Frisco
Oct 12, 12:53 PM
So it's a red nano?
n/m had to fish the links. :)
http://www.t3.co.uk/__data/assets/image/413249/redipod_250.jpg
(not as illustrated)
These look like white iPods viewed through 3-D Glasses.
n/m had to fish the links. :)
http://www.t3.co.uk/__data/assets/image/413249/redipod_250.jpg
(not as illustrated)
These look like white iPods viewed through 3-D Glasses.
Mal
Sep 14, 02:05 AM
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Seriously, that thing looks awful. I know it's just an "artists rendition", but that artist deserves to be taken outside and shot. If Apple brings out one of those, I will have lost all my faith in Jonathan Ives and the design team. No, I won't abandon Apple, but I will abandon my dream of owning an Apple phone someday.
jW
jW
Evangelion
Sep 9, 10:34 AM
As previously confirmed, the iMac is the most powerful AIO desktop...the title you just mentioned belongs to the MacPro...sorry for the misunderstanding...:rolleyes:
You again with your ludicrous claims? What makes you think that Mac Pro is the fastest desktop there is? What is the secret ingredient that makes it faster than other machines, considering that it uses same components than others do? And since Mac Pro supports less RAM (16GB vs. 64GB) than Dell does (for example), how could you say that it's "the most powerful"? Compared to Dell, it will be dog-slow for tasks that require a lot of RAM.
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
Now, I hate Windows and I use it at work because I have no choice. An there are plenty of bad things in it. But I don't get any BSODs. I really don't. Back when I used a desktop, I sometimes left the machine running for weeks and I had no problems.
When was the last time you used Windows? Back in Windows ME-days?
Seriously: I think you should take a chill-pill an dial-back that fanboyishness of yours.
You again with your ludicrous claims? What makes you think that Mac Pro is the fastest desktop there is? What is the secret ingredient that makes it faster than other machines, considering that it uses same components than others do? And since Mac Pro supports less RAM (16GB vs. 64GB) than Dell does (for example), how could you say that it's "the most powerful"? Compared to Dell, it will be dog-slow for tasks that require a lot of RAM.
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
Now, I hate Windows and I use it at work because I have no choice. An there are plenty of bad things in it. But I don't get any BSODs. I really don't. Back when I used a desktop, I sometimes left the machine running for weeks and I had no problems.
When was the last time you used Windows? Back in Windows ME-days?
Seriously: I think you should take a chill-pill an dial-back that fanboyishness of yours.
Yvan256
Sep 10, 01:03 AM
That's right. But, with the plugins, it plays them just fine, so in theory it should be perfectly streamable, right?
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.
Sensamic
Mar 24, 03:29 PM
I have a imac late 2009 and Im very very happy with it. I dont need a bigger screen, I dont need more resolution, I dont need more disk space, I dont need thunderbolt or USB 3, I dont need Lion, I dont need more RAM, I dont need better graphics...
I dont plan on buying a new imac until they come with USB 3 and thunderbolt and SSD inside and, who knows, bluray...
Right now theres just absolutely no need to change. Only option I want is the next macbook air with core i3, since I dont have a laptop and I need one. Ill have to wait until November or so. It wouldnt be smart to buy it now since the next update sure with have core i3 and thunderbolt and 4GB RAM.
I dont plan on buying a new imac until they come with USB 3 and thunderbolt and SSD inside and, who knows, bluray...
Right now theres just absolutely no need to change. Only option I want is the next macbook air with core i3, since I dont have a laptop and I need one. Ill have to wait until November or so. It wouldnt be smart to buy it now since the next update sure with have core i3 and thunderbolt and 4GB RAM.
kizaw
Mar 22, 09:53 PM
If and when this update happens how fast before yellowing screen and air bubbles in the screen complaints start to appear :D. Just sayin' I had to send my iMac back on the last updated one. Overall still love mine
blow45
Apr 11, 09:27 AM
Can someone create an os plugin to allow anything displayed on my mac to be streamed to any tv with atv on?
PeterQVenkman
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
Prince William and Kate
prince-william-kate-middleton-
Prince William Kate Middleton
Kate Middleton West Gold
Kate Middleton pours champagne
William and Kate Middleton
Prince William, Kate Middleton
Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-
Prince William Kate Middleton
Luddington (Kate Middleton
William and Kate Middleton
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 11:09 PM
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
macfan881
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wasting breath on a comment like this isn't even worth it.
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
THX1139
Jul 15, 03:48 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
They have given up on speed and are focussing on multiple processors instead. You will see speed increases but not as often. In the next few years you might see dozens of processors all with Quad or Octo cores instead of just dual core today. IMHO, I prefer additional processors over sheer GHZ anyday. Your 4ghz wish isn't going to mean anything against a Kenstfield in 2007. However, a Quad 4ghz would be sweet... but damn hot.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
They have given up on speed and are focussing on multiple processors instead. You will see speed increases but not as often. In the next few years you might see dozens of processors all with Quad or Octo cores instead of just dual core today. IMHO, I prefer additional processors over sheer GHZ anyday. Your 4ghz wish isn't going to mean anything against a Kenstfield in 2007. However, a Quad 4ghz would be sweet... but damn hot.
Eraserhead
Apr 11, 12:25 PM
Why not to imperial?
Because its **** as it doesn't have straightforward unit conversions and because everyone else in the world other than the US (and for a small number of things the UK) uses metric.
I guess the issue is that changing over to miles per litre would be worse, and litres per 100 kilometres is the other way round so difficult to get your head around if you're used to miles per gallon.
Because its **** as it doesn't have straightforward unit conversions and because everyone else in the world other than the US (and for a small number of things the UK) uses metric.
I guess the issue is that changing over to miles per litre would be worse, and litres per 100 kilometres is the other way round so difficult to get your head around if you're used to miles per gallon.
deannnnn
Mar 29, 11:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
lol. good one.
lol. good one.
dukebound85
Apr 11, 03:46 PM
Yeah, plus medical bills don't bankrupt you personally. I'll take what you've got up there.
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
MacMan86
Apr 13, 04:11 AM
Actually, he is right. The two use different protocols when streaming. The video portion of AirPlay is done differently and does not require the private key. It just employs setting up a "server" whenever its being utilized. I have it set up on XBMC, and it works just as it would on an AppleTV.
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
Calidude
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
Lets leave these apps alone and put the Senators in jail.
yg17
Apr 25, 07:54 AM
"I'm 16 and I'm an awesome driver" is BS. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6UCv4etyk) is what I think of when I think of awesome 16-year-old drivers flying down an interstate thinking they own the road. And the driver of this car was a teen.
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
1984
Oct 12, 09:38 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
I haven't been to an Apple Store in ages so forgive me for asking but what kind of dock is that in the lower right? I'm sure it is a display designed only for the stores but is it actually a working dock as well?
I haven't been to an Apple Store in ages so forgive me for asking but what kind of dock is that in the lower right? I'm sure it is a display designed only for the stores but is it actually a working dock as well?
puckhead193
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
if apple wants to stay competivie, they need to release updates tomorrow.. not wait for paris but tomorrow. Plus i can order a new iMac this week and still get my free ipod nano :D
guet
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
bking1000
Apr 28, 05:49 PM
can't stand balmer, and I love my Apple stuff, but we need a strong Microsoft, and they've just been soooooo lame the last (what?) 5 years? maybe 8 years?
It would be a darn shame if they dwindled away to nothing. They need new leadership.
It would be a darn shame if they dwindled away to nothing. They need new leadership.
Nomadski
Apr 13, 07:07 AM
MagnusVonMagnum -
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
freiheit
Sep 9, 02:22 AM
But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities,
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
~Shard~
Aug 31, 11:48 AM
I've been putting off a new mac for YEARS! Gief Core Duo 2 iMacs!
Yep, that would be nice! Being that Apple touts the iMac as being their "flagship model" in many respects, you think that they would ensure it is always as up to date and competitive as possible. I think a Conroe iMac would be great, but perhaps Apple is holding off due to a redesign. I don't know how much they could change the iMac, or if they'd want to right now but who knows...
Yep, that would be nice! Being that Apple touts the iMac as being their "flagship model" in many respects, you think that they would ensure it is always as up to date and competitive as possible. I think a Conroe iMac would be great, but perhaps Apple is holding off due to a redesign. I don't know how much they could change the iMac, or if they'd want to right now but who knows...