Talk:Apple TV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Link to Steve Job's Announcement?

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)

Advert??

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)

Name

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) It's called Apple TV. iTV was trademarked so they had to change it.

Future Product?

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 {{future product}} tag be removed. - Davandron | Talk 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

[Apple logo]TV

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)

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)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TV (Apple TV) is released, according to Apple homepage

The title says it all. Released on January 9^th, 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).

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)

Inline logo image

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)

Eh, good point. The logo and the name are two different things. I'll revert. Paul^C/_T+ 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Do Not Remove Future Product Notice!"

In the Do Not Remove Future Product Notice! it says "It is not available in Apple Stores." This is untrue. A person can order an Apple TV at the Apple store right now. Just because it only ships in February, doesn't mean that this page "contain preliminary or speculative information." All the information on this product has been released at the Mac World Expo 2007 and it is on the Apple website.

You can see the Apple TV on sale here at the Apple Store. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=4A256D28&nclm=AppleTV

69.117.241.245 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

People who have a cognitive dissonance about the fact that February isn't here yet really need to get over it. Apple could cancel all those pre-orders tomorrow, or the next day, and withdraw the product from the market. There is absolutely no way anybody can prove with 100% accuracy that they won't do this. They might change the ship date to April. We can't prove they won't. An earthquake could hit Apple's headquarters on Thursday morning and destroy the company. We can't prove that won't happen, either.

Not only that, but Apple has a well-known history of product slippages and changed specifications. The most recent time this happened was just a few months ago, with the iPod Shuffle. They announced in September that it would be available in October, but it wasn't shipped until November. How about the MacBook Pro, which was announced with one set of specifications, but the CPU was upped before shipment. Or how about "3ghz within 12 months"... remember that?

Those are the reasons why the {{future product}} template belongs on this, and every other Wikipedia article on a product that is not yet available to the general public. Without an 100% assurance that the information isn't going to change, we need to warn our readers that the information -can- change. -/- Warren 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well by going by your logic, shouldn't the same "future product advisory" be on Windows Vista, because January 30th is not here yet. And who knows, maybe they will delay it for another six months or so! It could happen.69.117.241.245 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds probable...--HereToHelp 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Name?

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)

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)

Apple TV in the UK

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)

Source?--136.159.97.225 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apple.com and Apple UK and just use currency converter to work out the price American which is $299.00 is the same as £153. And in the UK you can get the Apple TV for £199Samaster1991 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IrDA?

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)

specifications and speculation

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)

Now shipping

I have a source[1] 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.") Yaanch^Speak! 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

OK, now the Apple Store says Now Shipping. Hallelujah! _{I hope i dont get in trouble for changing this!} [2] Yaanch^Speak! 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cost breakdown?

Please add info about breakdown of parts cost to Apple when available. -69.87.200.169 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

CPU

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)

"We believe that the Intel CPU in the Apple TV is an Ultra Low Voltage Pentium M based on the Dothan core, running at 1GHz (max frequency), 400MHz FSB and a 2MB L2 cache."[3] This is more than a rumor -- it is based on de-construction and examination. But someone is removing this kind of detail from the main article -- they removed the details about the 40GB drive (2.5" IDE PATA). -69.87.204.27 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

According to wiki.awkwardtv.org:

machdep.cpu.vendor: GenuineIntel
machdep.cpu.brand_string: Genuine Intel(R) processor              1.00GHz
machdep.cpu.model_string: Mobile Intel
machdep.cpu.family: 6
machdep.cpu.model: 13
machdep.cpu.extmodel: 0
machdep.cpu.extfamily: 0
(...) machdep.cpu.features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 APIC SEP MTRR PGE MCA 
CMOV PAT CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS TM EST TM2
machdep.cpu.extfeatures: XD

Codename

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)

Format Playing

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)

Crticism?

How about adding a section with the critics it has recieved? [4] [5] [6]

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)

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)

"Hacks" section

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)

Assessment

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)

Bring back the specs list

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)

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)

I also would like to see a return of the specs block. It was a good addition to this article because it had information that is well know, but either not published by Apple directly ( CPU, chipset, ... ) or information that is in conflict with Apple's site ( the fact that it has only 33GiB usable storage because you loose an additional 5GiG to the OS over the formatting alone. Therefore it is not a random collection of information nor original research. -Eric 24.25.128.112 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the Specs have been brought back for a short while now, but they look terrible. Almost nothing has references, and its just ugly, with a mix of external links and internal links, inconsistent styling, ugh. If we're going to have it, we need to have something better than this. I'll see what I can do about maybe copying out the old one and using it instead. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticsms

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)

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)

Article length

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

Watts, hours, oh my!

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)

specs or no specs

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)
• Support - I agree, Other articles similar to this have spec lists - it is useful information, as long as it's referenced. — Wackymacs 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The specs are extremely useful for allowing a summarized comparison of capabilities between similar products. Their presence is justified due to their existence in other similar computing hardware articles, such as the various smartphone and portable computing articles. -- Bovineone 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The sooner we can make this article look like ass, the sooner our job will be done. And if we can also avoid following annoying Wikipedia policies like WP:CITE and WP:NOT that'll also make it shine. AlistairMcMillan 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifications section

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)

I like it :-p – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

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)

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)

FA?

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)

Competition with the Wii?

---

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)

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)

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)

Limitations

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)

It was named to Limitations per a request on the FAC discussions. At the moment this is up to become Featured but that won't happen (two Opposes so far), so I guess working on this won't be a problem. — Wackymacs 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a section rewrite. Hopefully it's a good start. Aswick 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Streamium

User:Belvdme insists that the Streamium product line is a significant precursor to the Apple TV. Can anyone cite a reliable source that backs this up? AlistairMcMillan 22:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at following link: http://www.amazon.com/Philips-Streamium-MX6000i-Theater-Connectivity/dp/B000278KNA

You will see following product description stating availability on Amazon.com:

Date first available at Amazon.com: July 31, 2004

and a product description

Amazon.com Product Description The Philips Streamium MX6000i gives you the best of traditional home entertainment alongside unprecedented access to the world of online audio-video content through a 802.11g wireless (WiFi) connection from a PC or online entertainment service. WiFi fun includes music videos, Web movies, and cinema trailers, as well as the variety of music available through Philips' Streamium service partners, including as MP3.com, MusicMatch, live365.com, Radio Free Virgin, Playhouse Radio, and Andante. There's no need to first download files to your PC, or even to turn the PC on, to stream multimedia Internet content. (A broadband Internet connection is required.)

This description would seem to be close to an Apple TV pulling video content from YouTube (a web-based "entertainment" service.)

On top of that the MX6000i also replaces your hometheatre set up (DVD player, amplifiers...). I believe that in order to offer a balanced view on the significance of the AppleTV it is necessary to include other significant "precursors"brian stormen 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but what makes this one significant. Why should this one be listed? AlistairMcMillan 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is who says the Streamium is a significant precursor? Why list the Streamium instead of a Slingbox or a LocationFree box or one of the many HTPC devices? AlistairMcMillan 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of arguments to list Streamium

1. Time precedence, puts the Apple TV in historical perspective

2. Significance of the manufacturer, or do you think Philips, worldwide number 2 or 3 consumer electronics manufacturer is insignificant?

3. Size of the product line-up

4. Last but no least: Listing other attempts at this category of device does not take away from the Apple achievement, unless there is a desire to avoid any mention of another manufacturer that may have been less succesful. brian stormen 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Streamium.

Some of the comments on that page

• Keep, if you actually knew what Streamium is you'd know that it's certainly not 'non-notable', which isn't a defined grounds for deletion anyway. The page is just a harmless stub that will grow in time (much like how all of Wikipedia started out as). Dan100 13:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major electronics line by a very major manufacturer (Philips). 76,900 Google hits. We have articles for loads of obscure cel phones, computers, and other gadgetry, we certainly should have one for this as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

brian stormen 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's great but that only establishes that you think the Streamium products are significant precursors. Does anyone else? Has anyone ever mentioned the Streamium products in an Apple TV review, for example?

What we are trying to avoid here is a "me too" list of products in the "See also" section. If you can provide a reliable source that says the Streamium is a significant precursor then it should be mentioned with the article. Sticking alternate competing products in "See also" sections always ends up with a mess. AlistairMcMillan 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a review that compares Streamium to Apple TV convincing?

"This Streamium [SLM5500] lacked the extra features of the Netgear Digital Entertainer HD and the slick operation of the Apple TV." http://www.macuser.co.uk/macuser/labs/117973/philips-streamium-slm5500.html

What about an independant market study?

http://www.abiresearch.com/products/market_research/Networked_Home_Audio brian stormen 06:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want all the other products in these reviews listed in the article. If you list one, someone will come along and add another, and so on, until we have a long, mostly-useless list. Streamium is no more related to the Apple TV than this Netgear device or any of the several other set-top boxes. Foobaz·o< 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me, the arguments in support of including references to a number of products similar to Apple TV in a "see also" section are of a higher quality than the "I just don't want all the other products..." argument presented by Foobaz. I have not been arguing to include "all the other products..."; I am arguing in favor of including a limited number of past and present significant products. Honestly, I think the article would benefit from providing a couple of pointers allowing readers to situate the Apple TV with respect to the other players in this market. It never hurts to have access to historic and competitive perspectives. brian stormen 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to AlistairMcMillan's remark regarding including a list of "me too" products. I was proposing to include a reference to a product that preceded the Apple TV. I am sure that cannot be called a "me too", I would assume it would be the other way around, or wouldn't it? I believe the list of "see also" products can be limited if one adopts a limited and simple set of conditions for inclusions such as: earlier on the market, also offering video content and including a service-offering depending on an end-to-end architecture. brian stormen 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that if we add one similar product to the list, then other people will insist that their particular favourites get added to the list. Not that your link would be a "me too" but that if we added it, other people would come in to push their products into the See also list as well. My other point was that the only reason why another product should be mentioned in the article was if it actually was a significant precursor. If there was some proof that Apple were influenced to enter the market because of the Streamium or if the design was influenced by the Streamium. Unfortunately, although you might personally believe that, you don't seem able to provide any links to back up this assertion, which suggests it isn't true. AlistairMcMillan 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Insisting on presenting proof that Apple was influenced by a product in order to consider it significant and allow insertion of a mention of this product into the see also section is unreasonable. You seem to say that a product can only be significant if it can be demonstrated that Apple took notice and was influenced by it. I presented proof that independant analysts considered Apple TV to be one embodiment of a category of products. Failing to mention similar product examples will lead to an article that conveys the perception that Apple TV evolved in splendid isolation and that Apple invented the category. Obviously this is a misrepresentation and allowing such an omission diminishes the quality of the article. brian stormen 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article mentioning Streamium. I just don't want it to be a simple bullet point in the see also section, because that encourages cruft. If Streamium influenced the Apple TV, it deserves a paragraph of prose in the article, not a link with no description. If you can't write a couple sentences about the link between the two, perhaps there's not enough of a connection to justify any mention of Streamium. Foobaz·o< 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is a constructive remark one can work with. However "influencing Apple TV" cannot be the only criterion in order to be considered a significant precursor. I would say that there are a number of criteria of which a subset must be satisfied in order for a product to be considered significant precursor. It would be detrimental to the quality of this article if no product could be considered significant precursor and therefore would make no mention of a (number of) similar products. brian stormen 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you add prose instead of a "see also" bullet point, i will not revert your edit. I am not so concerned with strict inclusion criteria as i am with keeping things encyclopedic. If you provide sources for your claims i'm sure your additions will go over well with other editors, too. Foobaz·o< 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Insisting on presenting proof" is one of the official policies of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute the policy. However, what is it that must be proven? I would say that there are a number of criteria of which a subset must be satisfied in order for a product to be considered significant precursor. brian stormen 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Verifiability for a reference to "Insisting on presenting proof" as part of the policy and could not find any. As a result your objection seems to be mooth. Therefore, I want to repeat my reservations here for good form: This article is too one-sided and its content is very low on context:

- from a historical point of view

- from a technological point of view

- from a marketing point of view

- from a sales point of view

- from a business point of view

- from a cultural point of view

Reading the article, one cannot escape the impression that Apple invented the category in splendid isolation. brian stormen 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid, but it takes a lot more than a "See also" link to deal with them. Foobaz·o< 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire (IMHO somewhat rediculous) debate can be put into context by noting the fact that the Streamium article makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to include "similar products" in the fashion that is being suggested here. The Apple TV is mentioned, but only because the two units share one identifyable feature, streaming internet support. Ironically, this reason has not been proposed in this thread.

I have to agree with foobaz in overall terms. Unless we are careful, this article, and ones on similar products, would end up with laundy lists as every fanboi included their own favored product. This is bad; the wikipedia is not a collection of lists, nor a comparison shopping site. If the reader is interested in these questions, there are literally thousands of web pages out there that will help them compare these products. This is an article about the Apple TV, and should remain focussed on the Apple TV. In its current form, it is.

There are, of course, reasons one might want to override that argument. For instance, if the product in question is a re-branded version of another product, then absolutely you want to mention this. This is the case for the original Zune for instance, which was originally a Toshiba product. It is also notable if the two products have been involved in a "real" lawsuit over priority or IP issues. I would also agree to inclusion if the two products are constantly compared, as is the iPod with the Zune for instance -- the Zune was heavily commented on in the press as "MS's iPod killer", so any Zune article that fails to mention the iPod is definitely lacking in coverage. Of course that does not argue for a mention of the Zune in the iPod article, it has nothing to do with the iPod.

After being asked repeatedly, brian has offered little evidence on any of these points. There appears to be absolutely no priority in terms of technology, nor have I ever heard of people comparing the two products. The later might seem like a moot point, a personal failing perhaps, but I was able to demonstrate this in Google. Googling "streamium apple tv" results in 10,000 hits, most of these blog/forum/usenet posts. In contrast, "slingbox apple tv" results in 211,000 hits, the vast majority of them "real" articles. In any general terms, the market simply does not consider these products to be comparable, likely an effect of their target markets being on either side of an ocean.

That said, brian does have a very real argument that not mentioning similar products could result in a sort of isolation that gives a distroted view of the market. I couldn't agree more. Mentions of things like the Slingbox definitely need to be here. But I still can't see any reason for mentioning the Streamium, any more than one would argue for the mention of some random Korean clone PC in an article on the Mac Pro (or IBM, for that matter).

So in conclusion, I would recommend that the article mention similar products, but frankly, Streamium is similar technically only. I don't feel that argues for inclusion.

Maury 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Q2 Apple Statement

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [7] 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)

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)

References