Now, why build in those features if they're not intended to be used?
Clearly they have a purpose and the purpose given Apple's known philosophies is obvious:
Apple intends to sell HD movies over iTunes.
No, duh, right?
More, odds are Apple will offer a DVD player burner attachment so that the customer can download the movie and burn it to a data disk that would then play the movie off the disc in any Macintosh or AppleTV.

Now, at *that* point, AppleTV becomes a respectable product.
Something to seriously consider.
Something that actually delivers the value designed into the hardware.

But if we as consumers keep going for this "release first, patch later" strategy the companies will continue to use us as *paying* alpha- and beta-testers. And yes, Microsoft has started charging for beta-software. But they don't charge full price and at least they *admit* you are paying for a beta product. This is not an Apple vs Microsoft Thing; this is an Apple vs consumers things.

Don't like half baked? Fine; I withdraw the term.

I'll call it a paid beta-test.

Or call it what you will, but don't call it a finished product because it isn't.
Just don't be surprised if Apple charges for the update that allows movie downloads and/or DVD burns.
They did it to the laptop buyers they'll do it to AppleTV buyers.

The AppleTV product they are selling today is *not* the full product, the product they will be selling in December.

That one may actually be a worthy competitor to the PS3 and the 360.
(Heck, if the rumors are right and Apple is *really* hiring game programmers, the AppleTV will likely play downloadable games!)

Oh, and as for the volume control peeve?
Sony has the same problem, but worse; *they* went with Bluetooth for the PS3 remote. RF instead of IR.
Both have the exact same issue; they do not *integrate* into the home theater system!!!

You simply do not ship a living room product with a remote control that can't integrate into the existing infrastructure. Even $29 DVD players come with "universal" remote that allow control of the TV.

This will change, I'm sure.
Its just that as I said initially, this thing was *rushed* to market.

With MS holding a 6 million installed base in the US, Sony at 2 million and growing, Apple had to get their foot in the door; they couldn't wait to announce something and ship something. But just because the company has to ship the thing as-is doesn't mean we should buy it or look the other way and cover up for them.

Companies are like children, the more you make excuses for their misbehavior the more they push the envelope. Shipping products with "locked" hardware features that cost *extra* to unlock is unacceptable. It is unacceptable when car manufacturers do it and it should be unacceptable for the golden boys of Cupertino.

The choice is either call them on their practices or...BOHICA!!!

I know where I stand.

[Vincent Ferrari]

That is what AppleTV looks like from this corner; the box is *clearly* designed to provide a set of features that are not supported by the software provided. And the Apple documentation makes it *clear* that at some point the product will do this.

LIKE WHAT?

The closest we've come is HD video, but it does do 720p video; 720p just isn't available on the iTunes store yet.

I see a lot of beating up over a $299 box, and a lot of praise for a box that costs twice as much, but it seems there are details being lost here.

The bottom line is a simple one. If you don't have a lot of iTunes purchased content, then yes, the AppleTV is not for you. Then you can drop $500 on an XBox 360 and not miss out on anything. More power to you. Enjoy! Don't let me stop you! HAVE SO MUCH FUN YOU PUKE.

The AppleTV is a $299 box targeted at people like me who have large libraries of iTunes purchased content. Your constant assertions about it's "alpha" or "incomplete" or "half-baked" features prove that you have no concept whatsoever of what the device is for. If you did, you would realize that it does exactly what it says it does.

It gets your iTunes stuff to your TV.

I don't care if they built it with a quad core Xeon 5300 or a Crusoe. It does what it says it does and it has room to grow. If it never ever grows, it still does what it says it does.

This argument has gotten to the point where we're comparing a $500 second generation console to a $300 first generation media extender. I think we should really up the ante and compare the $300 media extender to a portable DVD player since we're being ridiculous.

I noticed also that you bring up the 802.11n thing. I wasn't thrilled about it but it is what it is. With the SEC breathing down their necks, their accountants and lawyers probably said it would be wise to follow SO to the letter of the law. I don't think it was so unreasonable considering the circumstances. If Apple's motivation was milking people, then surely they would've started banging people a long time ago.

Nobody "fooled" anyone once. And if you bought an AirPort base station you got the software for free as part of the bundle.

But hey... You keep muckraking... Those "golden boys" in Cupertino sure need the whooping you're giving 'em. I'll just continue to be a corporate apologist, I guess. I'll keep "covering up" as part of the grand Apple Fanboy Cult to take over the world and so on...

I'm gonna go hang out with Artice MacStrawman now seeing as we both believe Apple is perfect, makes no mistakes, and everything Steve Jobs says and produces is godly.

[Outlaw94]

I see both sides of your discussion and I believe that the Xbox and Apple TV will both be successful in their own rights. While I enjoy my Xbox with it's media center extender capabilities it wasn't able to stream my iTunes purchased TV shows. I was forced to watch them using my computer screan or my ipod.

It would be really nice if Apple would open up the Apple TV to play all kinds of media. I have a great deal of Divx and Xvid content and again no way of getting it to my TV.

Right now the Apple TV does what is advertised even though it has much more under the hood and more than likely will be patched for greater flexibilty in your home theater but unless you use iTunes, have alot of content, and videos encoded in the correct format the Apple TV is not worth the $300 as it stands right now.

And just for the record, Apple could have offered the software to unlock the N wifi for free but choose not too. This is not based on any type of accounting that I am familiar with. They more than likely wanted to offset the costs of the software code that they had to develop and test before release. I don't blame them, they are in business to make money not lose it. And I am an accountant.

[Felix Torres]

AppleTV=MacNano:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2007/04/appletvhacks_0406

MCE next. :wink:

[Vincent Ferrari]

And just for the record, Apple could have offered the software to unlock the N wifi for free but choose not too. This is not based on any type of accounting that I am familiar with. They more than likely wanted to offset the costs of the software code that they had to develop and test before release. I don't blame them, they are in business to make money not lose it. And I am an accountant.

I've seen both sides. Some say it's because of Sarbanes Oxley, and some say they're being overly cautious. Depends on who you ask.

MCE next.

Eh... On a 1 Gig M with 256 megs of Ram... I don't know... I think the beauty of the AppleTV is the sheer volume of hacks we're seeing for it. People are having a field day with it! (I personally think MythTV would be a logical next move just because it's lighter on system requirements than MCE)

[Jeremy Charette]

Then you can drop $500 on an XBox 360 and not miss out on anything.

Um...not to nitpick, but the 360 is $299. If you want the remote, add $20.

[Vincent Ferrari]

And if you want to play movies, another $100 for the 20 gig HD.

I was off by $80.

Shoot me.

[Jeremy Charette]

Touche.

[RichL]

For the same price ($299 for the Core), you get a box that outputs high definition, that you can buy content directly off of, that streams videos and music from your other PCs, that plays DVDs, and...that you can play games on.

I'm not interested in Apple TV, but this comparison doesn't work.

How many HD movies are you going to download onto a Core's zero disk space? How many HD movies are you going to watch over a composite video cable? Also, Xbox Live Marketplace only serves up videos in North America. If you're anywhere else, you're out of luck.

The comparison only works if you buy the more expensive Premium/Elite versions of the console and you own a PC that runs Windows XP Media Edition/Vista Home Premium/Vista Ultimate. Even then, I personally find the performance to be very poor and the range of supported codec to be woeful. MCE is a nice idea, poorly implemented (for technical or political reasons).

[Jeremy Charette]

I admit, I goofed on the comparison. You need the hard drive to make full use of the Xbox Live Video Marketplace. Still for $100 more, it does so much more than the Apple TV.

Also, Xbox Live Marketplace only serves up videos in North America. If you're anywhere else, you're out of luck.

How is this any different from iTMS? Apple doesn't have worldwide licensing agreements for most of their content, and their international stores offer a far small collection than the North American store.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/25/whats-the-rest-of-the-world-doing-with-their-apple-tv/

[Jeremy Charette]

Why Jason Dunn will never buy an Apple TV: iTMS Canada doesn't offer movies and TV shows for sale.

[Tim Williamson]

But you don't have to spend $100 in order to play movies you've ripped from your DVD collection that are stored on your PC/external USB hard drive right?