Apple slims down iPods, slashes price of Apple TV

Cool! Will I finally be able to pay to watch Glee! And iPlayer! I'm sold.

By verdot on 1 Sep 2010

Cool! Will I finally be able to pay to watch Glee! And iPlayer! I'm sold.

By verdot on 1 Sep 2010

no iPlayer as far as I know. I assume streaming from a computer actually means streaming through iTunes?

By TimoGunt on 1 Sep 2010

@Timo - Yes, that's what I thought. The fact you'll have to do this has put me off it a bit.

Jobs said it's because no-one used the old Apple TV's Hard-drive, but this may have been because it supported few video formats, apart from H.264.

So, it looks like you're even more locked into iTunes content with the new box. I think I'll stick with my WDTV and ripping content onto a USB HD drive. This'll probably work out cheaper too.

By pbryanw on 1 Sep 2010

When iOS 4.2 comes out you'll be able to stream directly from iPad to living room TV - but presumably via the Apple TV. I don't like the Apple TV, and never have.

I do love the iPod touch though, a lovely piece of kit. Amazing display, fast chip, WiFi video conferencing and HD Video camera recording and editing.

By SwissMac on 1 Sep 2010

Possibly another admission of a design blunder is that the Nano no longer seems to have that dippy camera. I always wondered what it was there for.

Also, Apple, can we have a super-high capacity iPod that looks as cool as the Touch, but is a lot cheaper? I can't stand the current 160GB Classic as it looks like it's made from cheap plastic.

By c6ten on 2 Sep 2010

No updates...

iTunes says that 9.2 is the actual version and it isn't showing any update for the iPhone either...

By big_D on 2 Sep 2010

rental box

Apple TV £99 cheap? you can only watch downloaded/streamed content, it might as well be a rental device, £4.99 per month? £9.99 including x amount of movies/shows?

By ckbridge1 on 2 Sep 2010

Paradigm Shift

Apple is changing the way we do things. By the end of the year I'll be able to use an iOS device (phone, pad, pod) to direct sound through airport to my hi-fi or through Apple TV to my TV. That full home entertainment automation from a single device. It WILL change the way large numbers of people access entertainment.
It's only real drawback is that the prices mean it cannot become pervasive -it's a middle class product.

By milliganp on 2 Sep 2010

Paradigm smaradigm

One word - XBMC. OK, two words - XBMC Live.
Streaming media for the masses!

By 959ARN on 2 Sep 2010

miliganp - the only issue is who owns the content you've bought and paid for? Apple are a US company. They'll sell US shows but only to US customers, and then only on a rental basis.

While I appreciate your optimism the real winner will always be Apple and the content company's as we continue to buy/rent product that we can never own, while they control both distribution and delivery. That needs to change to unencrypted, open, downloadable permanent copy which we can read on any device, any time we choose instead of when Apple deem us allowed to.

By bubbles16 on 2 Sep 2010

"That needs to change to unencrypted, open, downloadable permanent copy which we can read on any device, any time we choose..."

That is not going to happen. I too like my movies and TV shows open and easy to access. But since I produce movies and TV shows for a living, I would also like to be able to feed my kids and pay my mortgage, which entails some protection at least for the content I produce.

Good TV costs thousands of pounds a minute to make, and it has to get that money back or it can't continue. Copy protection is not going to go away - get used to it.

Whether it has to be tied up as tightly as Apple dictates is another matter - but Apple's making it work so far, and the people who make the most money are the ones who dictate the terms of the market.

By Noghar on 2 Sep 2010

But Noghar, it may cost a lot, and it must be paid for - that's only sensible - the user cannot do what they wish to with it then no one will buy it.

Finding out that the hundreds of pounds of film you've bought and paid for can't be watched on another format/platform because of a corporate disagreement is ridiculous.

I am not, and would never advocate giving content away. I produce content too, and it should be paid for but after the user pays their money it should be theirs to keep (I mean that in a general sense). To be able to download and watch when they want to, especially offline should be entirely permissable.

I'm a customer first and foremost. If I want to watch the latest House for example and I am forced to put this on an iPod and not my android telephone or have to be on-line to do so then I won't pay for it. I'd rather miss out than be that restricted.

I do though believe that what we want to watch, listen to and enjoy should be paid for, otherwise eventually no one will produce anything.

By bubbles16 on 2 Sep 2010