Scobleizer - Latest Comments in AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

RK WIFI — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:17:00 -0000

Marvell has a converter that takes this resolution and bumps it to High Def on the fly !!!! Apple will make great use of this device.

It was demonstrated using a IPOD and it looked incredible .

Here is a link:

http://www.eetasia.com/ART_...

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Micah — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:16:29 -0000

I would buy an AppleTV if it had 1080i.
I would buy an Airport Express if it had gigabit.

The good news is, I guess, that nobody seems to be doing these things well. I have been thinking about buying an XBox 360, but I am scared of the fact that most Microsoft products are not compatible with things not made by Microsoft. Microsoft can rarely get their own stuff to be compatible.

Linksys, D-Link, and Netgear all don't seem to be able to make a reliable 802.11n router with gigabit. Apple's router may be reliable, but it doesn't have gigabit. I suppose I could buy a gigabit switch, but I don't think I should need to.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Guy Pelletier — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:10:57 -0000

Wow, this is still going on, the iTV is not out yet folks, save the banter for when you have something to complain about.

Guy

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Jeff — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:54:27 -0000

Jason B.: I'm going to politely as possible tell you to bite me, because I shoot HD for money. I have my own gear. Your silly Mac insults don't grant you any more credibility.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

UltraMegaChicken — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:14:52 -0000

Who the hell wants to take the time to download a movie, to then play on an iPod, to then sit in front of the computer and watch it, to then connect the computer to that expensive new Plasma screen .... only a Mac fanatic would do that, and then only to brag that he could do it.

Well I can shit and fall back in it, I wouldn't suggest bragging about that.

No, bragging about useless gadgets is sort of like inflating one's ego. I always sort of thought that men of small stature that insist on owning huge pick up trucks, you know the type, probably (just guessing here), are trying to some how make up for the fact that they feel they are lacking in other arenas that may be of greater interest to the ladies.

So I sort of think that this is a parallel situation of an electronic nature. Computer nerds and hippies in SF can wooo about their iTV and their iPhone, and their iPod.

Good gawd, we put a man on the moon with less computer technology than is in a typical 1998 Chrysler, and the friggen "ithis" makes people nearly orgasm? All I can say is that you people who enjoy these products probably don't get much work done at work, probably have a very boring life, and probably are simply making up for some other area that you feel you are lacking in.

Grow up, there is a real world out there and Steve Jobs ain't god. Ha ha ha!

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Joe — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:55:59 -0000

ZF-- all excellent points. The biggest being that progressive images degrade less in the encoding process, which is why bit rate is often more important to perceived resolution w/re picture quality than actual picture resolution. And as you pointed out, actual horizontal resolution of a broadcast 1080i60 images works out to a real world max of around 1400 pixels.

So far, the only place where I've seen 720p24 used is in video cameras marketed primarily to independant filmmakers a couple of years ago (Panasonic and JVC). The advantage touted is that the progressive 24fps image is more film-like than a 1080i60 image.

The best way to display a 720p24 image would be to triple the refresh to 720p72, and while most computer monitors (and higher-end projectors) should be able to display this refresh rate, it would require an outboard video processor that would end up costing several times the Apple's $299 price. I don't think any consumer television monitors perform this internally or even have the bandwidth to accept a 72hz progressive signal.

It could also be doubled, but I know people who claim headaches from the flicker from a 48hz image. Of course this is in the home theatre world where such images are viewed in a completely light-controlled room, which would magnify such effects. And that's also not the target market for this device.

I'm more inclined to think of the device as DOA, but I tend to think that if I don't want something, nobody else does, either. However, some of the vitrolic and woefully uninformed comments (not yours obviously) here are making me think that there may be a market for it. And there's always hope for version 2.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

ZF — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:26:35 -0000

"Also not true. For film-based sources, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to a true (not interpolated) 1080p24 image."

That sounds good, and is a fairly easy process. Hopefully all the 1080p monitors out there will have such pulldown removal in hardware (as I'm sure do the HD DVD players). However, I'd be very surprised if the vertical resolution of the film image isn't deliberately degraded a during the telecine or encoding process so it doens't flicker on interlaced displays. Even so I'd expect film converted to 1080i60 to at least hold more horizontal information than 720, and for this detail to be apparent --assuming that the consumer's output device can actually display the additional horizontal resolution. The consumer DLP 1080 HD monitors that are going to sell like hotcakes this year use micromirror arrays that are 960x1080 native resolution and use "wobbulation" to draw 1920 horizontal pixels. I don't expect this to hold the detail as well as that which would be produced by a real 1920x1080 array. It'd be interesting to compare 1280x720 and 1920x1080 images produced on these 960x1080 sensor driven sets. In any case, point taken, with caveats.

"And for video-based sources, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to a true 1080p30 image. Both of these are very much superior to a 720p24 image."

I agree in theory, but it's a little more complicated than that. 1080i wins in terms of horizontal resolution(*), but its vertical resolution is not necessarily any better even after the most perfect deinterlacing process because the vertical resolution of each set of fields was deliberately lowered in camera to reduce interlace flicker. Progressive images also degrade less from mpeg-2 compression (a common broadcast, satellite, and cable format) than interlaced ones (also true for h264?). And if we're discussing video-based sources, I wonder if 720p24 is nearly as common as 720p60 for video acquisition. But yours is a fair comparison if the appleTV only can output 720p24, other devices on the market play 720p60, and 720p60 videos are available for playback on those devices.

"And converting 720p60 video to 720p24 requires 3:2 pulldown, which introduces the same motion artifacts as are present in 1080i60, only larger."

True, but I'd guess not very relevant for most videos currently available online. The movies people buy in the iTMS and watch on their 720 playback devices and 720-capable monitors will all be 720p24, not 720p60, hence no motion artifacts (unless 720 capable monitors only run at a multiple of 60Hz and can't do multiples of 24Hz). I'd agree that people who want to watch more 720p60 sports videos and other material originating in 720 would be better served by a player that can output 720p60 than one that has to convert the video to 720p24. If the XBox 360 with media extender plays 720p60, that's another mark in its favor for such videos.

There are so many compromises built into the HD capture, transmission/distribution, and display pipeline that the resolution advantage of 1080i formats over 720p is exaggerated in practice (at the current time), and the appleTV unit would likely not be the weakest link in one's HD-viewing chain. But the v1 appleTV in offering only 720p does seem less than future-proof.

Enough hair-splitting on my part. The point I'm trying and failing to make is: Scoble thinks the appleTV is "dead on arrival" due to the lack of 1080 support. I think the lack of 1080 support is a true but not deal-breaking deficiency, that the device has other, bigger deficiencies, that it won't meet my needs, but I also think there might be a market for it and it may work well for that market segment. My disagreement extends mostly to the idea that the product deserves the DOA moniker.

-Z

* (few if any HD cameras commonly used for broadcast actually have 1920x1080 sensors, some commonly-used telecine devices are not truly 1920x1080, and most HD tape recording formats also use a lower horizontal resolution--both these caveats likely also apply to the 720 formats, I'm not sure to what degree --there may be more broadcast cameras that shoot full-res 720 and formats that record it, or there may not)

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Greg Furry — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:50:41 -0000

Hans - The icons are so huge because you need to hit them with your fingers.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Hans — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:13:43 -0000

Since Apple TV is 720p, we can all agree that it should be the standard resolution for HDTV. After all it is Apple Inc., they can't miss anything.They are always ahead.

On the other note, iphone's ui is slap on user's face. How come those icons are so huge? Apple users are still breastfed babies I guess.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Hans — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:12:21 -0000

while 306 is capable of doing 1080p@30, what makes you say it can't do 720p@60?@ZF

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Joe — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:17:26 -0000

"Also remember that 720p is actually higher quality than 1080i. 1080i video looks noticeably worse than 720p — even on an HDTV that actually has 1080 lines of resolution.
"1080p isn’t supported for broadcast video.
"720p is a perfectly acceptable choice. Apple TV supports 1080i, but it is inferior to 720p, so Jobs noted the highest quality that Apple TV can output." --Comment by Mark Jaquith
-

No, it's not. The argument that 720p60 (1280x720x60=55MPps)is somehow superior to 1080i60 (1920x1080x30=62MPps) based on the fact that the total number of unique pixels/second is similar to 1080i60 with fewer interlace-induced motion artifacts. 720p60 also does not look better on a 1080-native device. Anyway, the 720p60 vs. 1080i60 argument becomes academic with respect to the Apple TV device, which is only capable of 720p24.

1080p24 is also in the ATSC standard for broadcast, but to my knowlege, no one has announced its use.

You also give Steve Jobs too much credit-- he didn't choose 720p24 because it provides higher quality than 1080i60 (and it doesn't, not by a longshot), but rather because it has much lower hardware requirements for playback, which was needed to get to the $299 price point while still being able to call the box 'HD.'

"For watching movies shot on film, 720p will be superior to 1080i unless you’re a big fan of either interlacing artifacts or reduced resolution due to deinterlacing. 1080p would be superior, it’s a newer standard though and not supported by nearly as much hardware." --Comment by ZF
-

Also not true. For film-based sources, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to a true (not interpolated) 1080p24 image. And for video-based sources, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to a true 1080p30 image. Both of these are very much superior to a 720p24 image. And converting 720p60 video to 720p24 requires 3:2 pulldown, which introduces the same motion artifacts as are present in 1080i60, only larger.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Angel — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:22:22 -0000

Is ESPN lame, Robert?

Are all the movies that Xbox Live starting selling just a few months ago lame, Robert?

You should really give up this whole 720p and 1080i game. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The Apple TV has much bigger problems than the 720p "issue".

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

ZF — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:51:26 -0000

You're right of course. It is a deficiency, especially for people who have or are considering the purchase of 1080i monitors. I was just picking nits by pointing out that for watching movies, I'd choose 720p (esp. 720p24) over 1080i. For this reason I don't think the lack of 1080 support is a complete disaster, but it is a minor one.

There are other, bigger deficiencies I see to the unit. The appleTV looks to be designed for a single purpose --to play media purchased in the iTMS on the user's TV. The fact that it doesn't do much else is an issue for those of us who have other needs or like our devices flexible and complex. appleTV is just the Airport Express for video.

Here are some details on the device's limitations:
http://arstechnica.com/jour...

Then again, when the Airport Express launched I was similarly dismissive of its built-in limitations, and after recently seeing and using one at a friend's have entertained the thought of purchasing one. Even though I know there are devices out there with twice the features, or that I could hack together a linux box out of old parts for free and do all the same things with some scripting at both ends, the simplicity and form factor of the Airport Express wins out (the limiting factor for me on that one is the price).

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Robert Scoble — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:06:59 -0000

ZF: Xbox had 1080i at launch. More than a year ago. Which demonstrates just how lame a product that is launched today without 1080 support is.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

ZF — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:26:12 -0000

Here's some decent info on 1080p:
http://editorials.teamxbox....

I think it's fair to complain that the appleTV doesn't do 1080p at launch, and it's also fair to note that the XBox360 also launched without 1080p and gained this ability later in a software update. 1080i is a non-issue for me, as I'd prefer 720p for progressive content, though 1080p would kick ass when paired with a nice 1080p monitor (if you've got an older 1080 set, it is 1080i not 1080p). 'Course, it's all a non-issue for me right now as I don't have any HD content to watch at the moment and am living in a country where VCDs are still in circulation :)

Speaking of 720p, it'd be amazing if the XBox360 supported 720p60. Now that would be fluid motion (anyone ever see a Showscan demo?).

I'm amused that somehow Al Gore ended up in this discussion. Can someone please try to tie other relevant politicians like Nixon, Zachary Taylor, Hillary, and Hubert Humphrey into this thread?

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Jason B. — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:37:03 -0000

I think everyone is missing one big point. Some folks made the big mistake of thinking Steve Job's Stole the show at CES when the only thing he stole was a Cisco trademark. The partnerships what were made at this CES alone will amount to more installed Microsoft home ecosystems than Apple TV's sold all next year. If you look at the hotels out there, if you look at the new 1million dollar homes, they are all running Microsoft.

Steve jobs in his "I love myself more than even my own mom" kind of way forgot one important thing. To think you are too good for the "CEDIA" market is a big mistake. Once these gear heads learn about media center, that's all they'll talk about, when the new homeowner looks at his options that the builder gives him, Microsoft will be the only vendor on the sheet. I said it once before and I'll say it again, Microsoft will remain the leader in the living room for the foreseeable future. Al Gore fanatic types with an Apple logo on their minivan are the target audience for this type of thing, people who need Apple to feel special as far as I can tell. Or I guess that's the best I can make of it. If you try to tell me the 360 is hard to operate (when working) then we need to get you a VCR.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Stephan Kanthak — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:38:27 -0000

I don't get the point why 1080i should be better than 720p and also not the point why AppleTV shouldn't be capable of 1080i when it already does 720p. From a complexity point of view (counting CPU cycles necessary to decode & display a single frame) 720p is more complex than 1080i by about 33%.

Some people might also claim now that with a good deinterlacer in the TV set you should have higher resolution with 1080i, but that's only true for still images. Overall image quality should be roughly comparable between 1080i and 720p. 1080i is slightly better with still images, 720p slightly better with motion pictures.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

PF — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:49:27 -0000

I can't believe I read through this lengthy thread in its entirety... one thing became obvious though, you're all hung up about a tech spec. Take a step back and realise that not implementing the absoulte bleeding edge alternative of every feature isn't the end of the world. The Wii is so technically pwn3d by ps3 and xbox360 but last i read it was selling like hotcakes, just as appleTV isn't going to be dead in the water cos of 720p. I read through the tech specs of every electronic device I buy. One spec that is not the latest and greatest doesn't bother the average consumer.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

snipedout99 — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:47:06 -0000

you shouldnt compare the xbox 360 to Apple TV

http://falcons28.wordpress....

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Goebbels — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:31:42 -0000

"iPhone has ziltch to do with Zune or any other media player."

It has everything to do with it.

That's the problem with MS fanboys and geeks: you look at a product and compare it feature for feature and price to price...

The point is this: Apple has been in the market for 5 years, hits every segment of the handheld market, the livingroom, the phone, its store is the largest and sells music, videos, TV, and films... The iPhone seals the highend cake, it shows innovation. It closes the circle and makes Zune look pathetic.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Stanley — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:16:59 -0000

iPhone has ziltch to do with Zune or any other media player. A $600 device is not in the same market as a $200 device. Only a complete moron walks into a store looking to by a $200 media player and instead decides on a $600 phone.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Brian K — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:57:57 -0000

I agree that 720 is not cool, just as I agreed with most that 128 bit was not cool for iTunes AAC files.
But, Im a tech geek, as are most of your readers, so we all try to do a bit of future proofing, or we just get high end stuff because we can or just because we want. Having said that I still think the Apple-TV will be a hit with iTunes store users, or at least the Mac base, therefore it will do ok. So 18 months from now when there is a ton of 1080 content and screens, Im sure we will be at AppleTV V.3.0 With RSS reader, 1080p, Solitaire, : ) , calendar, ect ect.......
Its good enough for now and if you have a few dollars of purchased iTunes content then its attractive. Even though its physical form factor disappoints as well.

Did I hope for better out of this version 1.0 product? yes i did, is it DOA? Now thats just silly.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Chris — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:45:32 -0000

720 p... I'm an Xbox guy as well, but isn't the Xbox maxed out at 1080i and don't a lot of people believe 720p is better than 1080i anyway?

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

Shawn — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:19:15 -0000

Jeff-

Oh my. Did you just imply that Apple/iTunes does not have "nasty DRM" AND 720/1080 look identical? I think you need to step away from the tech blogs for a while...or maybe spend more time reading vs posting. Apple's DRM (and crappy codec) on iTunes is one of the main reason many of us are sticking with devices from Creative (and similar) for now.

Re: AppleTV: Xbox without the “X?”

natal — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:38:00 -0000

Hmm, Im afraid the rest of the free world doesn’t agree with you.
Most people see this and feel sorry for the competition.
Most people see this and think the Zune is dead meat.

As for the AppleTV… it’s a home media server. The exact same thing MS trotted out, only it’s about 10% the size. Are you saying the Home Media Server is a waste of time? Interesting…
====================================

God, 1st I didn't mention zune. And as for appltTV, did you just call appleTV a "server"? Check http://www.winsupersite.com... this out, then you know what is a "server". Xbox appeared in the market far earlier than appletv and can do far more things (eg games) than appletv.

And who is "the rest of the world"? That is interesting.