That was some interesting peice of information. I am working on an book about the varying trends across decades in the entertainment industry and I believe that your page could support my work. So, I would want to refer to your page. I hope that is okay with you.

Appreciate your help.

Regards,
Kashin.

You know what though? When a baby sitter comes to watch the kids, I don’t have to train her on three different remotes and what inputs to use so the kids can watch a video.

Clean design and simplicity rule the day.

I forgot to add that caveat. Although, I see a Linux proof-of-concept project in my future.

You’d might as well add the functions of router and firewall to your full size and power media server, putting it in the place of the current home router. You could then have a separate switch/wireless access point on a high speed backbone to service in home media clients. Not a cheap or easy to set-up/maintain solution at this time for “Joe” home user.

Back to your statement about ten more years.

Currently, there are inexpensive Linux-based NAS devices that can be used to serve media to extenders as many come with uPnP server software pre-installed, but they lack the horsepower to do any sort of real-time transcoding. And they still require user intervention to install codecs.

I fully agree with you about Microsoft’s execution. One can witness how well Windows Media Player automatically downloads needed codecs for proof– I’ve never had it successfully perform an automatic download of a single needed codec, ever.

Actually, as I type and think about this, maybe Microsoft’s approach is wrong. Perhaps the correct approach is to build the NAS (and uPnP server) into the home router. This solves a number of problems, including eliminating the wireless router to server issue for wireless users. Hmmm.

There’s no one solution available today that does it all. Will Microsoft’s Home Server project be a better answer, perhaps, but Microsoft has a history of having great ideas and poor execution. We’ll have to wait and see.

Your reply of “any cable or satellite box” to my statement about 6 year olds goes to my point. People are comfortable with the operation of cable or satellite boxes in their living room and the Apple TV provides that same level of non-technical user comfort. It may not be enough to convince someone to switch over to the whole iTunes route, but if you’re already using iTunes for some media content then it’s a good addition for a not so high price.

My point with Dave was that he was so into what it doesn’t do that he didn’t examine Apple’s intent for the device in regard to extending the iTunes experience. Thanks for the comment!

You could do the same with any cable or satellite box.

And there lies the problem. For an average, non-geek user, the Apple TV, and all media extenders, aren’t just competing with each other, but against cable and satellite as well. Why should a high-value viewer with an HD Tivo (or regular Tivo, for that matter) buy an Apple TV? For HD television show purchases? The low max bitrate of the Apple TV means the picture quality of HD programming doesn’t even look as good as DVD (which Scoble, who’s a converted fan, discovered).
(disclaimer: I own a D-Link DSM-320, a competing media extenter, about which, I say the same things)

The unreliability of wireless networking for media streaming, combined with the balkanization of media codecs only ensures difficulty for the average user. Apple’s approach to the latter, i.e., locking the device to iTunes and its limited codec set, is ultimately flawed as users discover more media that is not supported. And the only solution to the former is either a wired network, which is impractical for most users, or a large buffer in the form of a hard drive or other such storage, which increases cost and device complexity.

I think we’re still ten years away from seeing media extenders being as ubiquitous as cable/satellite boxes. And I think that Microsoft’s approach w/re their Home Server project (another disclaimer: I’m in the Home Server beta, and have another server in my house) is the better long-term solution, instead of a device that’s an extension of a single PC.

Robitaille: Interesting post, and yes I would be interested in a Media Server too. But I doubt it would be $299.

DB: Apple TV doesn’t fit for everyone and that’s okay. But, for the “average” user Apple TV and iTunes provides the convenience. Of course for Apple is about dollars. For those who like to get their content elsewhere many of the latest versions of video conversion utilities already support Apple TV. Handbrake, Quicktime Professional, and VisualHub make conversion of video to H.264/Apple TV fairly painless. Also other sites are starting to offer content in H.264 format. Whereever you get you content, if it’s in a compatible format you can import it into iTunes and it will be available on your Apple TV. Only some of my content comes from iTunes.

The techie will saw something which to him means, “Why should I buy a device that can do X with no rewarding fun, when I can have a device that can do X, Y, and Z with a little bit of rewarding fun each?”

What the average user hears is, “Why should I buy a device that can do X with no confusing hassle, when I can have a device that can do X, Y, and Z with a little bit of confusing hassle each?”

Thus the average user concludes that the techie is insane.

I think I understand AppleTV, after setting it up, playing a few video podcasts, copying some pictures [...]…

I think we’ve been so bombarded by the techies of what the Apple TV isn’t and by the hackers changing what it is to something else that the true picture of how Apple TV fits into the iTunes “normal” use have been overshadowed.

I believe we’ll see the feature set of the Apple TV grow as Apple grows it’s iTunes media capabilities.

Steve:
It could be considered a digital hub. iTunes works well pulling down media from ITS and serving it to various clients. Within the iTunes prefs. there are some for Apple TV such as only sync/serveing up new or unviewed media. Great for pod/videocast.