Apple TV early review roundup

It's still a bit early yet for all the reviews to hit the internets, but peeps fortunate enough to have snagged an Apple TV early -- namely the WSJ, PC Mag, and The NY Times -- have already passed judgment. What do they think? Well, no one was without their niggles regarding the unit: Walt seemed bummed about the lack of photo streaming, Pogue chides Apple for not supporting HD downloads or TVs without high def inputs, and PC Mag had some problems playing iTunes video content back (although it was home video footage). The Xbox 360 receives frequent mention as the Apple TV's one true competitor right now, but the differences in the products and approaches still cause a rift, and it's hard to keep the parallels going for too long. But the one thing they can all agree on is their appreciation for the unit's simplicity, design, and ample ability to tackle digital video in the living room. (Yeah, watch out for our own Apple TV review shortly, we know you're all frothing at the mouth to learn the Engadget take.)

Read - NYT (Pogue thumbs up, way up)
Read - WSJ ("It has some notable limitations, but we really liked it. It is classic Apple: simple and elegant.")
Read - PC Mag (4/5, "I think Apple TV is a fantastic product-but I won't be buying one...")

[TheCount @ Mar 22nd 2007 3:49PM]

From what I've gathered from all these reviews, Apple TV should be priced at least 50 dollars if not 100 dollars cheaper than what it is, for what it provides.

The fact still remains that it targets iTunes Store users, not just general iTunes users like myself. If you aren't getting your media from the iTunes store, it's not worth it and no one needs this thing just to stream music since there are much cheaper alternatives.

[Dov @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:31PM]

This is not only for iTunes Store users - you just need to reencode some videos to work with it. Anybody with videos that play on an iPod can use this. I love mine already and I've only spent 20 minutes with it (had to go to work...).

[hmurchison @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:58PM]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Netgear EVA 8000 is $50 MORE and while it supports higher 1080p support and Youtube it doesn't have 802.11n or a hard drive. If a audio only slim devices box is going to run me $280 and a Roku M100 is $200 for audio only then please someone explain to me why Apple should be delivering video and HDD local storage on top for the same price.

[hmurchison @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:58PM]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Netgear EVA 8000 is $50 MORE and while it supports higher 1080p support and Youtube it doesn't have 802.11n or a hard drive. If a audio only slim devices box is going to run me $280 and a Roku M100 is $200 for audio only then please someone explain to me why Apple should be delivering video and HDD local storage on top for the same price.

[Kev50027 @ Mar 22nd 2007 3:55PM]

I just don't get it. Engadget is still just another Apple fanboy website. I understand, everyone loves Apple and every white plastic thing that comes out of there, but this thing just doesn't do anything.. Why pay for a pretty white box that does absolutely nothing useless?

[Dixonij @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:02PM]

How is reporting on the early review roundup for the Apple TV fanboyism? The post just states what some reviewers have said and not much else. (I can't find one example of any bias either way in that article)

[Kev50027 @ Mar 22nd 2007 3:56PM]

Bah humbug.. im watching a movie and posting at the same time. Sorry for the grammatical mistakes there!

[Kev50027 @ Mar 23rd 2007 12:06AM]

The pure fact that they report it. The Apple TV isn't anything special at all, the 360 and PS3 can do more than the Apple TV, and Orb has been doing the same sort of thing for over a year now for free.

You see the problem is that Linksys came out with a router that does everything the Apple TV does, only better, yet they just mentioned it in passing. The Apple TV they're crapping their pants as soon as it comes out, and finding any reason at all to create another post about it.

There have been like 5 posts about the damn thing today! The PS3 didn't even get that much coverage when it was released (though of course the Wii did).

[MacBookOwner @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:06PM]

"How is reporting on the early review roundup for the Apple TV fanboyism? "

Dixonij, the only people more fanatical than the apple fanboys are the anti-apple fanboys, who see an apple conspiracy wherever they go.

[Dixonij @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:08PM]

So true... so true...

[Jeff @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:16PM]

"I can't find one example of any bias either way in that article"

I'm not one of those guys that runs around calling major web sites "biased" all over the place, but if you were looking for it, I think this statement probably does qualify:

"But the one thing they can all agree on is their appreciation for the unit's simplicity, design, and ample ability to tackle digital video in the living room."

The wording of that sentence is more subjective than objective while also being more absolute than relative. They appreciate the unit's simplicity and design, not Apple's take on simplicity and design. It makes it pretty clear that whoever's writing the sentence shares the view of the reviewers in those areas.

I do agree that the anti-Apple crowd can be just as rabid as the pro-Apple crowd, and I get called out by both camps depending on the product in question (I get berated by the anti-Apple crowd whenever I post about the iPod, and by the pro-Apple crowd whenever I post about the iPhone or Apple TV). I do think the Apple TV has some serious shortcomings that aren't addressed in any of these reviews, and it has a *lot* more competition than just the Xbox 360. The fact that its competitors don't have billions of marketing dollars doesn't change the fact that their products generally do more for less money, and they should be included in any discussion of the best way to spend your hard-earned cash on a video streaming/storage device.

[Ben @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:17PM]

I'd get one if it could do 5.1 .... still can't see why it can't

[Dan @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:17PM]

for the love of all that is good in the world, why couldnt they make this support divx, xvid, wmv, x264, and mpeg2?!

The ipod and itunes succedded because they supported peoples originally existing MP3 files. If apple wants video on computers/ipod/tvs to take off they need to support existing video formats.

[kingofwale @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:18PM]

it ONLY plays MPEG-4 and H.264. I am sick of converting all my files, so, that's that for me.

Not to mention there are other alternatives that let you play AVI or VXID without converting. (I think even xbox lets you do that)

Have to do better, Apple.

[MrWhite @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:38PM]

Boo F**kin' Hoo that you have convert your files, maybe if you used a Mac you wouldn't need to convert them in the first place. Just a thought.

Anyways, people are missing the point here, yes obviously the Apple TV is meant to be used with iTunes, duh, what else would it use? and you don't have to get the content strickly from the iTunes Store.

I rip my DVD's into iTunes to play on my iPod, there's a no brainer, the movies I ripped, I can now transfer or stream to my tv. The movies I make with iMovie can be streamed and the music I rip off of CD's I buy can be streamed. Also who in there right mind would want to stream video made on low resolution camera's from youtube in the first place? I have been doing that with my Wii and it isn't all that great. So limitations? I don't think so.

[zargon @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:51PM]

"Boo F**kin' Hoo that you have convert your files, maybe if you used a Mac you wouldn't need to convert them in the first place. Just a thought."

Wow, that is one stupid comment. Why the hell should I or anyone else have to use a Mac? News flash, PCs with Windows still dominate the market, Apple only owns a small sliver of that market. Nevermind linux users like myself.

If Apple has that attitude, then they really are defining a small market for their product. In this day and age, a media streaming device like this needs to be flexable. Their are more formats that just what Apple uses and if you want to make this product even remotely popular, you do not want to make the average users have to jump through hoops. Everyone prides Apple products in just working, by not supporting very common and popular formats, that isn't making strides in making a user friendly product at all.

[Mat @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:56PM]

LOL, you don't think there are limitations? It's quite obvious there are strict limitations on the device, but what isn't so obvious is why? Record labels?

[Jason @ Mar 22nd 2007 4:55PM]

Boooooooo!!! This is nothing more than a new hi-tech closet for movie hoarders. Why on earth is anyone paying full price when they can rent these titles a dozen different ways? Netflix may have a two-day lag, but it still beats the pants off this. I like Apple stuff, and I don't know what I was expecting, but it was a lot cooler than this.

[DP @ Mar 22nd 2007 5:22PM]

When AppleTV came out I was psych'ed. Not so anymore after I thought about it. The disk space is small. You cannot put too many movies on it without having to shuffle them in/out of iTunes and/or clicking/unclicking the check boxes so that you don't sync too many movies to overflow the AppleTV. Basically, AppleTV is yet another iPod that hooks up to your TV. It does not even have GigEthernet. So transfers are slow. I love the Apple Remote (very simple), I also hate it because it's too simple; fast forwarding through movies is painful. My solution was to buy a "opened box" Mac mini core solo for $350 and use that instead. So I get GigEthernet, 60G disk (I added another 200G USB external) and I don't have to use iTunes to sync movies; plus, I get a whole computer device that I can use to show say youtube videos on my TV or use other video apps that can play mpegs, and other things AppleTV won't play. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a big Apple fan but AppleTV falls short.

[WAS @ Mar 22nd 2007 6:44PM]

Does anyone know the model name/number of the Sony TV that is included in this picture? I've been trying to figure out exactly which one it is to do a price search on it online, but haven't had any luck. Moreover, if you know because you own one feel free to let me know if you like it!

Thanks!

[brian @ Mar 23rd 2007 12:20AM]

It's the Sony XBR Series 1. I have this TV, and like it, even though it's just 720P.

[Isaac @ Mar 22nd 2007 7:20PM]

I'd pay a bit more and get a Pixel Magic MB100. Plays pretty much anything, add you own disks or stream from your PC or a NAS. Even picks up .srt external subtitles. I have an HTPC but I got one for my uncle and he loves it.

http://www.pixelmagicsystems.com/products/media_players/hd_mediabox.htm

Really, these devices from the big players like MS and Apple are pretty irrelevant for anyone with a bit of nous, leave them to the fanboys and the less geekily inclined to tie themselves to format dependancy, content protection and the pain of constant file converting.

[Philster @ Mar 22nd 2007 7:31PM]

I'm still hard wired lo-fi with my Mac to TV... Powerbook DVI to Panasonic Plasma. Works fine! I use VLC and play all kindsa codecs. I can even drag a RealOne player into that second window and play it full screen! Only two channel audio, though.

Who am I foolin' I need to upgrade.

I love the AppleTV interface and easy remote. I wonder if it can be upgraded or hacked to play other codecs. And If we find out later that you can use that USB for another hard drive, then I would consider it.

[Jason @ Mar 22nd 2007 8:24PM]

Why would ANYONE buy something like this... go spend $299 on an XBOX 360 and stream ANYTHING YOU WANT from Windows using Media Connect or even better use the full blown Media Center Extender support in the 360 with the awesome new Vista version of Media Center (which works 100000x's better than the previous version of Media Center, which was awesome)... HD Video support... support for other video codecs, support for tons of different audio formats... a great interface for browsing you music album covers... the new media center comes with a ton of really cool web based services like sports player stat tracking, etc... supports games through the media center interface... has a really cool slide show interface... actually STREAMS the stuff from your PC and doesn't need to store it there... supports internet radio... supports a ton of 3rd party media center apps... records TV... the list goes on... and on... and on... Apple TV is a total waste of money compared to something like the 360 as a media center extender! Oh and it doesn't matter where your stuff comes from... you don't have to buy the content from the apple store...

oh yeah... and if you wanted you could always use that 360 to play games too... and I know... you need Media Center... but the previous version was pretty popular as a pre-load and now with Vista coming on PCs you can easily get a newer PC with Vista and you can always upgrade to a version with Media Center whenever you want.

[Ian @ Mar 22nd 2007 10:10PM]

Ooooh. I can stream me some nodef video from itunes. Yay.

[Ian @ Mar 22nd 2007 10:14PM]

Jason: try to stream XVID or H.264 to your 360. MKV? Let us know how that works for ya.

But yeah: apple TV seems to be lacking a lot of TV. Instead of recording Lost in HD for free and stream it in HD to my 360 I can pay $1.99 for the nodef itunes version, per episode. Only the mac zombie army will think this is cool in any way, as it is simple enough for them to grok.

[Kev50027 @ Mar 23rd 2007 11:35AM]

I believe that TV is possibly the second sexiest TV in the world. The sexiest is the 61" Plasma they used to make with a glass bezel with a strip of aluminum on the edge. It was stunningly beautiful.

[astrocramp @ Mar 23rd 2007 1:10AM]

I'm not sure why anybody would buy into this concept. 16x9 interface, and 16x9 screens are almost always HD, but upscaled video looks like crap (according to the reviews)? No HD content on ITMS? $299 and you can't play decent games? No cables included?

According to apple, only about 3-4% of content on an iPod is purchased, the rest is ripped. I would imagine that only the idiots who have their entire collections from ITMS would see any benefit from apple tv. And since upscaled videos look like crap on it, the only really beneficial feature is listening to ITMS music on their TV. How many people actually need that?

[Evert @ Mar 23rd 2007 4:43AM]

Try the Kiss DP558 or VR558 box. I've been using it for four years now. It plays almost any kind of video format (with subtitles to boot) and probably has the cleanest piece of Mac software to link it to iLife I've ever seen.
Too bad though that I can't find the product on the American Linksys site.

http://www-uk.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Product_C2&childpagename=UK%2FLayout&cid=1150490639668&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper&lid=3966862260B01

[Timex Sinclair @ Mar 23rd 2007 6:19AM]

Since analog broadcast is going to be gone by 2009, why should apple support a now dead standard? The fact is, HD is the future.HD is now. Analog broadcast (over the air) tvs will not function after that date. I refence your own article on that:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/02/analog-tv-shutdown-all-but-set-for-2009/

Creating a product with a 2 year shelf life, makes no sense for apple. why not leave that to others

[nes @ Mar 24th 2007 3:46AM]

i'll stick with connect360..

[Prashanth @ Mar 24th 2007 2:24PM]

If apple can sell its software and PS3 can install it ...how cool will it be!! I have to stop day dreaming and get back to work :(