planning to buy an appleTV

[scarlac]

Hi

I'm planning to buy an appleTV, but I have some questions about it.

A while ago, I converted all my DVD's to AVI H264. Can we play them on an appleTV or do I have to convert them again. Or can I use MKV. I heard something about MKV that it is just a container. So if we convert them MKV, it just copies the subs and the movie into a new file, without rerendering the whole movie, is that correct. If so, what tool do I need.

I heard also about the appleTV that it needs to link to another computer running iTunes or can it connect directly to a NAS, whitout using iTunes. I'm using a Lacie 2Tb NAS (the flat one, we can mount into a rack). Can somebody give me some information about that.

For the moment I'm using a netbook connected to my TV with XP and XBMC. I saw that XBMC has an appleTV version, did somebody test this.

The main-reason why I would change to an appleTV, is that this netbook is to slow for 1080p videos. I converted already my blurays, but it doesn't play them smoothly.

Some advice would be welcome.
Thanks in advance

[guns1inger]

Unless AppleTV has been upgraded, it doesn't play 1080p anyway. According to the specs, it maxes out at 5mbps 720p.

Reading: Apple TV Tech Specs

Personally, I don't know why you would buy one when the WDTV is a far better product, plays a wider range of formats, is more easily expandable, and is in active development.

[scarlac]

WDTV does not have a network and everything is stored on my NAS.

[guns1inger]

WDTV Live has ethernet. Someone else can confirm it is can play from a NAS. AppleTV is a very limited device. It won't play most of your HD material without re-encoding to a lower quality, wont play 1080 material, won't play mkv files, won't play mepg-2, Divx etc.

[scarlac]

And what about the MKV, how does this precisely work.

[guns1inger]

I don't understand the question. MKV is just another video container, albeit more versatile than most. AppleTV won't play it. WDTV does.

[scarlac]

So, if i want to convert from avi to mkv, i have to rerender every avi to mkv. Again a lot of rendering-time.

[guns1inger]

In most cases you can simply re-package to mkv. But I would ask why you intend to. It gains you nothing over avi unless you want to use some of it's other features. Most players will play AVI files - far more than can play MKV files - and AppleTV can play neither.

[scarlac]

well i found those links

http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats_working_on_Apple_TV

http://www.perian.org/


apparently we can use mkv, with perian, and we can update the appleTV with perian.

[scarlac]

apparently perian makes it possible to read avi (h264) and mkv
I down't know if it will be able to show 1080p
the appleTV specs tell it only plays 720p

[jagabo]

WDTV Live has an ethernet port and can read files from Windows shares, NAS (SMB) or DLNA media server. It handles AVI, MKV, MP4, M2TS, TS containers, MPEG 1, MPEG 2, MPEG 4 ASP, MPEG 4 AVC codecs. It can play 1080p up to 60 fps. It's a much better deal (~US$120) than the AppleTV. Not as pretty though. No XBMC. Maybe you should wait for Popbox or Boxee Box?

[RdM642]

Personally, I don't know why you would buy one when the WDTV is a far better product, plays a wider range of formats, is more easily expandable, and is in active development.

Because UI is the highest end of the engineering ladder and the UI on the WD sucks in comparison to Apple. That makes apple a much "better product" in a core functional and marketing aspect for a lot, if not most, buyers.

Are we really going to say the dozen "xyz" mp3 players that could play more formats than the ipod "are far better than an ipod?" Are we going to wonder why iPod murdered them all in the market?

All consumer electronics device types start out with technophilic early adopters and those (we) adopters are very often tolerant of primitive interfaces (like WDTV/LIVE). But in that aspect we are outliers, not the general public. And technophiles do appreciate and prefer good interfaces as well, especially if WAF is a consideration.

I also don't knwo if we can say WD TV LIVE is in active development, my guess is much more of their engineering resources are dedicated to the next iteration than improving anyting already in customer hands.

[guns1inger]

I look at functionality over form especially when the functionality is limited. The Apple TV was just a way for Apple to dump underpowered old iMacs on their loyal wallets by making them think they were getting something new. That it is still so far behind what is out there is testament to how little even Apple thought of it.

However if a pretty, if very bland, face is what gets you to part with your hard-earned, that's fine with me.

Given the requirements specified by the OP, the Apple TV does not suit the bill in any meaningful way.

[ulapines]

And in what way is Apple UI superior to WD UI?

[scarlac]

Apparently the appleTV is not the best or one of the best that is on the Market. I do look alot to the UI and all the info we can see at once. That's why I like XBMC and I wanted to know more with the combination with the appleTV. I'm also a graphic designer, so UI is very important to me, my job does that. But if the appleTV doesn't show 1080p video, i'm not interested. Maybe I'm asking to much of what I want, maybe it's just a little to early.

What i see with all those mediacenters or players. All the different brands do what they want. Till now, non of them is offering a standard. Or you can play all the different formats and standards, or only a few of them, you don't have enough volume, or you have to attach external HD, or it doesn't play 1080p, or ..., or ..., ... and so on. It's a real jungle to find the best solution for your needs.

It's also very hard to test it before we buy it. The moment we buy it, it wil be used for something like 3 years. I want to be sure what I will buy.

The WDTV live doesn't look bad. I'd like to know more about how the media is shown, does it link with IMDB, just like XBMC does.

My search is not over yet.

[jagabo]

The WDTV does not link to any external sources of information about the files. It's basically just a file browser with (or without) thumbnails. It doesn't have any "shortcuts", "favorites", or "last watched" functionality. It does remember where you left off if you stop playing a video and go back later. You can search at youtube for WDTV Live. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDvPOOEjL58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vor6P9_LTqw

As I understand it AppleTV does not play 1080p. It doesn't have the horsepower.

[RdM642]

I look at functionality over form especially when the functionality is limited....
However if a pretty, if very bland, face is what gets you to part with your hard-earned, that's fine with me.

Yes the UI is one of the most important functional aspects of a machine like theis, it has nothing to do with "form" No one in engineering considers UI "form" they are in the function category.

We use UIs for function. This website is data, a database and GUI. Are you entering your comments in the command line or even php code? -- and if you were would videohelp.com be more popular or even more "functional?"

A good gui is not about "pretty" it is a core higher level function the one highest end of engineering of devices like this nowadays.

The WDTV does not link to any external sources of information about the files. It's basically just a file browser with (or without) thumbnails. It doesn't have any "shortcuts", "favorites", or "last watched" functionality.

You have it right. these are all highly functional issues and deficiencies create lots of replicated task for users in every day use.

Shortcuts for example are no small matter. for the increasing user base that will have an increasing number of files and path/folder depth and complexity of organization this is sorely needed. Even with one aspect of my media, my commercial movie rips on my server, no matter how one organizes it in folders, separate tagged sorting such as by rating, genre, sd or bd, and most recently added would be sensible. You can do all that with netflix and blockbuster's sites for a reason, because it adds functionality when confronted with 1000 data choices.

WD can't even fix a UI issue that has been discussed since its first release, double imaging of thumbnails.

There are other issues like inability to exploit chapter marks in at all dvd files, or even to do so functionally in mkv files. Those are functional UI issues.

WD's effort and those of the others in that price level of the segment are good, but good like today's fish. Adding a codec or two, an output connection isn't going to be what drives the competition or market dominance in the (very near) future. The main missing elements is a good UI . It is UI and possible integrated content agreements that will drive the future, along with branding power. Apple has the latter. They murdered the mp3 category with the first two factors. And Apple exploited all three to to fundamentally change the smart-phone business.