Comments on: Vudu drops price to fend off resurgent Apple TV

The price of the Vudu video-on-demand box drops from $399 to $295.

[Shindubob]

Apple always wins.

Apple always wins. It's the truth, and sometimes it sucks. But, this thing looks better than the apple tv cosmetics wise, and the remote looks sweeter as well.

[bob02903]

One important consideration

I have an AppleTV, and I love it, so I'm hardly impartial, but competition is always good, right? However, one important consideration is that the Vudu box currently offers no way to move purchased content off its internal hard drive, and therefore, no way to back it up. At least with the AppleTV, you have the content already on your computer as well, and you can also back up the data files from there to CD or DVD as you wish. I also think the Vudu requires a higher-speed internet connection, whereas the AppleTV is more forgiving of slower broadband speeds.

[megazone]

Neither - TiVo

I wouldn't buy either the Apple TV or the VUDU. I'll stick with my TiVo Series3 (if I were buying today, the TiVo HD) which gives me a full featured HD DVR, Amazon Unbox downloads (rumored to be getting an HD bump soon), the just announced Jaman.com downloads, TiVoCast downloads (including CNET, which I watch), and the ability to play my digital music, photos, and Internet video downloads from my PC. I consider it a much better value.

If I had to buy one of the two boxes - I'd buy the Apple TV. It costs less and does more. Sure, it has a smaller drive (40GB or 160GB vs. 500GB), but it allows you to transfer content with a PC, unlike the VUDU, so that isn't a big deal. All the media extender abilities - playing your PC-based content, accessing Internet video sites, etc - puts it ahead of the VUDU.

While the Apple TV is limited to 720p output, and the VUDU does 1080p, they BOTH over-compress the hell out of their video to make it small enough for downloads. So for real HD quality, I'll stick with my Blu-ray discs. VUDU reported compresses 1080p H.264 video down to 4Mbps - total. Blu-ray has a 54Mbps max transfer rate, and 40Mbps reserved just for video. On my 61" 1080p screen, bitrate matters.

[chiphayner]

As an owner of both...

...I have to say that to date (pre-ATV firmware update), they were on two separate playing fields: My AppleTV was primarily used for my music and that awesome photo screensaver, while my VUDU was the ultimate movie rental source for me. Now that they're are more-or-less the same box (in terms of movie rentals), I think that the AppleTV's added features of buying/streaming music, podcasts, and photos will be a better value, although VUDU's movie selection is still going to be lightyears ahead of what iTunes provides.

[iconoclast04]

Neither will matter in a few years

Just like the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD war, this debate won't matter down the road. The kind of functionality these devices provide could easily be integrated into TV sets themselves. In fact, I believe HP may already be in the early stages of offering sets with network capabilities. Why would I want an extra box sitting under my TV...oh and I can imagine stereo systems doing a similar thing on the audio front.

[Waam]

This is Apple's fight to lose.

I don't think Vudu stands a chance other than it looking cool. In fact, as soon as the new Apple TV packages with the revision comes out, I'm getting it.

[andrewrm]

It's about brand name recognition!

Most people out there are not as informed as the average Crave reader when it comes to home electronics. This means Apple wins. The public has two responces for this situation.

1)Vudu? Isn't that what you make zombies with?
2)Apple. Cool. They did it again. Gotta have it.