03/21/2007, 2:05am, EDT
Wednesday, March 21st
WSJ reviews AppleTV: "simple and elegant"
"In our tests, it worked great, and we can easily recommend it for people who are yearning for a simple way to show on their big TVs all that stuff trapped on their computers. We tried it with various combinations of Windows and Mac computers, with movies, photos, TV shows, video clips and music. And we didn't even use the fastest wireless network it can handle. It performed flawlessly. However, it won't work with older TVs unless they can display widescreen-formatted content and accept some newer types of cables."
However, tech guru Walt Mossberg, after testing the device for 10 days, says that the device isn't for everyone because it has a limited set of functions that simply the process of transferring content from a Mac or PC to television, but faces competition from devices like Microsoft's Xbox 360, which unlike Apple TV, can download content directly from the internet.
"Apple TV isn't for that small slice of techies who buy a full-blown computer and plug it directly into a TV, or for gamers who prefer to do it all through a game console," he wrote. "And it's not for people who are content to watch downloaded TV shows and movies directly on a computer screen. Instead, it's for the much larger group of people who want to keep their home computers where they are and yet enjoy their downloaded media on their widescreen TVs."
Mossberg also notes Apple TV worked well with 802.11g networks, even though it also has the ability to work with faster 802.11n networks, but said that Apple TV did not support streaming of photos, but claimed that Apple would enable the feature in the future.
"In our tests, streaming worked just as well as playing content from the Apple TV's own hard disk," the report said. "Even though Walt's Wi-Fi network is of the older "G" variety, and the Apple TV can handle newer, faster "N" variety networks, every single movie, TV show and song streamed without interruption from both Windows and Mac computers. That even included older or slower computers. This was an impressive feat."
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 26
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
Jon
I think this is what one would expect from a component in their system -- that the volume be controlled by the receiver -- and frankly, I would be a bit disappointed if the volume were controllable from the device itself (unless it had a setting to turn off the feature). It would be nice if the up/down buttons on the remote did something useful, though. (Maybe in Front Row 2.0?)
Z
Why would you be "disappointed"? Is there something intrinsic about your media center that, if any device actually tried to control the sound, it would put you into a state of depression and/or disappointment? I mean, you might be annoyed, but diappointed?
And I agree with all about the inclusion of the item. People see a volume control on a remote, they actually might think, I don't know, it controls the volume or something. In fact, if it actually has absolutely no use (i.e. it doesn't control the volume in ANY circumstance), then what in the hell is it there for? They tout apple as being elegant and thinking things through, and then they throw in a remote where two of six buttons have no purpose (and this on a remote that's already extremely limted in its abilities).
conposite: Yellow for video, white and red for audio
Many options.
I'd love to integrate the Apple remote's buttons into my cable box's universal remote. Maybe I'll just buy a one remote to rule them all.