An Apple-produced television set is still in the rumour-mill, but the concept still mystifies us. Media outlets are proposing that Apple will do with the television industry what they did with the computer, music, and cell-phone industries. But TV isn’t the same beast, because of much of what TV is is not the hardware, or even the software, but the content distribution. That is to say, what brings value to your television beyond its size and image quality is what you have connected to your TV: a DVD or Blu-ray player, a gaming console, or simply your cable tuner. All of these accessories make use of content from different distribution methods, be it optical media, digital streaming, or something else.

Apple influenced computers by re-engineering the hardware and software; they made computers simpler.¹ They didn’t invent a better internet. And they backed content distribution formats that already existed, favoring those with longer expected lifespans (first optical discs, now digital streaming) versus those that were on their way out (first floppies, now Blu-ray). People bought Macs because they were easier to learn, were more stable, and abstracted a lot of the things Average Joe hates about computers (blue screens of death, configuration issues, et al).

Apple repeated the process with the music industry by making a better mp3 player, and then pushing a distribution method that already existed (digital downloads), albeit in a pay-for-content form. People bought iPods because they had better interfaces than the competition, generally greater storage capacities, all wrapped in a robust package that interfaced nicely with Apple software.

When Apple took on the cell phone market, they took on hardware that, like PCs earlier, were built on a myriad of shaky hardware platforms, with non-intuitive software interfaces, and with limited downloadable apps available through expensive, extremely proprietary outlets. People bought iPhones because the price was right, and because the iPhone easily leveraged the market Apple built with the iPod.

With tablets, Apple further abstracted the things Average Joe hates about PCs, providing the iPhone’s intuitive UI in a larger format for better web browsing and general computer use. Arguably, they made the tablet space, which is somewhat of a first for Apple.²

But televisions aren’t tablets. While Apple may have thrown around the idea of taking on carriers directly with the release of the iPhone, they ultimately signed a deal with AT&T to use existing infrastructure. Now surely, in the television space, Apple is better positioned to take on the carriers, because Apple already has a distribution platform they’ve successfully used since the iPod was born. But unlike each area Apple tackled before, televisions aren’t inherently broken. You can argue that TVs should be easier to set up, what with channel scanning, picture calibration, input configuration, DVR setup, etc. But these are problems with accessories, particularly those utilizing legacy inputs. If Apple sold a TV that dismissed legacy devices entirely (as Apple once shirked floppies and Blu-ray), would consumers buy the device? Would enough consumers buy the device to make entering this market worthwhile?

The Apple TV of today (the iOS-running media box) is a perfect test of this market, and it’s not clear just how profitable it’s been for Apple. The Apple TV is great because it’s instant-on, and it’s not hard to see how embedding this device into a conventional TV may make sense, just as some TVs sold today already offer some internet services like Pandora, Netflix, etc. But if you can buy an Apple TV today for $100, why would anyone replace their entire television to the tune of $2000 just to have a fully-integrated solution? For such a solution to be elegant, it would likely reserve only HDMI inputs, and no matter how Apple wanted to go about it, setup would remain tedious without lots of hardware being integrated off the bat (like an audio solution).

Sure, we can envision a sleek, Apple-branded television that comes with surround-sound speakers, complete with an audio configuration wizard to optimize sound. It would indeed be an elegant solution, but at what price? People don’t replace their TVs as often as they do their computers and mobile devices. If anything, most people wait until they actually have the space for a big-screen TV, their TV dies, or a major new display technology is unveiled.³ So sure, we can envision such an object, but not outside Apple’s research lab.

For a consumer product, Apple would be better off working with TV manufacturers to create “Apple TV-ready” televisions, where a designated HDMI port would always be the default when turning a TV on, such that the first thing a user sees is the Apple TV. With some fancy integration, attached Apple TVs could control access to other input ports to access attached consoles and legacy hardware, so in effect, an Apple TV “brain” would ensure a perfect user experience. With no Apple TV attached, however, the television would simply revert back to the “generic” menus most TVs have today.

Think we’re wrong? Drop us a tweet and explain what would compel you to shell out big money to replace your existing HDTV.⁴

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• Enderle just wanted to write “JewJew.” – While we brought the Joo Joo up in passing, Rob Enderle proclaimed that the former CrunchPad could c…
• The new iPad as our new PC. – Apple hasn’t pushed the new iPad’s specs into the limelight, a trend they’ve run with for all their …

The talk of late is Apple’s further foray into the television industry, pushing beyond the Apple TV into a full-fledged televisions. And the question, of course, is how Apple will do it, and the only certain thing everyone agrees on is that Apple will revolutionize television by completely revamping it, instead of iterative improvement ala DVRs. Logically, this means that live streaming of television may be off the table, and we consider that a good thing, because as this post’s title suggests, flicking through channels in search of something good is dumb.

Chris Martucci sides with those who like channel surfing:

Being in direct control is not always desirable. It’s why we still use services such as StumbleUpon and Pandora. I don’t want to always choose the song I want to listen to. Sometimes, I want to be at the mercy of chance. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But channel surfing isn’t just leaving things up to chance, because the next station you’re about to tune into is the one right next to the one you’re already on in numerical order. If you scroll up in the channel list, you’re always seeing the same sequence of channels flash by. If you scroll down it’s still the same sequence, only in reverse. And chances are, you may very well miss out on something good because you stop on something good enough only a few channels away. And half the time, you’re just bypassing commercials anyway, so you’re wasting an enormous amount of time scrolling through crap because you apparently have nothing better to do.

Making the television a device where you watch what you demand is far more efficient. It’s the “every channel is an app” philosophy wherein you request exactly the show you want, only to have it stream accordingly. Ideally, there wouldn’t be any commercials, and you won’t get sidetracked with mediocre shows unless you specifically request them. And that model doesn’t remove the concept of “chance”, because discovery of shows you don’t request is still possible: either you can discover new shows with a recommendation engine ala Pandora¹, else you can select a “true” random function that will start playing anything from the Apple television library. Either option serves Martucci’s need to stumble across new programming, but it removes much of the inefficiency of how channel surfers do it today.

Similar Posts:

• Siri integration with the Apple TV? – Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…
• Too much drool over Apple TV. – People have been going ga-ga over Apple TV ever since it was announced. I wasn’t sure what the big d…
• Why buy an Apple television? – An Apple-produced television set is still in the rumour-mill, but the concept still mystifies us. Me…

Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo another update later this year, adding some new multimedia capabilities like integration with certain cable television channels, as well as the long-ago-announced-but-never-realized IPTV integration.¹ There’s even Kinect support, so XBox owners can speak commands to switch what they’re viewing. Not only does this further direct us to what the future will be like, but it also prompting the question of, “Why can’t Apple do this?”

That is to say, the Apple TV is a much cheaper set-top solution than the XBox. (Of course it is, as it’s not a traditional gaming console.) But the features Microsoft is advertising with the new XBox dashboard upgrade is straight up the territory that Apple has fought for with the Apple TV, and it’s not hard to see how Apple may respond.

Why wouldn’t Apple be vying for similar contracts that Microsoft has snatched up for the XBox? Players like HBO, Bravo, the UFC, and others are clearly good to have on your team, and while Apple is still pushing content via iTunes, there are several others like real-time streaming pay-per-view that Apple could go after. But it’s not just content that Apple can try to match, it’s also cost and functionality.

Take Siri, for example, which is premiering on the iPhone 4S. Whether or not it comes to the next-gen Apple TV, there’s already solid integration between Apple devices, so it’s not hard to imagine that Apple might leverage Siri on the iPhone to control the Apple TV. From browsing the iTunes catalogue for TV shows and movies, to playback control, Siri looks like it could become an integral part of the future television experience. And Siri becoming a foundation for future control methods doesn’t need to stop there, considering how third-parties could leverage the technology.

We already have games utilizing AirPlay to stream video and audio to the AppleTV. Add in a third element, voice commands, and suddenly games can become even more complex and immersive. The XBox can do the same, of course, but whereas the Kinect remains an almost novelty purchase, Siri is part of the new iPhone experience, which means it won’t be too long before every iPhone Apple sells will offer the virtual assistant built in.

Siri’s real future is how third-party developers can integrate Siri functionality in their apps. It’s already great for Apple’s included apps, but it becomes ever more cool when we can create new tasks in OmniFocus using voice commands, or new notes in SimpleNote, than relying on first-party apps. Especially if we can use Siri to manipulate these apps along with AirPlay, giving us a big-screen picture to control with our voice.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …

We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when we last wrote about the subject, we proferred that the key to Apple’s gaming platform success was already achieved in Apple’s mobile devices:

Technologies like AirPlay, or even video-out adapters, may well serve gamers to stream iPhone and iPad gaming to the big-screen, and this is where we expect to see additional innovation. Why tack on additional costs to the Apple TV by offering new controllers, or muse about potential storage solutions, when we already have capable storage on existing iOS devices?

John Gruber linked a comment from Phil Harrison, who was involved in the original Sony Playstation launch. The future of Apple, Harrison contends, is also the future of gaming. And Gruber responds by noting that the Apple TV doesn’t even support apps yet, as though to point out how the Apple TV will be another salvo aimed at the console industry. But as we pointed out back in April when we talked about the Apple TV as a console, the changes Apple would need to make to the platform to complete against the traditional console market is unecessarily complex, and the more likely scenario Apple will pursue is much easier to envision:

The Apple TV doesn’t need gaming apps, it simply needs to present the apps already on our iOS devices to the big-screen. Everyone thinks the Apple TV could be another platform for Apple to push, but its true strength is in acting as a bridge between our existing Apple devices and the television. Just as it already streams music, photos, and video from our devices, the Apple TV could be leveraged to present a gaming experience served up from these same devices. The issue then is not adding controllers and storage to the Apple TV, but adding an Apple TV to our iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Or more simply put, mobile Apple devices shouldn’t be seen as accessories to the Apple TV; the Apple TV should be considered an accessory to mobile Apple devices. We can take this further to say that the Apple TV will never be a gaming console, but it will be the accessory that brings the console experience to the home, thanks to bridging audio and video from iPads and iPhones to the family TV. The proof-of-concept was playing iPad games on TVs thanks to a wired adapter, but the release version of this technology is AirPlay, which already works fairly well for conventional media. With iOS 5, AirPlay will work for streaming audio/video from games to the TV as well, and as Real Racing 2 for the iPad illustrates, the technology will allow mobile devices to display additional information, while the main visual output will show up on the TV.¹

There’s still the small issue of storage, because 64GB max on the iPad means that only a handful of truly deep games can sit in one’s future Apple console library at a time, but that storage limitation will slowly disappear. Plus, the reality is that many gamers are content playing games that don’t require massive storage requirements for graphics files and video, so just how serious this storage problem will be is questionable over the course of the next couple years.

We fully expect gaming developers to implement AirPlay functionality in future titles, to at least supplement the gaming experience There’s no need for Apple to compete for shelf-space in Gamestop, because beyond their digital distribution of games thanks to the AppStore, Apple’s console is already being shipped in several form factors thanks to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. The Apple TV is just icing on the cake.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• The Apple TV as a console. – Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in televisi…
• Siri integration with the Apple TV? – Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…

Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in television manufacturing; some wish to believe that Apple will delve into the TV production business, while others are critical in this regard. Others still are taking this opportunity to point out that doubting Apple’s entry in a given market has a poor track record, what with Apple having releasing the iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch, and Apple TV not long after pundits proclaimed these endeavors too risky, or too unlike Apple.

What’s certain, at least, is that Apple doubled down on their “hobby,” the Apple TV, when they released an iOS-based version costing just under a hundred bucks. The device is plug-and-play, easy-to-use, and is already offering alluring new features thanks to fancy licensing deals with Netflix, Major League Baseball, the NBA, et al. Indeed, the Apple TV is being positioned as an alternative to cable television, offering a consistent experience across markets that do not share the same cable provider. More importantly, the a la carte television and movie programming has gotten substantially better over time (addressing a chief complaint we’ve had with the Apple TV for years).

So Apple TV’s getting better, and that means Apple has an excellent weapon they can use to continue infiltrating an otherwise chaotic industry, offering a clean, consistent experience that potentially rivals the experience cable operators offer. Lessien believes that Apple can leverage apps, iAds, and subscriptions to even further promote the Apple TV, where apps pay homage to the living room gamer.

Apps, in particular games, give Apple an opportunity to extend their hugely successful mobile development platform into the living room. Low-priced apps, immediately downloadable, connected via GameCenter, controllable with iOS handheld devices just make sense. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft should be nervous.

There’s still a question as to how apps will work on the Apple TV, because to date, third-party Apple TV apps have been part of official iOS updates, not voluntary installs from an Apple TV AppStore. And then, of course, are the issues with transforming the Apple TV into a console replacement.

What of the controller?

The Apple TV comes with a lone remote. It’s a nice, simplistic remote, and in no way capable of working as a good console controller. The notion of using iOS devices as controllers is a worthy one, with such functionality easily worked into Apple’s Remote app. But whether it can technically be done or not is hardly the issue. Rather, if Apple planned to situate the Apple TV as a console replacement, it wouldn’t drastically increase the adopter fee by requiring a controller purchase several times more than the cost of the Apple TV itself. While many people already have iOS devices they can use for this purpose, Apple won’t make that a requirement any more than they made having an iPhone a prerequisite for iPad cellular data service¹.

The alternative to buying up older, second-hand iPhones and iPod Touches is simply buying a new iController that only runs the Apple Remote app, or perhaps runs a specific iController app that allows developers to create skin-able controller layouts for various games. The controller wouldn’t need an A5 processor, much storage, or RAM, and could rely purely on bluetooth for connectivity. With a gyroscope for added functionality, this iController could probably come in at a reasonable price-point, so families could pick up an Apple TV, two iControllers, and a multi-iController charging dock for under 200 bucks.

Such an iController would clearly be wireless, and would have a sufficient battery life for prolonged gaming sessions. But, without tactile feedback, and being limited to virtual buttons on the device face, there’s an obvious question of how capable the device would be compared to the multi-button monstrosities that modern gaming controllers have become. That’s not to say that a simpler, more polished interface isn’t an attractive proposal, but this could be considered a major flaw when compared to consoles whose controllers offer a button for every conceivable action in a given game; Apple TV games may inherently need to be simpler.

The only other option is let the Apple TV interface with bluetooth-enabled gaming controllers of a more conventional form, but this then becomes a contrary force to the multitouch philosophy that Apple has pushed for iOS. In order for Apple to remain consistent in this regard, we see it challenging devices like the Wii, but not button-heavy consoles like the XBox 360 and Playstation 3. Ultimately, if the Apple TV is to compete in the console wars, it needs to find a way to offer the same titles that other consoles do, and that means offering a controller scheme that’s not weaker in comparison.

What of the storage?

The Apple TV doesn’t have a lot of storage. In fact, it’s designed to stream content, not download it. So when we talk of games, anything substantial is no longer a possibility. Yes, Apple could allow the attachment of an external hard-drive, but now we’re again pumping up the cost of the device and making it less accessible. If Apple decided to increase the Apple TV’s storage, we could get away with simpler, casual games, but to truly compete with the big boys, we’d see games many gigs in size. That’s not to say that Apple couldn’t position the Apple TV as a casual-friendly console and compete exclusively with the Wii in this regard, but why limit market penetration to such a niche role?

The only other option is to stream video, and here, Apple may have a sound strategy. That is to say, Apple has already proven it can get content owners on board with its platform, as seen with record labels, movie studios, and TV broadcasters. So, if Apple decided to take on OnLive, and use the Apple TV to stream gaming video feeds, then storage isn’t an issue. However, this seems contrary to the AppStore ecosystem Apple has established to date, and makes rolling out a nation-wide, consistent experience difficult. That’s not to say such a move isn’t plausible, merely unlikely.

What of established iOS gaming?

With no clear solution to the problems of offering low-cost controllers and storage for the Apple TV, there’s nothing Microsoft and Sony need to worry about just yet². Apple would likely do a much better job than OnLive for getting a streaming library of games available to a wide audience, but the technology here is still too young for widespread adoption. Apple is better off focusing on how they can situate the Apple TV as an every-man device, and look to entering the set-top console fray at a later date.

Where traditional gaming companies need to watch out is Apple’s continued domination of the mobile space. Technologies like AirPlay, or even video-out adapters, may well serve gamers to stream iPhone and iPad gaming to the big-screen, and this is where we expect to see additional innovation. Why tack on additional costs to the Apple TV by offering new controllers, or muse about potential storage solutions, when we already have capable storage on existing iOS devices?

The Apple TV doesn’t need gaming apps, it simply needs to present the apps already on our iOS devices to the big-screen. Everyone thinks the Apple TV could be another platform for Apple to push, but its true strength is in acting as a bridge between our existing Apple devices and the television. Just as it already streams music, photos, and video from our devices, the Apple TV could be leveraged to present a gaming experience served up from these same devices. The issue then is not adding controllers and storage to the Apple TV, but adding an Apple TV to our iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Similar Posts:

• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the ...
• Siri integration with the Apple TV? - Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…
• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…

We say “probably” because if Target doesn’t have a line at 17:00 today, we may be tempted to stop in and make an impulse buy against our better judgment. What’s this judgment based on? Lack of features and a question of hasty integration of those features.

Who wants to carry the iPad around their neck?

We never understood the need for a camera in the iPad, but that’s because we think anyone who needs a mobile phone should have an iPhone already. The iPhone is a pocket-able device and the iPad isn’t. It may be a novelty to use the iPad for taking pictures but it’s an impractical novelty and won’t catch on. Most people will still use point-and-shoot digicams or their cell-phones. Video may see more acceptance on the iPad but most people will stick to shooting HD video with their cell phones or Flip-like devices. Never mind that the cameras in the iPad 2 aren’t as good as the ones in the iPhone 4.

So will developers quickly integrate camera use in their apps? Sure, we’ll see iPad-ized versions of iPhone apps like Instagram, et al, if only because developers will want extra exposure and a few more dollars from paid apps. It’s rather unlikely that a truly killer iPad app will surface that will require the use of a camera (other than FaceTime) but even if it does it probably won’t surface soon, so waiting for the iPad 3 sounds reasonable. Plus, we already have FaceTime on our iPhone.

Who wants these other novelty features?

Video mirroring via HDMI is cool but we don’t see an immediate need for this. If AirPlay were somehow involved and playing iPad games on our big-screen television were possible then this might be a killer feature, but since this process isn’t wireless and we don’t give presentations on our iPad then this is useless to us. We still hold a grudge about not being able to get a white iPhone 4 and besides, the black bezel is easier on the eyes, so this too is useless to us. And GSM devices are better for international travel, so the little international travel we do would be hampered by a Verizon-based iPad which we can’t place a local SIM card into.

Okay, we want the speed and RAM.

Here’s the bit about where we’d want an iPad 2, but only to play around with iMovie and wait some months before games start taking advantage of the speedier performance. The question becomes, “Will there be a game that requires the iPad 2′s performance improvements sooner rather than later,” which is just another way of asking, “Won’t the iPad 3 be out by the time these types of games are widely available?” So yeah, we’d want an iPad 2 if a great game came out that either ran like shit on the original iPad or didn’t run on the legacy iPad at all. Because we don’t want to feel like we’re missing something cool. And that poses a thought that sounds something like this: Assuming another year before the iPad 3 comes out, it really only makes sense to get the iPad 2 early on, because if you wait to buy it when ueber-cool games requiring iPad 2 speed boosts are available, four-plus months may have gone by and at that point you’re either only going to have the iPad 2 for a half year or so before you upgrade again, else you’ll feel guilty and won’t upgrade to the iPad 3 at all. And really, everyone’s expecting the iPad 3 to be a bigger improvement in the line than the iPad 2 was to the legacy iPad.

Storage is what we really want.

And that last thought plays into this one: Since the iPad 2 has no storage bumps and is still maxed at 64GB, it’s not going to give us any breathing room for our apps, photos, and videos if we upgrade. We’re already about five gigs below capacity and expect to hit the ceiling within a year, which means that we will be looking at the iPad 3 come next year (or daresay, in the autumn like Gruber proposed). Since we use the iPad as our main computing device at home and on the road, scaling back what we carry on the device is annoying, so even jumping to 128GB is a major boon. So however we look at it, the iPad 2 is going to cost us over $800 in one year and then we’re going to dump it. If the iPad 2 had a greater storage capacity then the upgrade would probably be a no-brainer, but since storage capacity is the device’s Achilles heel (for us) it makes more sense to wait.

And if we wait even a few months then we may as well wait the rest of the year for the iPad 3 which will most certainly have a larger storage capacity.

Waiting is a calculated game.

Holding out for the third generation iPad is a gamble. It’s a gamble that the hardware boosts in the iPad 2 won’t be mandatory to the full iPad experience. Already, iMovie requires the iPad 2 and games are already being announced that will make use of the iPad 2′s hardware. If the legacy iPad can stay in the game for the next six months or more then it shouldn’t be a huge deal to wait six more for a proper upgrade. And hell, maybe we won’t have to wait even that long.

Similar Posts:

• Retina graphics and file-sizes. – Retina-optimized graphics are awesome, we all pretty much agree. But there comes a trade-off with su…
• iPad, the second generation. – Plenty of rumours about iPad 2.0 are hitting the blogosphere, complete with photos of “leaks” from c…
• Replace an iPhone using different-line upgrade eligibility. – It’s upsetting that AT&T wasn’t clearer on this before we decided to rant, especially since their ow…

We held off on buying aTV Flash for the 2G Apple TV because we didn’t want to deal with a tethered jailbreak; the idea of having to connect our Apple TV to a Mac whenever it needed a reboot or lost power, was too much of a hassle to bear. So we waited.

Fortunately, GreenPois0n RC6, released only days ago, finally offers an untethered jailbreak for the 2G Apple TV, so after hearing this, we promptly downloaded GreenPois0n and bought aTV Flash. Sadly, getting everything to play nicely together wasn’t as easy.

First off, our box-of-cables didn’t have a micro USB cable in it. Apparently, we owned every USB cable variant in existence, but not a micro USB. Best Buy was sold out, but a trip to Radio Shack paid off. Unfortunately, the cable was $25, but we didn’t want to wait.

Step One: update the Apple TV.

First, we upgraded our Apple TV to the latest firmware. We held off on doing this earlier because we weren’t sure if this would make a jailbreak more difficult in the future. Fortunately, GreenPois0n works with the latest Apple TV firmware.

Step Two: green-poisoning

We ran the GreenPois0n app, but there was a problem: every time we followed the prompts in the app, the jailbreak would fail, or GreenPois0n would crash. One time, the progress bar sat for half an hour without anything happening. So, we decided to switch things up a little.

Instead of following GreenPois0n’s prompts, we ran the app, clicked “yes” when it asked us if we wanted to jailbreak an Apple TV, and then held off on clicking the jailbreak button. Instead, we plugged our Apple TV’s micro USB cable in, then immediately the power cable, and then held down the menu and down buttons on the Apple TV remote. Once the lights on the Apple TV started to blink extremely fast (about seven seconds), we released the buttons on the remote. Then, we immediately pressed the menu and play/pause buttons until the light on the front of the Apple TV again began blinking very fast. This took another seven seconds or so, after which we released the buttons on the remote.

At this point, we pressed the jailbreak button in GreenPois0n. What we did here is put the Apple TV in DFU mode, which is what GreenPois0n needs to work.

After GreenPois0n prompted that it was finished, we waited 40 seconds and then disconnected the micro USB cable, and hooked the Apple TV back up to our television.

Then, we ran the GreenPois0n installer from the Apple TV itself. Quick and easy.

Step Three: fire-coring.

We ran the aTV Flash program on our Mac, and when it finished, our Apple TV had all the necessary files to install Last.FM, Plex, etc. Unfortunately, we had two problems: when we rebooted our Apple TV, there was no maintenance menu to install any aTV goodies, and we lost our wifi connection. It turns out, this is a problem with the GreenPois0n jailbreak, but it’s easy enough to fix.

Step Four: damage control.

We connected the Apple TV to our network via an ethernet cable. We then launched Terminal on our Mac and connected to our Apple TV (ssh root@apple-tv.local). The password is “alpine”.

Once in, we entered the following sequence of commands:

apt-get update
apt-get remove com.nito.nitotv
apt-get install com.nito.nitotv
killall AppleTV

When these commands finished, we exited SSH (exit).

Wifi was back at this point, but still no maintenance menu. Again, easy enough to fix; we entered NitoTV, and updated it. Then, we went to the Install Software menu, and on the very bottom, went to Update All. We then rebooted. Lo and behold, the maintenance menu was now present, with wifi working.

Step Five: profit.

From the maintenance menu, we installed Plex, which was the main reason we wanted aTV to begin with. We haven’t gotten so far as to install anything else yet, but the fact that we can now access all our video files from our Mac is fantastic. It’s also much easier than the idea of running Plex on our iPad or iPhone, and using AirPlay to stream the files to our Apple TV, if and when such a feature ever makes it into a future Plex client.

With this setup, we can now technically remove our Mac Mini from our entertainment center, because the Apple TV is now a fully capable media center in its own right. About the only thing missing is an OnLive client, but who knows, maybe we’ll get that, too.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• How to jailbreak and unlock a 2G iPhone (2.0). – The iPhone Dev Team, a group of hackers who have made it their mission to jailbreak and unlock iPhon…
• Overcoming Apple TV’s file-type limitations. – We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, i…

When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV exists, and yes, Plex for jailbroken Apple TVs exists also. However, installation of Plex isn’t as straightforward as downloading the app from Cydia, and Plex on the Apple TV isn’t full-featured either. So when we said that we were waiting for an Apple TV jailbreak, we meant we were waiting on an untethered jailbreak that enables easy access to a working version of Plex.

But all of this may be unnecessary, we realize, if Apple publishes the APIs necessary for third-party developers to integrate video-based AirPlay for iOS apps. You see, AirPlay on iOS devices will only stream video to the Apple TV from Apple’s own apps, not from third-parties, as the latter are limited to audio streams only. But, let’s assume that this is a temporary issue, and third-party developers will soon get access to audio and video streaming via AirPlay. In this case, there’s no reason that the AppStore-published Plex app can’t integrate AirPlay, which already streams video from one’s home computer to an iOS device. Here, AirPlay would simply add one more leg of streaming to an Apple TV, which may not be ideal, but should still work.

Ultimately, such a solution is easier than automating media format conversions for import into iTunes, just so Apple TV can play the files. Plus, it means that our media server Mac Mini could be tucked well away from the actual television, since the Apple TV would be the bridge between our content and television. It’s a fine solution, and one that’s more attractive than dealing with a re-jailbreaking an Apple TV every time a new iOS version comes out.

Now, we just need to wait for better AirPlay support to spend another $100 on Apple hardware.

Similar Posts:

• Overcoming Apple TV’s file-type limitations. – We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, i…
• Siri integration with the Apple TV? – Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…
• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …

We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, it’s easy to set up and use, which is great for cohabitants who are not technically inclined. But as a device that one streams content to, it’s extremely limited in its handling of file types, and this is the device’s biggest weakness.

Consider that any content you have on your home computer needs to be in an iTunes-playable format to work with Apple TV. That’s fine for anything you download from the iTunes store, but any other media, such as home media you’ve ripped from DVDs into another format, is simply unusable by iTunes and Apple TV. Which means that you either have to convert all this media into a format iTunes recognizes, or simply agree not to play it via Apple TV at all. That’s a shame, especially considering that Apple TV’s biggest Mac rival for media centers in the free-to-use Plex, which has, so far, played every format we’ve thrown at it.

Maybe everyone doesn’t have a Mac hooked up to their TVs, because the Mac Mini is still several times the price of the new Apple TV, but is the price drop of the new Apple TV enough of an incentive to forego handling a wider array of file types, or taking the time to convert your media to a different format just so Apple TV can handle it?

We find ourselves in a similar position as when the 2G iPhone was released in 2007: we want this fancy new Apple device, but don’t want to pull the trigger until there’s a jailbreak available. A jailbreak means Plex integration, which means family can access Plex content from the Apple TV and not get frustrated with media center logins. (We have one admin account handling media encoding/downloading, and a non-admin “media center” account for family Plex use.)

But there’s potentially another solution worth looking into: a server-side script on our media center that automatically converts media in a given folder (recursively) into iTunes, and deletes the source file once the conversion is complete. With such a solution, any files you rip/download could be used by a stock Apple TV, and the whole mess would be transparent to the household’s Apple TV users. The question then becomes whether or not $100 is too much for another remote and a dedicated, easy-to-use front-end for your TV that the family can’t “mess up.” For those who don’t have a Mac Mini hooked up to their TV, the answer is likely an enthusiastic “yes.”

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• Apple TV 2G, aTV Flash, and Greenpois0n. – We held off on buying aTV Flash for the 2G Apple TV because we didn’t want to deal with a tethered j…
• The Apple guy told me to pirate TV. – In beautiful form, my visit to the local Apple store today resulted in an ironic flashback to Apple’…

We jumped on the FIOS bandwagon for our last move in hopes of super-fast internet speeds. While cable was long-touted as an outstanding alternative over DSL, our Comcast connection wasn’t perfect, and the 12MB advertised speeds were hardly that. So when we moved to a location previously wired for FIOS, we thought we’d be in for smooth sailing, since the only major complaints about FIOS we encountered were regarding a fresh install. Supposedly, once everything was in, people experienced Internet ecstasy.

Making the order.

The process we went through just to get FIOS activated was nothing short of a monstrous affair, however, at least as far as activating utilities go. While we already scouted out the information we needed for the plans we wanted, we were ambushed by our electric company when we activated power at our new residence. They claimed to be a FIOS partner, and could go ahead and take out FIOS order, thus not necessitating a call directly to FIOS. If anyone ever tells you this, tell them they are liars, and immediately hang up.

We told them no such thing, and though the convenience worth it. Little did we know that our power company could only offer us plans that were not the lowest advertised, nor were the packages very customizable. Of course, we didn’t know this until the basic order had already gone through, so by the time we hung up the phone, we had to call Verizon anyway to sort things out. And so began our phone call march, because getting through to a human being at Verizon is no easy process, especially when Verizon bounces you from operator to operator, oftentimes dropping the call midway through. Complicating the calling chain was the fact that our mobile phone number, representing the only phone we own, was not bound to a local area code, which meant that we were routinely routed to a Verizon office hundreds of miles away, instead of dealing with someone who could handle local orders.

Hours later, we finally got our order fixed. Not fixed per se, because we basically had to start a new order, and the rep we spoke to promised to delete the original order once it entered their system (apparently there’s lag in this). It’s worth noting that when we explained that our power company took our FIOS order, the immediate response was, “Yeah, don’t do that.” This was a common thought among Verizon reps we spoke to, which begs the question as to why Verizon has affiliates like power companies in the first place, since even Verizon employees think it’s a bad idea. (Apparently, numerous calls are fielded every day in which Verizon employees need to fix issues with customer orders thanks to affiliates screwing them up.)

Of course, the original order didn’t get cleared when it should have been even after we lined up our correct order. This required even more phone calls to the local office after we received e-mails and phone messages concerning the first order.

Using TiVo.

There were two non-standard requests with our order, both of which caused us pain in getting things set up. The first was that we had a TiVo HD unit that we previously used with Comcast, which we were told would work with FIOS. When the FIOS installer showed up (mind you, they provide a window of four or eight hours, effectively making you take the day off of work), he didn’t know much about TiVo at all. He fumbled through the TiVo menus and eventually got a signal to show up, and was thus content with this part of the setup. He did not, however, make sure that the on-screen guide worked, so when he was done, none of the channels matched up with their descriptions. We would later find out that fixing this was a simple matter of re-running the TiVo setup process, but Verizon was useless in providing this information. Their response to my concerns that things weren’t working as intended was, “We don’t support non-Verizon supplied hardware.” Yet they do, actually, because they bothered going so far as to install the Cable Card we’re leasing from them. In other words, they did a half-ass job; either support setting up the TiVo in full, or don’t do it at all and just hand customers their Cable Card.

Verizon’s shitty router.

The second FIOS install obstacle was that we didn’t want to use their supplied router, because we already had an Apple Time Capsule which handled our routing needs. This was a non-issue with a cable modem, but as our brief time using DSL showed us, things would be more complicated if the supplied modem had a built-in router. We addressed this in advance with the FIOS installer, and he said it wouldn’t be a problem – he wasn’t authorized to make changes to the provided router, but the included manual had all the instructions necessary to disable the routing capabilities of the Verizon device, such that we could just hook our Time Capsule up to it. Liar.

First off, no manual was supplied with the router. There was a quick setup guide, but no in-depth instructions. Naturally, he took off before we could go through the supplied guides in depth, so we were left hanging. We explored the firmware options via the router’s web interface, searched the web, and came up empty-handed: the supplied device did not have a way to disable the router. Sure, we could have just sucked it up and used our Time Capsule for backup purposes only, but we liked Back to My Mac working as intended, didn’t want redundant DHCP, and are, quite simply, stubborn. So, back to the phone, being transferred from person to person, and ultimately coming upon a solution.

Originally, we thought we needed a networking interface module (NIM) to use as a basic modem, which we could then plug our Time Capsule into. It turns out that NIMs weren’t being distributed by Verizon anymore, however, despite the fact that not every rep we spoke to knew about this, so we were transferred to their business department twice because they could supposedly provide us with such a mythical NIM. The real solution, however, is simply to have Verizon deactivate the internet-over-coax signal, and enable the internet-over-ethernet signal on the main FIOS box (installed in our basement). This meant that we’d still have a coax cable running from the FIOS box to our television (not first through their router), and we’d have an ethernet cable running from the FIOS box to our Time Capsule. Figuring this out wasn’t easy, because one Verizon rep was insistent that the ethernet port on the FIOS box was for technician troubleshooting purposes only (this despite the fact that we pointed to internet resources saying otherwise).

Sadly, when the signal switching was eventually done, another Verizon rep refused to stay on the line to verify that things were then working as intended. Of course, they weren’t, so we were now back to having no internet. Calling back, and explaining the changes made to our setup, a new rep insisted that we needed to reattach the router such that they could try to query it, even though we explained that internet-over-coax was disabled. She was insistent that they could still query the router, though we knew she was wrong. Eventually, she agreed to send over a technician again to sort things out.

Of course, by then we were back on the internet searching for solutions, and we finally found one. It turns out that once the signal-switching occurred, the internet-over-ethernet worked so long as the Verizon supplied router was attache to the FIOS box over ethernet. This then required us to login to the router’s web interface and ask for the IP to be released and reassigned. Once we pressed the “release” button, we needed to swap out the Verizon router for the Time Capsule. The IP was reassigned to our own router, and we were up and running. Up and running about 10 hours after the original technician showed up.

Conclusions?

The biggest conclusion here is that Verizon employees who handle FIOS tech support (on and off-site both) have no consistency ins training. Some are positively clueless about Verizon-supplied hardware, while a few have either been around long enough, or taken the time to research the equipment, and thus know enough to properly inform Verizon customers. Either way, the installation process is long and painstaking even without a fresh install.

Of course, if we had simply ordered a regular package, complete with Verizon’s comparatively poor DVR and configuration-limited router, perhaps the entire installation for us would have taken no more than two hours. But this isn’t 1999, and installing broadband internet in homes where many people have their own routers and DVRs shouldn’t be a troublesome experience for the customers or the on-site technicians.

Of course, now that everything’s installed, our service has been rock-solid over the last month, so at least there’s that. Speeds are much faster than via Comcast (and for less money), which is certainly nice. But we knew to expect that going in, so while the end-service may get an “A,” the customer service during install gets a “D” a best. Not exactly what we expected considering all the AT&T slamming in favor of Verizon. Even Comcast, which as a comparatively poor reputation, has never caused us as much pain when we had a problem, and in most cases were responsive and better informed than the many Verizon folks we spoke to. Something worth keeping in mind if you ever make a similar leap over to FIOS.

Similar Posts:

• Comcast’s DVR is unbelievable shit. – It’s bloody amazing that though TiVo has been around for almost a decade, no one else has managed t…
• Microcell to fix abrupt AT&T iPhone issues? – Our 2G iPhone, operating exclusively on T-Mobile, once started having issues making/receiving phone …
• Week of tweets: 2012-02-12. – I hate family car decals, but these are pretty cool. http://t.co/SVuy17BI # Week of tweets: 2012-02…