The Contradictions of Apple TV
Apple TV is a curious device. Stuck between the digital media and high definition content. In many ways this is a battle of gigabytes. Sony’s Blue Ray’s hold 50 gigabytes of data, ensuring an extremely high definition user experience. Apple’s movies come in at a much smaller size than Blue Ray ensuring the ability for them to be downloaded in a reasonable time, and stored without breaking the bank.
Music from Apple has a similar compromise. We buy music from the Apple music store that is of lower quality than a CD and we do it by the millions. We except this compromise because the disadvantages seem minimal, particuarly when we listen to the music on our iPod earbuds.
But will we except this compromise in our home theatres? Walk into a local Best Buy or Circuit City and you will be baragged by all kinds of numbers. And all these numbers lead to one conclusion, the higher the definition the better.
There is another aspect to this equation too. And that is that the more you pay the higher the quality, and, conversly, the less you pay the less the quality. It is a model that TV viewers have become very accoustmed too. When the DVD first came out players and the disks were more expensive than VHS. But us consumers were fine with that because you got a higher quality image, menus, and more content.
So, what do you get with the Apple TV? Currently you get movies that cost $14.95 and have nowhere near the quality of DVDs let alone Blue Ray. They do not have the menuing features of DVD, and perhaps most startling of all, they movies play in stereo. Now pretty much every Tom, Dick, and Harry have surround sound systems and flat screens. Movies downloaded from the iTunes music store are quite simply an inferior experience.
Yes we can rip our DVDs (note, you first have to buy the DVD, then take the time to do this, plus have pretty ample storage space plus circuvent the law) but the fact is the experience will not be as good as a DVD.
The quality gap gets much worse when you compare what is going on with Bluetooth and HD-DVD. These technologies work best on 1080p devices, something the Apple TV can’t even come close to rendering.
The ultimate question is whether we will trade the convieniance of having our movies as digital files, able to stream throughout our households, with this quality. My personal answer is a strong no. I think the Apple TV is a few years too late. With the growth on-demand viewing with almost all cable and other providers the age of being able to select any move or tv show ever made is becoming very close. It simply is a matter of time. And unlike music consumers have a strong preference and precedent for renting, not owning content. Netflix will no doubt come out with a killer service (they recently demoed an amazing movie viewing interface, that works on PCs and Macs at MIX07). And when they do the Apple TV will just gather dust.


Comments
I’ll probably sound like a jerk here, but I feel like I HAVE to say something. Are you a professional journalist, or is this more like a blog for you? I ask this because there is an abundance of typos, misspellings, misused words and poor grammar in your article. You’re supposed to be part of the tech-savvy bunch. At the very least, use your spell-check feature!
Thanks
I have a widescreen SDTV. I very rarely see any TV being sold that isn’t widescreen, whether SD or HD.
I do find the widescreen requirement a bit strange. Does anyone have a link to someone documenting trying to plug it into a non-widescreen tv? Couldn’t you just set the tv from pan & scan to letterbox?
Requiring an HDTV but providing no HD content isn’t future-proofing. It’s just stupid.
Well maybe, but it does mean that it isn’t stupid to buy an Apple TV now, because when the HD content comes (and it will come), you’ll be ready. So it is futureproofing, it’s just not present-proofing...!
I also wonder about the 4:3 TV that is worth keeping while still exhibiting neither an option to “squeeze” anamorphic content into a letterboxed picture, nor component input. Now component is not as usual in old TVs here in Europe, we are more used to having RGB via SCART connectors, but I know it is well-established in the US.
I never “got” Apple TV. I have to admit I’m an atypical viewer, I watch TV for some sports and to watch DvDs. I do have a few children’s movies on my iPod, but when my grandkids are at my house, I play the DVD. I suppose getting around 10 minutes of ads in the front of the DVDs might be worth giving up the fidelity of the DVD, but not of a High-Res disk.
What I’d pay for is a higher quality 5.1 music down load. Even if I can’t get that on my iPod, my computer supports 5.1, and some games headphones support it as well. Get the quality recordings now and be set for the future.
Speaking of which, I keep looking for how to upgrade my iStore purchases, but so far haven’t seen a clue on how to do so.
You need to upgrade iTunes first?
I very rarely see any TV being sold that isn’t widescreen, whether SD or HD
Well in the US, it’s extremely rare. HD is making inroads, to be sure, but it isn’t there yet.
Well maybe, but it does mean that it isn’t stupid to buy an Apple TV now, because when the HD content comes (and it will come)
When it comes, AppleTV will be on the third or fourth revision. Might as well wait. Otherwise it’s like buying that very first Blu-ray player when there were essentially no Blu-ray movies. You were prepared, sure, but the new players are better and cheaper, and those who waited didn’t miss anything.
Content, as they say, is king.
Sure, except Blu-Ray players cost a thousand smackeroonies, and in the meantime if you do have a widescreen SDTV and don’t throw out the other features with the bathwater, as actual device owners have said above.
I agree, I wouldn’t buy one, and the target market (widescreen owners who really want their iTunes content in their living room) may be small, but for those people, it’s a great device. And future-proof to boot.
Sure, except Blu-Ray players cost a thousand smackeroonies
Yes, but they were “future proof”, Ben, which apparently is enough to negate any other lack of features or content. Jeez.
Future proof. Future proof. Future proof. No content? Who cares, it’s future proof. Future proof. Future proof.
Thanks for that.
Also, Blu-Ray players aren’t future-proof, because Blu-Ray has a substantial chance, at least 50% at this stage, of losing to HD-DVD.
Can I just say, rather than repeating the phrase “future proof” six times, it might be more mature to respond to the point: that Apple TV is a good product for a small market, and future proof. Obviously a future proof product with zero purpose in the heree-and-now is a ridiculous proposition as prices always fall over time.
But Apple TV has a legitimate target market and for those people, it is nothing like buying into an enormously expensive unproven technology with at *best* a 50% chance of not dying completely in the very near future.
What are you saying, that because I say the Apple TV has a relatively small market in which it is a very decent product right now and will be useful for the future… what? I’m somehow retarded? Uncontrollably unobjective? Whatever it is, please do tell, I can’t wait to hear it.