Talk:Apple TV/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have a link to Steve Job's annoucement of iTV? I'd like to watch it.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.25.33 (talk • contribs) 20:40, September 30, 2006  (UTC)
:Try http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/sep_2006/event/index.html --rogerd 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Steve Job's Announcement? 

message: Since when did wikipedia become an advertising agent?
Not so much an advert as blindly speculative ramblings. It's not even entertaining. What's the purpose? Danieleran 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert?? 

message: The name is iTV, not Apple iTV. Are other pages named Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, or Yoplait yogurt? -- Chris chat edits essays 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: At this point, the specifications have been announced, it is shown on the Apple store website in its seeminly final version, and the product seems unlikely to change between now and release to the public. I propose that the  tag be removed. - Davandron | Talk 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Keep it on there until it ships.  Things can still change -- anyone else remember the PowerMac G4 speed dump? -- Hawaiian717 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The future tag should be there until it is shipped. Ruw1090 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Product? 

message: I'm seeing the name of the product throughout the article as ?TV - I'm guessing the ? is U+F8FF, which I assume displays as the Apple logo for Mac users. I'm not sure using it is a great idea, given that it's a non-standard character, and won't display properly on any system not running Mac OS. If no-one objects I'll change it to Apple TV throughout. Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im on a mac and it looks fine, but as we make up a small margin of wiki users I agree it should be changed to 'Apple TV' not the logo to favor the majority. AppleRobin 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and changed it. Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>[Apple logo]TV</nowiki> 

message: The title says it all. Released on January 9th, 2007. Same date as the iPhone! I'm thinking of making a to-do list for this page.
In other news, I made a new redirect from " TV" (the Apple and then a space followed by TV). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bellito (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the product is not yet available.  Look at their online store... it states clearly that the product ships in Feburary.   -/- Warren 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV (Apple TV) is released, according to Apple homepage 

message: Psantora has changed "Apple TV" to ":Image:Apple glyph.pngtv" throughout, but I still think the best solution is to just use "Apple TV". Apple use it on their own site, even in places where they could use the logo (see the sub-menu bar and the Apple TV link to the left of the iTunes logo). Apple TV seems to be the product's name, whereas :Image:Apple glyph.pngtv seems to be that product's logo. Any opinions? Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, good point.  The logo and the name are two different things.  I'll revert. PaulC/T+ 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline logo image 

message: Why does the name of the article have a non-standard character in it? I can understand including the logo in the page itself, but the name should not include non-standard characters. On this particular machine, I just get an empty box before the letters "tv." Per WP:NAME#Special characters, there should not be non-ANSI characters in the page name. -- Kesh 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and moved the page back. Please do not move it to a name with a non-standard character again. -- Kesh 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Should there be a place on the article that mentions that Apple TV is available in the UK.
However it should mention that it is the same price as the American version, but doesn't show TV Shows or Movies Samaster1991 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple TV in the UK 

message: I've removed the reference to the IR port as being IrDA, since this isn't supported anywhere. presumably, it is a one-way IR receiver, not an IrDA-compliant IR port (the same as the ones on the current Macs). – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IrDA? 

message: the specs section starts by saying "some of these are speculation blah blah" and then there is a reference to the official specs page.
wouldn't this be better presented by seperating them into official specs and rumored/speculation-based specs? or maybe setting apart the official specs by bolding them?
just a thought. I might try to mess with it later and see how it looks...    – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  specifications and speculation 

message: I have a source saying that the Apple TV is now shipping so im going to begin the change to a current product page. 
(The source mainly talks about another product but it does say that "Apple begins to ship the Apple TV.") YaanchSpeak! 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Apple page still says "Order Now", as opposed to "Buy Now". It's not shipping yet.--HereToHelp 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now the Apple Store says Now Shipping. Hallelujah!  I hope i dont get in trouble for changing this!  YaanchSpeak! 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now shipping 

message: Please add info about breakdown of parts cost to Apple when available. -69.87.200.169 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's irrelevant and speculative and doesn't add any value to a product description (it does add discussion value, but Wikipedia is not for that really) 88.6.7.45 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost breakdown? 

message: As of March 23, 2007, I do not believe the actual CPU model embedded in the Apple TV has been confirmed.  A link to an article on a "rumor" site, written two months before the release, is not likely authoritative. - 64.69.15.90 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU 

message: Examination of the filesystem shows that the Apple TV's codename was likely "Riptide". This shows up in the file /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/Resources/com.apple.RemoteUI.plist with references to a Riptide.app, and version.plist inside of /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app lists the ProjectName as Riptide Pip11 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codename 

message: Various websites (http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/03/23/apple-tv-hacked-plays-everything/) have started pointing links towards the apparent ability to add additional codexs to the AppleTV system.  Is this worthy of Wikipedia?  Or should it wait until further fiddling with the equipment proves just how reliable this hack is? Adamwilcox 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Playing 

message: How about adding a section with the critics it has recieved?   
 As Microsoft's David Caulton infamously and accurately said of the Apple TV, "it's a $299 device that lets you watch TV in
 your living room!" The point being, it doesn't really offer much that wasn't already available, though it certainly is a bit 
 more convenient than using an iPod and dock in your living room. I guess.
 
 Compared to other living room solutions, the Apple TV falls flat unless, again, you've really made a commitment to iTunes
 and  have decided that's the way to consume TV and movie content. (If so, you're kind of a tool, actually.) For the same 
 price, you could get an Xbox 360 (see my activity center and review) and use that device to stream media from any XP- or 
 Vista-based PC, access live and recorded TV, various online music, movie, and photo services via its Media Center Extender 
 functionality and a Media Center PC, or download rented and purchased TV shows and movies, many in high definition (unlike 
 iTunes, which only offers standard definition video). It also plays DVD movies, and, heck, it can play high-definition video 
 games too. Yes, the thing sounds like a wind tunnel, especially when its playing games, but it's far more versatile and 
 powerful device than the Apple TV. And it costs exactly the same price.
 
 The big problem with the Apple TV is that it doesn't replace any existing devices or simplify your TV setup. (For example, a 
 Media Center PC or Xbox 360 can replace your DVD player and provide a lot of extra functionality.) The Apple TV is yet 
 another box to add to your already over-crowded stereo cabinet, yet another input to access from on your HDTV, and yet 
 another set of cables to string behind your components. It's more, not less, and it is designed solely to provide you with a 
 way to enjoy content that you must purchase online. And to purchase that content, you have to hop off your couch and access 
 your PC or Mac, and then wait for it to sync. You can't do it directly from the device, as you can with an Xbox 360 or Media  
 Center PC. How revolutionary.
Anyone can add those using NPOV? Mr Mo 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an attempt, but the class period is about to end; couldn't finish it up.  Anybody want to polish it a little? Ahanix1989 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crticism? 

message: Just want to point this out and make sure other people are also keeping an eye on what could easily get out of hand. I'll probably re-write the already listed "hack" for it to be a little clearer. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hacks" section 

message: Could be 'B' class, but would need a balanced section by reviewer's and its general reception into the marketplace. Further, it would need general clean-up and some expansion. Check the assessment scale for guidelines. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The current entry needs a little clean up. More specifically, the "Features" section is not very reader friendly. 
Also, while the entry does link to Apple's spec page for the AppleTV, Apple, in true Apple fashion, does not lists the specific specifications for the AppleTV. I suggest we bring back the specs list from the old AppleTV page here. This will enable us to remove some of the clutter in the "Features" section, specifically this section. 
"Content has to be in certain formats to play on the Apple TV.[8] It supports video encoded with either the H.264 video codec for a maximum resolution of 720p at 24 fps or the MPEG-4 video codec for a maximum resolution of 720x432 (432p) at 30 fps. Audio can be encoded with AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, AIFF, or WAV audio codecs. It also has support for files encrypted with the FairPlay Digital Rights Management technology. For photos it supports the JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF, and PNG image file formats.[1]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stoppedcode12 (talk • contribs) 04:34, April 19, 2007  (UTC)
: Please see WP:ATT and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for the reasons that the old specs list was removed.  AlistairMcMillan 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems like rather a weak reason. The specs list is actually useful information especially for those considering putting an alternative OS on the device. This information is not readily collected into one place elsewhere (especially by Apple). They should be reverted to retain the citations. Kevin Purcell 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the specs list 

message: This section is getting overly long now.  It dwarfs every other section in the article, putting an obvious bias on the article.  We should just focus on the criticisms that are mentioned by more than one reviewer (such as not being able to buy from the iTunes Store directly) and drop things that are just mention by one reviewer (such as the lack of an on/off button).
Perhaps we should re-write the whole Criticisms section entirely, so we aren't just focusing on reviewer's criticisms.  AlistairMcMillan 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should probably focus on the criticisms themselves - particularly the ones that are mentioned by several reviewers. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticsms

message: This article needs to be expanded; it's far too short. -- 195.92.40.49 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: WATTS PER HOUR?!? What on Earth should that represent?
Watt is 1 joule / 1 second, in other words, an amount of energy spent over a certain time period. That would make W/h energy spent in time that was spent in time, in other words - precisely nothing.
Come on, people, at least TRY to freshen up on the elementary school physics before editing technical texts... 78.0.144.206 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watts, hours, oh my! 

message: in the beginning, there was a specs list. a compendium of non-officially released specs, and the official ones too. then it was deleted. then, it came back, with even more detailed information, like chipsets and such, but it was messy. now, its been deleted again. it seems clear to me at least, that everyone but AlistairMcMillan thinks the specs list should belong.
Now, before I go and paste it back in again, maybe we should build a consensus over this, get some discussion going, and make a decision as a group as to whether or not the list should be here or not.
I'll go first:
* Support - A specs list is not an indiscriminate list of information. Its insightful and provides a single source of hardware information that goes beyond most others. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  specs or no specs 

message: I've added a nice wikitable. Hurray - no more ugly lists. Opinions/thoughts? (Alistair, I'm looking at you!) — Wackymacs 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it :-p – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications section 

message: I have reviewed the article and I'm happy to pass it. It is comprehensive, well written, and very well-referenced. Well done - • The Giant Puffin • 10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit surprised.  I think the article could use a lot of rewriting.  Most of the article is of the form <tech writers> say <something>, <someone else> responds <this way>.  It makes for a very verbose and tedious read.  I'd suggest rewriting to make it more concise and easier to read.Stewsburntmonkey 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Pass 

message: This article is nearing the point at which we can submit it as a Featured Article Candidate. But the Criticism section is a huge problem, as is the general written quality of the article raised by some users previously. Does anyone plan to do anything about these issues? — Wackymacs 14:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: ----I came across this article:
http://www.nintendorevolution.ca/06032007/17/nintendo_wii_better_than_apple_tv
and was just wondering the question it asks. If you could get a Wii, why WOULD you need an Apple TV?Link's Awakening 02:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For most consumers, the Apple TV is unsuitable, because well, most of our video files are not supported. It may be a good way of getting your music collection to your hifi, however. The Wii, although a great looking piece of hardware and a joy to own, can't stream content. That website is not a professional site, so it should not be taken as such. And before some other goose stepping person jumps in to tell you, no, this isn't the place to talk about things like this. And to answer your question, for media playback, both the Wii and Apple TV are limited. Apple TV is good for iTunes users, and there are a lot of iTunes users that will be very happy with the Apple TV. The question I ask is, why would you buy an Apple TV when you could get XBMC for much less? Oh, XMBC can't do hidef, other than that it's perfect though. So yeah, that site is more of a fan forum sort of thing, so don't add it as a source to this page JayKeaton 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the Wii article is outdated: YouTube is now supported by Apple TV.  People sometimes miss seeing the value in having a device that can wirelessly stream content from your home computer, where all of your music, photos, movies and home videos are stored.  Yes, a standalone device is great for some folks, but not for others.  Throw away your CDs and DVDs and use your hard drive.  Possibly add quotes from the article to: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Apple_TV?  Aswick 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition with the Wii? 

message: What are the current opinions re: this section?  Should we make it look more like the iPod criticisms section as far as format and detail?  Also, some of the topics are not necessarily limitations, but opinions with supporting topics on the reverse side for neutrality.  Because these are not necessarily limitations, should we rename this back to "Criticisms"?  Do we still need to note all of the reviewers by name if all of the references are included to implicitly reflect importance?
Aswick 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I have added a section rewrite.  Hopefully it's a good start. Aswick 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: Please stop reversing the criticism of Apple TV in order to further its appeal. AlistairMcMillan insists that he is "Removing unsourced criticism" when there is in fact a source, the Q2 2007 Apple statement, which is official. The article states, "Apple made some interesting comments today during their Q2 Financial Results regarding their plans with the iPhone and Apple TV in the coming months.... Similarly they stated periodic updates and enhancements will be provided at no charge to Apple TV customers". 
If you are an apple tool, stay away, because despite releasing a beautiful product, it's far from perfect and hasn't been updated nearly as often as iTunes or iPod.
Chrisjustinparr (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple question for you Chris. Who is making the criticism? The facts that feed into the criticism are sourced, but not the criticism itself. If you can't provide a source, I'm going to remove that paragraph again. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please can we get someone to moderate this? I really don't want a personal argument from someone who likes to threaten my editing rights. Did you actually WATCH the Q2 results? Google it. The official webcast states that updates will be provided "free of charge" and to date, there has only been one update since this announcement. Also, the simple fact is there has been two updates so far. That is a hard fact, not just from Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, correct me. Apple TV was updated from 1.0 to 1.1 and 1.2 Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point us to someone making that criticism. If we are going to have this in the article as a criticism that people make, then you have to point to whoever is making the criticism. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you actually OWN an Apple TV? It may be off-topic but I've had one for almost a year and the amount of updates are frustrating. Will a very busy discussion from Apple with an official reply acknowledging the lack of updates do or do I have to whip out the (updated) CNet review? Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: I found the article by the way, sorry I added it a bit late. It was written today by Scott McNulty. His reliability can be assured by his biography  that states that he is a Mac fan since 1999 with an English degree and regular editor to the unofficial apple weblog. The   criticizes the fact that "you can't buy content directly from the box, the lack of updates to the software, and the lack of DVR". He got the basis for his article from Yahoo's review of Apple TV. Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to look a bit closer. It wasn't McNulty making the criticism, it was Ben Patterson who writes a blog for Yahoo! McNulty was just agreeing with him. I've edited the article to point directly to Patterson's blog. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q2 Apple Statement