PDA

View Full Version : the new apple tv - 1080p isn't needed




musio
Aug 12, 2010, 03:48 AM
†his is what i think Apple think about the whole situation.

if DVD's playback 480i and there isn't a single Apple device with blue-ray, why bother going to 1080p? It's a 'waste' (in Apple's eyes) since they don't ship a blueray player and those who have bought an external one are so few.

When apple start streaming 1080p, then we'll get it..in the meantime, what's the point (apart from those few people who have hd camcorders/BR etc but i am assuming they are a minority?) It doesn't fit in with Apple's methodology of giving us open systems. If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do, you're not buying 1080p so it's a waste building that into the atv. By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

If apple stream 1080p content (which they're not going to do at this point in time) then it's reason enough to give it to the public.

Besides, I'm sure atv will be hackable and the JB teams will have 1080p shortly after release...



iambasil
Aug 12, 2010, 04:29 AM
There is a lot more out there than apple downloads and disc-based media. And what about the future?

I certainly wouldn't consider iTV if it didn't support 1080p - there's plenty of competition that does.

More interested to see what it supports in terms of new software/streaming services and how it interacts with the wider web community and household devices.

musio
Aug 12, 2010, 04:37 AM
the future?

By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...



the future is a new atv with 108p = more apple sales with a never before apple done project! :eek:

think of the same situation with apple not giving the public MMS until a lot later and really selling it to us with only the newer models (3g) doing it leaving the 2g behind.

iambasil
Aug 12, 2010, 06:15 AM
the future?



the future is a new atv with 108p = more apple sales with a never before apple done project! :eek:

think of the same situation with apple not giving the public MMS until a lot later and really selling it to us with only the newer models (3g) doing it leaving the 2g behind.That is the worst thing about Apple.

The childish buzz about the company and fanboys/girls is infuriating and allows Apple to drag their heels with new technologies when competitors have it all already available (although granted, generally not done as well as when Apple finally release their versions).

I've been buying mac since 1992 and it does get to me that these days they overprice and draw out the release of a lot of technology - if they didn't have such an annoying fanboy/girl following (most of whom I know don't know how to use more than 10% of what hardware/software is capable of), then I'm sure they couldn't afford to be so drawn out with technology releases.

A good example is the iPad... of course they could have released a higher res screen with facetime on the first iPad, but oh no! They wanted to drag it out and do the software/screen release on their key product. 3 months after buying and you're already playing catchup! That's just wrong.

Your example of 2G iPhone was a good one - at the time of the original iPhone release, we had had built in 3G, MMS, 'facetime' (without the branding), built in GPS, touchscreens for 4 YEARS! (in Europe anyway) Yet the iPhone didn't...

And now I'm sending back another flawed iPhone... never had such poor quality control in the previous 18 years of Apple purchases!

Anyway, back to the point - I won't be considering iTV if it doesn't have 1080p, and will be making a stand against these drawn out technology releases from Apple. I can already stream 1080p without the need of apple peripherals anyway!!

musio
Aug 12, 2010, 06:23 AM
iambasil (haha, great name! I guess it's from Fawlty towers?)

I totally agree with apple's staggered technology policy but it's how they make money :(

RE 1080p, not a lot of BR's are out and i rent lots of dvd's from the shops or download HD from the itunes store which is below 720p anyway so there's no need. Let's see if things change in year.

AD7863
Aug 12, 2010, 06:26 AM
I recently bought an iMac like 2 months ago, now they went and updated it again with a faster processor for the same price. Really irritating when they do that.

musio
Aug 12, 2010, 06:31 AM
I recently bought an iMac like 2 months ago, now they went and updated it again with a faster processor for the same price. Really irritating when they do that.

If you read the buyers guide it gives an eta of when new macs are updated.

Let's keep this focused on the lack (and no-need?) issue of 1080p

iambasil
Aug 12, 2010, 06:31 AM
iambasil (haha, great name! I guess it's from Fawlty towers?)It's really my name! Tough growing up, but love it now :)

...it's how they make money :(There are lots of ways they make money (of which they make plenty!). That tactic needn't be one of them.

zedsdead
Aug 12, 2010, 06:35 AM
It seems that they may do the 720/30p which the other iOS devices are enabled for, although we all know that even the 3gs can playback 1080p. It will suck if Apple doesn't allow this, but I can easily see it happening since they do not offer anything above 720p anyway.

iambasil
Aug 12, 2010, 06:38 AM
Let's keep this focused on the lack (and no-need?) issue of 1080pSure... despite your comments about Blu-Ray and Apple downloads, there is a lot of true HD content available online for downloading or streaming... this includes television streaming and other sources of full HD video streaming. It would be a non-event for me if the new iTV didn't support this (at least via your computer). So, yeah, to me 1080 is a must have (home videos shot in 1080p are another thing... that Apple already lag behind in when it comes to editing 1080'p').

musio
Aug 12, 2010, 06:43 AM
You'll be surprised how much tv is compressed and mangled and not 1080p..

Let's look at what Apple offer at 1080p.....nothing.. I'd like 1080p as much as the rest of you as this is 2010 but there isn't much 1080p content as there is everything else at the moment. Apple like to bide their time and see who's 'the winning horse' if i've paraphrased them correctly.

P.S.
iambasil - i didn't mean to cause offence! That's a funny name, even if you were iamtom!

AD7863 - am sorry to hear you bought only 2 months ago.

Flynnstone
Aug 12, 2010, 08:01 AM
I have a 1080p HD TV.
I don't know the ratio of 1080p to 720p TV sold, but I suspect the majority is 1080p by looking at the adds.

1080p camcorders & cameras are becoming more common.

Bluray can do 1080.

Why choke at a 720p AppleTV/iTV?

I too am waiting for a 1080p solution.

mstrze
Aug 12, 2010, 08:32 AM
I have said this before...it's all about the experience of using the product.

The goal for Apple is to make something that is uber easy to use and gives the end user a good feeling. Having to wait for a download or having potentially choppy playback would be something Apple would want to avoid.

I don't know how well these chips playback 1080p...others would be the experts in that realm. Maybe Apple is unhappy with the playback experience. Sure it may 'work', but it may not be up to their specs.

The current ATV can and does produce 1080p output to hook up to our HDTVs, it just doesn't play back 1080p content...mainly because getting 1080p content is a bear right now. Downloading said content from the iTunes store will lead to a delay even on the fastest internet connections. The goal of ATV is for you to choose a title, and be watching it almost immediately. I can do that right now in under 30 seconds...with a 1080p file I am sure that my waiting time would go up quite a bit, maybe 10-15 minutes. That's NOT a good user experience.

And I know some people with slower internet connection now have wait times like this or longer, but admit it...it's a pain when you just want to watch a movie on the fly.

Ok...the argument that some home camcorders are outputting 1080p right now. How many families and general users are recording in this format and want to upload this to their ATVs? Probably very few. A share of the market which will grow certainly, but since the MAIN purpose of ATV is to be able to watch your iTunes content on your HDTV, it's not enough to force adoption of 1080p...especially if the playback quality may not be up to Apple's standards.

The one thing that is holding back ATV or iTV from going 1080p is the internet infrastructure, plain and simple. Get transfer rates that allow at least a GB of data per minute and then we will have something.

tdmac
Aug 12, 2010, 08:53 AM
There is a lot more out there than apple downloads and disc-based media. And what about the future?

I certainly wouldn't consider iTV if it didn't support 1080p - there's plenty of competition that does.

More interested to see what it supports in terms of new software/streaming services and how it interacts with the wider web community and household devices.

As far as movie content, the only device that supports TRUE content rendered in 1080p is blueray. Other devices may output content in 1080p but its upconverted. You then are at the mercy/quality of their upconverting chipsets and allot are not of good quality.

In addition 1080p is solely the video/resolution. What about the audio? There are dobly and dts audio formats for HD audio. Much higher quality. But all of this requires a huge amount of storage and bandwith. Nothing that we will see via download or instant downloads for along time.

If you have a 1080p TV hooked up to a 720p ATV or iTV, the TV will auto scale it to 1080p. Now you are at the mercy of the scaler of the TV.
You can get great quality if you are using a newer receiver with a good upconverting/scaling/deinterlacing chipset from Achorbay. Anchorbay also makes external scaler as well.

Another thing to mention about 1080P is that in order to really perceive benefits of the better resolution, you really need to be viewing content on a screen larger than 50". Its not really noticiable at 50" and below. A caveat to this is if you plan on adding blueray to the mix. Otherwise, you are downconverting the video content of the blueray player and will loose quality.

RandomNinjaAtk
Aug 12, 2010, 09:23 AM
Okay, I have been reading all this information from various sites for a while now and I think it seems the big picture of the whole ecosystem is overlooked.

To start off with the 720p vs 1080p is not a big issue in my opinion. The reason for this is because you have to look at the apple ecosystem as a whole and the benefit of that. IF you buy a HD [720p] movie from iTunes. Your able to access and watch this same movie (due to the fact a SD version is included also) on virtually any apple device and pc. You can play it on your :apple:TV, :apple:ipod, :apple:Mac, iPhone, iPad, and last but not least Windows PC's. Meaning you buy one piece of content/movie and you can virtually have it anywhere with you. The reason there staying 720p is for compatibility sakes, they don't want to start having to say: Device A, C are supported but devices B and D are not. Where as as it stands now, Device A,B,C,D are all supported. Now I have a few HD movies, purchased through iTunes, and the quality is pretty good. Sure there are better things out there. I know this for a fact. I also have a popcorn hour and many 720p / 1080p rips of some bluerays that I have. I would say that iTunes HD is not as good as some of those persay, but for convience/quality. It's pretty damn good. If your a true videophile/audiophile yeah it probably isn't good enough. (I have a 42" 1080p LCD HDTV, not a top end model but decent)

Like I said the big part of it is the ecosystem and it all working together pretty seamlessly. My only gripe with it really is the DRM (also prevents using like boxee to play the media instead). But all things considered thats not really that bad if you think about it as that allow you to set it too 5 computers. But that doesn't have a limit on other devices, as long as they sync to one of those 5 computers. meaning I could have a streaming :apple:TV in every room of the house and never have a problem with the limit, I could even setup a computer at a relatives house and use one activation and potentially allow them stream to every room in their house because :apple:TV's don't count towards the activation/licensing.

Okay this is about the whole cloud people keep talking about it and using to much bandwidth. I for one think it will be an assisted cloud. What I mean by this is that my itunes library at one point was 500 + GB after encoding all dvd's and hd video I could. But this cloud assisted library would most likely be for only purchased content. Point number one being that number alone that I have is way to big to ever conceivably fit onto current :apple:TV and who knows how much it will grow in the future. So the new :apple:TV would work just like the current one, and how I use my library is from streaming from my Mac! The whole idea with the cloud storage I feel would be for more mobile usage and only paid itunes content. If your on the go and say you own 50 GB of iTunes paid music (I realize thats a lot of money), that will not fit onto your 16 GB iphone now will it? So this is where streaming comes into play, where iTunes Cloud would allow one to stream all music/movies/videos/etc purchased from itunes to stream to your mobile device. Obviously you'd have intelligent sync at home so that way the most listened to content is stored on the device itself. But this is how I see the cloud storage working, you keep it all locally at home via download, but can stream from the cloud when mobile!

And lastly about the new device and people saying there are better solutions out, roku/ps3/xbox 360/vudo/etc. I don't think there is one that gives you as many options. Buy a movie from xbox 360 zune market place, can only watch/view on your xbox that I know of (I don't have a zune so I could be wrong, so it may be able to watch it on a pc? or zune ?). Buy a movie from the PSN download store in HD. Only watchable on PS3 (maybe psp again I don't really know). Or buy a movie on vudoo and only viewable on vudoo! I don't know about everyone else but I see a huge trend your locked into each platform. Now thats not to say it isn't the same for iTunes. But iTunes allows one to watch it virtually anywhere while as your stuck on vudoo, on just your tv if thats what you get which just Sucks!!!! Now for the whole netflix streaming, it's pretty sweet but there are problems with content providers with it. Some movies not available for streaming or they publishers could decide to pull there content anytime. At least with itunes if I buy it and download it, and for whatever reason they pull say music or movie from itunes for purchasing. I can still watch it cause I still own it much like a DVD or blueray because I have the file still (like a physical disk). Now thats not to say Apple could shut down all DRM activations and etc and really screw you over, but at this point I would find that highly unlikely compared to when Microsoft did that with there Playforsure or whatever DRM it was called.

So for purchasing digital downloads, I really see iTunes as the best in the current market. When looking at all the aspects. If the new :apple:TV will run apps then I'm sure we can expect netflix/Hulu and more to show up on it. :D.

I gander at my writing and see that wow this was really long, I don't know how many people I could expect to read the whole thing but this is my big take on the whole situation. I have some more thoughts on it, but for now that's enough for one post lolz.

CyberBob859
Aug 12, 2010, 09:28 AM
I have said this before...it's all about the experience of using the product.

The goal for Apple is to make something that is uber easy to use and gives the end user a good feeling. Having to wait for a download or having potentially choppy playback would be something Apple would want to avoid.

I don't know how well these chips playback 1080p...others would be the experts in that realm. Maybe Apple is unhappy with the playback experience. Sure it may 'work', but it may not be up to their specs.

The current ATV can and does produce 1080p output to hook up to our HDTVs, it just doesn't play back 1080p content...mainly because getting 1080p content is a bear right now. Downloading said content from the iTunes store will lead to a delay even on the fastest internet connections. The goal of ATV is for you to choose a title, and be watching it almost immediately. I can do that right now in under 30 seconds...with a 1080p file I am sure that my waiting time would go up quite a bit, maybe 10-15 minutes. That's NOT a good user experience.

And I know some people with slower internet connection now have wait times like this or longer, but admit it...it's a pain when you just want to watch a movie on the fly.

Ok...the argument that some home camcorders are outputting 1080p right now. How many families and general users are recording in this format and want to upload this to their ATVs? Probably very few. A share of the market which will grow certainly, but since the MAIN purpose of ATV is to be able to watch your iTunes content on your HDTV, it's not enough to force adoption of 1080p...especially if the playback quality may not be up to Apple's standards.

The one thing that is holding back ATV or iTV from going 1080p is the internet infrastructure, plain and simple. Get transfer rates that allow at least a GB of data per minute and then we will have something.

+1 This is the real issue, IMO.

If the iTV will be primarily a streaming device, especially for renting movies from iTunes, Netflix, etc, then waiting for a 1080p movie to stream on slow and highly variable Internet connections will kill the product.

720p is the compromise between decent video quality and what can be streamed in a reasonable manner over the Internet.

carlgo
Aug 12, 2010, 09:31 AM
I have said this before...it's all about the experience of using the product.

The goal for Apple is to make something that is uber easy to use and gives the end user a good feeling. Having to wait for a download or having potentially choppy playback would be something Apple would want to avoid.

....

i don't think Apple's non-1080 policy has anything to do with protecting us from a bad experience. More about Apple's vision of having us view the world through iTunes and little portable devices that make them money.

TJRiver
Aug 12, 2010, 10:02 AM
Free Hulu is not going to show up on any device (except a full blown computer) that connects to your TV (w/o hacking). The studios are pushing Hulu Plus, which is designed to be viewed on your TV, as long as you pay the subscription fees. Personally, I believe Hulu was designed to whet our appetite for the product, crippled as it was, so we would greet Hulu Plus as the solution.

I prefer Netflix streaming service for the same amount of $ per month, plus DVDs. Most network TV (Hulu's strength) is cr#p.:p

Gasu E.
Aug 12, 2010, 10:28 AM
That is the worst thing about Apple.

The childish buzz about the company and fanboys/girls is infuriating and allows Apple to drag their heels with new technologies when competitors have it all already available (although granted, generally not done as well as when Apple finally release their versions).

I've been buying mac since 1992 and it does get to me that these days they overprice and draw out the release of a lot of technology - if they didn't have such an annoying fanboy/girl following (most of whom I know don't know how to use more than 10% of what hardware/software is capable of), then I'm sure they couldn't afford to be so drawn out with technology releases.

A good example is the iPad... of course they could have released a higher res screen with facetime on the first iPad, but oh no! They wanted to drag it out and do the software/screen release on their key product. 3 months after buying and you're already playing catchup! That's just wrong.

Your example of 2G iPhone was a good one - at the time of the original iPhone release, we had had built in 3G, MMS, 'facetime' (without the branding), built in GPS, touchscreens for 4 YEARS! (in Europe anyway) Yet the iPhone didn't...

Anyway, back to the point - I won't be considering iTV if it doesn't have 1080p, and will be making a stand against these drawn out technology releases from Apple. I can already stream 1080p without the need of apple peripherals anyway!!

<took out the single valid point, which was the complaint about iPhone quality>

It's good that you are not running Apple, Basil, as the company would have gone out of business years ago-- but not for the reasons you think.

Simply, it appears you have no concept of what it takes to being out a system product. In order to run a successful systems product business, time-to-market is everything. You need to create a buildable product concept, spec it out, and execute to plan. You cannot stop mid-stream and rejigger your plan whenever some great new technology becomes available. That's just a FAIL.

Not to pick on you specifically, but consumers in general have become SPOILED to expect the latest, greatest, to fall off the tree into their hands NOW at a price they believe reasonable. Please realize it cost the better part of a billion dollars to get that gizmo into your hands, and if they made it perfect just for you, stopped the project to add new capabilities that as soon as that became available, added esoteric new components with questionable shipping quantities, then the cost to you would be a lot more than you can afford. If you don't like the current feature set, don't buy (I did not buy an iPad for that reason), but the idea that Apple is just playing games with your head is plainly absurd.

iambasil
Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM
<took out the single valid point, which was the complaint about iPhone quality>

It's good that you are not running Apple, Basil, as the company would have gone out of business years ago-- but not for the reasons you think.

Simply, it appears you have no concept of what it takes to being out a system product. In order to run a successful systems product business, time-to-market is everything. You need to create a buildable product concept, spec it out, and execute to plan. You cannot stop mid-stream and rejigger your plan whenever some great new technology becomes available. That's just a FAIL.

Not to pick on you specifically, but consumers in general have become SPOILED to expect the latest, greatest, to fall off the tree into their hands NOW at a price they believe reasonable. Please realize it cost the better part of a billion dollars to get that gizmo into your hands, and if they made it perfect just for you, stopped the project to add new capabilities that as soon as that became available, added esoteric new components with questionable shipping quantities, then the cost to you would be a lot more than you can afford. If you don't like the current feature set, don't buy (I did not buy an iPad for that reason), but the idea that Apple is just playing games with your head is plainly absurd.Thanks for the patronising post.

I never said they were playing games with my head and if you knew anything about me you'd understand that I know a fair bit about business (I've helped turn around a fair few of them). Whilst your points about product releases and time to market are fair in principle, my point is that apple draw this out longer than is necessary - each time claiming old technology/services (eg facetime) to be them pioneering. Fair play to them that they can pull it off thanks to their product success, branding and those fanboy followers they've created who blind themselves from what is available and reasonable in the commercial world (few I've met actually need or understand most of what they're getting - but they enjoy it).

I am a fan, yes, but I also understand commerce and the wider market Apple operates in - so I choose to not follow that blind excitement with every new product (eg the 'already playing catch-up' iPad).

Anyway, nothing personal, but please think before writing patronising posts to people you really don't know and possibly haven't understood.

nutmac
Aug 12, 2010, 12:13 PM
I don't understand why anyone would be against 1080p capability. You are not forced to store and view 1080p contents if you don't want to. And those that have 1080p TV and 1080p contents (e.g., home movies, YouTube, Blu-Ray rips) can enjoy 1080p if they want to.

RandomNinjaAtk
Aug 12, 2010, 12:29 PM
I'm not against 1080p at all. I welcome it! That would be fantastic, but everyone is saying that because the new RUMORED!!! (note we don't know for sure) :apple:TV is not going to support 1080p, and that it's an instant fail because of it. And my point is I don't think its an issue at all if it doesn't have 1080p now for my previous reasons. I'm sure it will have it in the future at some point though as things advance.

rayward
Aug 12, 2010, 12:42 PM
+1 This is the real issue, IMO.

If the iTV will be primarily a streaming device, especially for renting movies from iTunes, Netflix, etc, then waiting for a 1080p movie to stream on slow and highly variable Internet connections will kill the product.

720p is the compromise between decent video quality and what can be streamed in a reasonable manner over the Internet.

FWIW, a Blu Ray rip is 20-40 gigs, while a 720p encode of that for Apple TV is 2-4 gigs. The bandwidth required to download a 1080p movie simply doesn't exist for the home consumer, and won't for a long time to come. Thus 1080p for Apple TV is wasted cost/effort. It's not even practical to rip and store full 1080p versions of movies, as you'd fill up a 2TB HDD with less than 100 movies and choke your network trying to stream them.

I realise that some/many people have 1080p-capable camcorders. But the same issues apply here too. You're unlikely to have a significant library of 1080p camcorder files, because it's impractical to store that much. You can shoot in 720p, probably not be able to tell the difference in quality, and store 10x as much footage.

720p (with upscaled 1080p output) on the ATV/iTV is all that the vast majority of the market needs, because that's all the vast majority of the market are going to be feeding it.

mstrze
Aug 12, 2010, 01:36 PM
i don't think Apple's non-1080 policy has anything to do with protecting us from a bad experience. More about Apple's vision of having us view the world through iTunes and little portable devices that make them money.

Well if that's the case, why doesn't Apple start offering 1080p HD downloads for an extra couple of bucks for sales/rent? They can do that this afternoon if they wanted...Doesn't affect them negatively...in fact, it would make them more money. The fact is the END USER EXPERIENCE would be HORRIBLE and that my friend is the main reason they won't do it....YET.;)

Get the bandwidth availability high enough to enjoy streaming 1080p content and I GUARANTEE Apple will be right on board. Why wouldn't they want to make more money? Right?

I mean, if you really think that the end-user experience does not enter into Apple's mindest you must have never owned an Apple product in your life.

reebzor
Aug 12, 2010, 02:21 PM
If it's really only gonna be $99, and will be able to stream from my NAS, I might consider it for my 22" 720p bedroom TV.

The way I see it- Anyone that really cares about this almost certainly has enough knowledge to put together a Mini+Plex or other real HTPC setup. For the record, my Mini+Plex set up mostly only plays 720p videos. IMHO 1080p rips take up more space than they're worth.

Friscohoya
Aug 12, 2010, 02:22 PM
If 1080p was really as popular as most seem to think it is, it would be inside apple boxes. I have a 110" high def projector and regularly watch 480p and 720p films/tv on it. Looks great from the 9-12' viewing distance. Would 1080p be better? Sure, but we are talking about the difference between iphone 3G and 3GS. I'd take the latter, but was completely happy with the former and barely noticed the difference.

The real issue is the dowload speed of the itunes films and 1080p would only exasperate the situation it seems to me. Problem on these forums is that we are all tech enthusiast and our needs are different from those of the average person who is mostly looking for variety, convenience and value.

GermanSuplex
Aug 12, 2010, 02:30 PM
I don't think anyone would complain if the new ATV did 1080p, but its not something I particularly care about one way or the other. One of my buddies has a 1080p set and I honestly don't envy it one bit over my 1080p TV. I'm perfectly satisfied with my 720p movies in iTunes.

Heck, when I get a blu-ray, I never watch it on my PS3, I convert it for iTunes and watch it on my ATV.

My only request is 29.97fps 720p native support. I have several HD movies that play on my iPhone and iPad, but don't show up on the ATV because the framerate is higher than 24fps.

rayward
Aug 12, 2010, 02:58 PM
I don't think anyone would complain if the new ATV did 1080p, but its not something I particularly care about one way or the other. One of my buddies has a 1080p set and I honestly don't envy it one bit over my 1080p TV. I'm perfectly satisfied with my 720p movies in iTunes.

Heck, when I get a blu-ray, I never watch it on my PS3, I convert it for iTunes and watch it on my ATV.

My only request is 29.97fps 720p native support. I have several HD movies that play on my iPhone and iPad, but don't show up on the ATV because the framerate is higher than 24fps.

You and I are in total agreement.

Also, the new box is supposedly streaming only, no syncing, and streaming a 20 gig movie over even a wired ethernet connection is going to be tedious. It takes about 10 mins for a 3 gig movie to be copied from my HDD into my iTunes library which is stored on a NAS. The whole operation being wired (Cat 5e).

rodrigomarrafao
Aug 12, 2010, 03:10 PM
Well what we see here is one more aggressive move of Apple's hitlerian DRM policy.

Every single product Apple develops, excluding desktops and laptops, are a downright kick to the face in user's freedom. Apple chooses what and how you access their content.

Most people fail to realize it, because they are mesmerized with all that shining design and cool effects and really believe Apple is a groundbreaking company with innovative solutions. Far from the true, Apple in fact a very reactionary and ruthless company.

That being said, as stated above, 720p is the "right choice" since 1080p isn't in Apple business model, like MMS and video calls (available since 2001), and tethering (available even on Startac ancient models). But don't worry Apple will support 1080p soon and will call it a fancy cool name like IDef or something, like Face to Face for video call and call it groundbreaking. So much for innovation my friends.

obs - I'm a proud owner of a macbook pro and would never use another computer if i have to save my life since OSX with multi gestures boost my workflow tremendously. That is innovative.

GermanSuplex
Aug 12, 2010, 06:56 PM
Well what we see here is one more aggressive move of Apple's hitlerian DRM policy.

Every single product Apple develops, excluding desktops and laptops, are a downright kick to the face in user's freedom. Apple chooses what and how you access their content.

Most people fail to realize it, because they are mesmerized with all that shining design and cool effects and really believe Apple is a groundbreaking company with innovative solutions. Far from the true, Apple in fact a very reactionary and ruthless company.


Most of the content on the iTunes store is NOT Apple's content. The DRM and restrictions is not Apple's choice, it is the choice of the content holders.

If you download Podcasts, you'll realize that being free, they can play back on almost any devices that support AAC, mp3 or mp4 video. The same rings true for any music or basic music videos purchased via iTunes. Apple isn't trying to lock you into their ecosystem, the content providers are... they're trying to lock you into one format. If you buy a movie in iTunes, they don't want you to be able to play it back on multiple devices, and I'm sure Apple had to fight just to be able to let you play the content back on multiple Apple-branded devices.

Apple doesn't make any profit beyond the initial sale of their content, so why do they care if its protected or not? If you download movies or TV shows off of Amazon, they too are protected. And they don't offer any first-party media players or devices.

iTunes has long been self-sustaining enough thanks to the iPhone and iPod line that they don't need DRM, and it would probably be easier and cheaper for Apple if they didn't have to worry about it and could sell everything DRM free, including movies and music. It's purely the content holders at work.

Now, what you are saying may be true of the app store, which is a different beast and different subject altogether.

Chealion
Aug 12, 2010, 08:24 PM
Psh. Who cares about 1080? Where's my 2K, 4K, 4.5K and 5K content? YouTube already supports 4K!

</ridiculous satire>

iTiki
Aug 12, 2010, 09:58 PM
No 1080p. Not interested. Apple needs to wake up on this one.

yancey47
Aug 12, 2010, 10:22 PM
My only request is 29.97fps 720p native support. I have several HD movies that play on my iPhone and iPad, but don't show up on the ATV because the framerate is higher than 24fps.

I'm much more interested in a fps boost than anything else. Really hoping for that. It could happen too with the iPhone 4 shooting at 30fps. I'd be surprised if Apple put out a new product that doesn't work perfectly with all it's other new products.

musio
Aug 13, 2010, 02:59 AM
As far as movie content, the only device that supports TRUE content rendered in 1080p is blueray. Other devices may output content in 1080p but its upconverted. You then are at the mercy/quality of their upconverting chipsets and allot are not of good quality.

In addition 1080p is solely the video/resolution. What about the audio? There are dobly and dts audio formats for HD audio. Much higher quality. But all of this requires a huge amount of storage and bandwith. Nothing that we will see via download or instant downloads for along time.

If you have a 1080p TV hooked up to a 720p ATV or iTV, the TV will auto scale it to 1080p. Now you are at the mercy of the scaler of the TV.
You can get great quality if you are using a newer receiver with a good upconverting/scaling/deinterlacing chipset from Achorbay. Anchorbay also makes external scaler as well.

Another thing to mention about 1080P is that in order to really perceive benefits of the better resolution, you really need to be viewing content on a screen larger than 50". Its not really noticiable at 50" and below. A caveat to this is if you plan on adding blueray to the mix. Otherwise, you are downconverting the video content of the blueray player and will loose quality.


+1000 to that one. Nobody should be bitching with this one unless they have an extensive blueray collection. I don't even known anyone with more bluerays than DVDs. Once that scenario is swapped, then it's grounds for 1080p. They haven't even got everything out on blueray. Unless ATV comes with a bluerayer player, 1080p is just a number and it's a waste. Until blueray gets more established and more titles come out, Apple won't put a device in.

Another post which was quite good;

FWIW, a Blu Ray rip is 20-40 gigs, while a 720p encode of that for Apple TV is 2-4 gigs. The bandwidth required to download a 1080p movie simply doesn't exist for the home consumer, and won't for a long time to come. Thus 1080p for Apple TV is wasted cost/effort. It's not even practical to rip and store full 1080p versions of movies, as you'd fill up a 2TB HDD with less than 100 movies and choke your network trying to stream them.



This just sums it all up. Blueray is not practical at the moment

daver11
Aug 13, 2010, 04:13 AM
Apple has never struck me as a company that would say "We don't need to do better, this is good enough." 720p would be a disappointment.

mstrze
Aug 13, 2010, 08:42 AM
Apple has never struck me as a company that would say "We don't need to do better, this is good enough."

True...so if the 1080p experience isn't up to their standards, they aren't going to offer it until they can perfect it.

rayward
Aug 13, 2010, 10:38 AM
True...so if the 1080p experience isn't up to their standards, they aren't going to offer it until they can perfect it.

While Apple isn't perfect (see iPhone 4), for the most part they do not beta test on unsuspecting customers. That was always the knock on WinPC, in that MS would roll out a new OS, millions would install it, and all crash at the same time for different reasons because they hadn't even begun to iron out all the bugs.

Apple have run a tighter ship historically, and usually don't release something to market until they are certain that it works properly. They also tend to create more elegant deployments of "new" functionality, instead of slapping on a hastily written patch (which is why Windows is such a dysfunctional FrankenOS), which takes time also.

One of the reasons that iPhone 4 was such big news, because it was so unlike Apple to take pot shots at their own tootsies like that (and then SJ poured gasoline on the fire with his off-handed quips about the problem). Hopefully they learned their lesson and will take care to be true to Apple's heritage than Microsoft's in the future.

bigpatky
Aug 13, 2010, 11:54 PM
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

iCaleb
Aug 14, 2010, 03:56 AM
Meh.....I'd rather just rent off my PS3 in 1080p :rolleyes:

GermanSuplex
Aug 14, 2010, 06:28 AM
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

I'll have to politely disagree here. It's cool if you're fine with 480i or 480p conent. It looks good when upscaled via the ATV, but there's quite a noticable difference in quality between 480i/p conent and 720p... much more than going from 720p to 1080p.

Going from SD content to HD is like going from cassette to CD, and going from 720p to 1080p is like going from CD to DVD Audio or something like that.

That's why I'm perfectly content with 720p on my 720p set... I get the bennefits of HD and a very nice picture with great detail, even in compressed mp4 videos, but also maintain relatively small file sizes and easy streaming.

Flynnstone
Aug 14, 2010, 10:45 AM
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

I agree.
I have some VHS tape that look great on a Commodore 64 monitor. Looks great.

gianly1985
Aug 14, 2010, 11:07 AM
MacMini + NAS full of 1080p MKV rips of your blurays + Plex software (+hw acceleration of nvidia 320M) + Adobe Flash @Gala (again, 320M hw accelaration) + DVB-T HD tuner + USB Common Interface*+ + EyeTV software + Remote Buddy software + Wii Remote + Apple Wireless Keyboard + Magic Trackpad + BetterTouchTool software and you're good to go.

(*swap that with DVB-T2 and Common Interface Plus when available/needed in your country)

That's the solution for the "there's a whole HD world outside itunes ecosystem"-people. Why use a closed iOS device when you can easily fit a MacMini under your TV and do every kind of stuff. The obvious price difference should be not a problem for people geeky/enthusiast enough to even care.

For the itunes-ecosystem people and for most common users, the 720p ATV is just fine. With apps to ice the cake.

brentsg
Aug 14, 2010, 03:32 PM
People overestimate the value of resolution when the degree of compression is more important.

Markusp
Aug 14, 2010, 03:59 PM
1080p is a huge item to leave off the iTV, even if for no other purpose other than marketing. Why promote something as being obsolete right of the bat?

Who cares if iTunes doesn't have any 1080p content? Why alienate those of us who do have 1080p content? I would imagine that the new iTV architecture can indeed support 1080p streaming as it is new tech and all of it's similar competition have little problems doing so, so why handcuff the device just to keep in line with iTunes?

AppleTV was never a big seller and the iTV will flop if it does not promote itself as being 1080p compatible. Every TV that is sold now at every electronics merchant is 1080p and so most consumers will want a 1080p device, even if they never download or stream a single 1080p source!

musio
Aug 14, 2010, 04:35 PM
Markusp, see my last post and the hilighted bit from tdmac which i think is spot on - you're not being alienated. You don't have an extensive blueray collection and therefore don't have the 'need' according to the mighty apple in the site.



Who cares if iTunes doesn't have any 1080p content?

It means if iTunes doesn't have it, you most likely won't either unless your a rich kid with a top of the link BR player..and if you are, you probably won't be wanting an atv.



Why promote something as being obsolete right of the bat?

Because 1080p isn't as mainstream as everything else. In fact, 1080p is 'more' obsolete at the moment if you think about content to the masses...



so why handcuff the device just to keep in line with iTunes?

the answer is in your question. A seamless experience. If you want the fiddling about apple could have released 1080p functionality and let non-tech people fumble with configurations and getting it to work...but you might as well buy a pc ;)

tdmac's post is brilliant. It makes me think a lot of people are bitching for the sake of it without knowing what they want is pointless.

gianly1985
Aug 14, 2010, 04:48 PM
It means if iTunes doesn't have it, you most likely won't either unless your a rich kid with a top of the link BR player..and if you are, you probably won't be wanting an atv.



This.

As I said, rich/geeky/enthusiast and tech savvy people can buy a MacMini and tinker it to a 1080p media center heaven (sort of). That's what I'm doing since the 9400M mini has come out. Heck, Apple even included an HDMI port in the last mini, that's a clear message.

Markusp
Aug 14, 2010, 08:00 PM
Musio - I politely disagree. Every manufacturer today promotes 1080p so it is mainstream and the norm, be it upscaling to 1080p in standard DVD players, the resolution of every TV produced today, video games on consoles such as Xbox 360 or PS3, or the latest camcorders. It is the norm and to not promote the iTV as being 1080p is a non-starter for many people, be they videophiles, enthusiasts or just Joe public who wants a 1080p device to match their new 1080p TV.

I used to be a HT enthusiast, having a system worth tens of thousands of dollars, including multiple DVD changers, an Escient server, 800 DVDs etc. but those days are behind me now and I am now a simple consumer who wants to stream my kids films to my TV. I have an AppleTV which I use for music and movie rentals and an Acer Aspire Revo with XBMC for my videos, which includes 50 odd Blu-rays ripped in full 1080p resolution. For me, the new iTV is a non-starter, despite the fact that I strongly prefer the user interface of the AppleTV to my Acer Revo setup. If the iTV could stream 1080p, I would pick one up in a heartbeat, but as it is already handcuffed out of the gate, I will pass, as I suspect many other people will as well.

All this from a loyal Apple owner, currently running 2 macbooks, an iPad, an AppleTV, an Airport Extreme, an Airport Express, an iPhone and several different iPods. Brand loyalty can only take you so far and for me, the iTV, if the rumors are true, is a non-starter.

Markusp
Aug 14, 2010, 08:02 PM
This.

As I said, rich/geeky/enthusiast and tech savvy people can buy a MacMini and tinker it to a 1080p media center heaven (sort of). That's what I'm doing since the 9400M mini has come out. Heck, Apple even included an HDMI port in the last mini, that's a clear message.

Bought the new Mac mini but ended up returning it as the Acer Aspire Revo running XBMC Live (Linux) was a much cheaper and more stable solution.

never touch Windows on the thing :)

carlgo
Aug 14, 2010, 08:20 PM
Well if that's the case, why doesn't Apple start offering 1080p HD downloads for an extra couple of bucks for sales/rent? They can do that this afternoon if they wanted...Doesn't affect them negatively...in fact, it would make them more money. The fact is the END USER EXPERIENCE would be HORRIBLE and that my friend is the main reason they won't do it....YET.;)

Get the bandwidth availability high enough to enjoy streaming 1080p content and I GUARANTEE Apple will be right on board. Why wouldn't they want to make more money? Right?

I mean, if you really think that the end-user experience does not enter into Apple's mindest you must have never owned an Apple product in your life.

Only Apple products, from the beginning of time. Heck, I just fixed my Time Capsule!

1080p is fast becoming the standard, advertised as being "real high def". Apple is going against the zillions of dollars being spent to promote that standard and what sense does that make?

Sometimes you just have to offer what people expect and want. Certainly Apple could offer both, 1080p downloads for all those who have expensive new TVs and who will wait to download an epoch movie now and then, and 720 for those who demand streaming video so they can watch Friends reruns at a coffee shop.

Why have all this controversy? Don't fight your customers!

gianly1985
Aug 15, 2010, 08:02 AM
Bought the new Mac mini but ended up returning it as the Acer Aspire Revo running XBMC Live (Linux) was a much cheaper and more stable solution.

never touch Windows on the thing :)

Sure the Revo may be the best for your needs, but I prefer the Mini as it's a more versatile machine, offering "real PC" processing power and not atom-ish CPUs. (and it's just as stable, don't know what you meant)
The Revo is cheaper than the Mini but there are reasons for that. (CPU, FW800, Unibody casing, double digital video output, future-proofed MinidisplayPort 2560x1600 output, better GPU, 8gb max ram instead of 4gb-ish of the Revo, slim ODD, etc)

EDIT: moving on from the Revo vs Mini argument, and going back to the forthcoming "iTV/ATV 720p"

Somehow the ATV 720p is the iPod Shuffle, the Mini is the iPod Classic of the living room.

Somebody will be OK with listening to AACs/MP3s from the shuffle, other will load lossless ALAC CD rips in their Classic.

Markusp
Aug 15, 2010, 08:33 AM
Funny - movies sound and look exactly the same on the Revo as the did on the Mini so your analogy doesn't work. The Revo is not the MP3 you suggest.

I agree however if you need the Revo to do anything other than XBMC it is quite useless, unlike the Mac Mini as the Atom processor is very slow. The Revo works because of the pairing with the Nvidia package.

gianly1985
Aug 15, 2010, 08:44 AM
Funny - movies sound and look exactly the same on the Revo as the did on the Mini so your analogy doesn't work. The Revo is not the MP3 you suggest.


I think there's been a misunderstanding :) , the second part of my answer is not about the Revo vs Mini but about the positioning of the "720p AppleTV" (or whatever it will be called) vs the Mini in the apple line-up.

I'll edit to make it clearer.

Markusp
Aug 15, 2010, 09:01 AM
Ahhhh - I understand now. Thanks.

DCBass
Aug 15, 2010, 10:44 AM
†his is what i think Apple think about the whole situation.

if DVD's playback 480i and there isn't a single Apple device with blue-ray, why bother going to 1080p? It's a 'waste' (in Apple's eyes) since they don't ship a blueray player and those who have bought an external one are so few.

When apple start streaming 1080p, then we'll get it..in the meantime, what's the point (apart from those few people who have hd camcorders/BR etc but i am assuming they are a minority?) It doesn't fit in with Apple's methodology of giving us open systems. If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do, you're not buying 1080p so it's a waste building that into the atv. By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

If apple stream 1080p content (which they're not going to do at this point in time) then it's reason enough to give it to the public.

Besides, I'm sure atv will be hackable and the JB teams will have 1080p shortly after release...


I'm sorry, OP, but the whole premise of your argument for why Apple should leave out 1080p is apologetic at best.

How is it "open" for Apple to restrict the functionality of a device that would maximize it's quality for several of it's potential consumers merely because they don't sell any of their own media at that level of quality? As others have pointed out, there are several other sources of content other than Apple's that people may wish to use their "iTV" with. There is no reason a 1080p "iTV" wouldn't be able to handle Apple's own 720p content. Apple is not generally known for their "good enough" approach. Also, what's with the "If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do..."??? If Apple was truly "open" the iTV would be just as compatible with other source content as their own.

By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

I'm sorry, but why is it a good thing for Apple to perhaps intentionally cripple it's product just so that it can sucker people into buying more units the next year. Not very admirable, imo, and I cannot fathom why a suckered consumer would celebrate this maneuver. Even a long-term stockholder would not appreciate this sort of dishonest marketing.

The only rational argument I can see for Apple not shipping with 1080p is if they are committed to the $99 price point (like they supposedly were with the iPad at $499) and the cost of the necessary hardware to make this a smooth experience does not allow them to meet this price point. Why bother then? Why not wait until 1080p becomes more cost-effective (probably only a year or two)? --> Google TV. Gotta get out in front while you can.

Of course this is all speculative, it is Macrumors after all. We shall see where the cards lie when there's an official announcement.

I mean no offense, OP, but as much as I may like some of Apple's products, I cannot stand when folks blindlessly praise a company for any move it makes, wise or otherwise, justifying everything with apologetic arguments. This goes for Apple or any other company that folks tend to put upon the "can do no wrong" pedestal.

- DCBass

musio
Aug 15, 2010, 11:36 AM
no offense taken! :) This is a great thread with lots of interesting and well thought out points. It's all speculation and i'd like 1080p but if we don't, i'll be happy still.

RE apple and it's 'admirable' quality of crippling products? I agree. Look at the whole iphone/MMS/Video recording scenario...but it's Apple's way.

I do however stick with the argument for the vast majority, we don't need 1080p, agree with tdmac with all his points (no loss < 50", HD space, and the only true 1080p sources are from a BR player as you bypass the converters)

We'll see what happens soon i expect! :cool:

HobeSoundDarryl
Aug 15, 2010, 12:26 PM
this is what i think Apple think about the whole situation. if DVD's playback 480i and there isn't a single Apple device with blue-ray, why bother going to 1080p? It's a 'waste' (in Apple's eyes) since they don't ship a blueray player and those who have bought an external one are so few.

This same kind of thinking could apply to almost every product Apple creates then. No need for faster processors in Macs, since only the minority might actually use them. No need for better graphics cards in Macs, since only the minority of hardest core gamers, etc might actually fully utilize them. No need for various features in iPhones, iPads, and iPods, as only the minority might actually use them, etc.

Justifications of why not to include readily available technologies is trying to justify a poor decision (in 2010) on Apples part if the rumor pans out.

When apple start streaming 1080p, then we'll get it...
Content owners have no reason to even test the potential profitability in 1080p :apple:TV content, until there are 1080p :apple:TVs capable of playing it. What good would it do for- say- Warner or Paramount to insert 1080p movies for :apple:TV TODAY if there are no :apple:TVs through which to play them?

As you can see, this is not a chicken & egg question. Apple must lead by selling the hardware. When there is enough 1080p :apple:TVs in place, some content owner will be tempted to test 1080p content sales & rentals in the iTunes store. If it proves profitable, others will quickly follow.

Otherwise, money to buy a box to hook to the TV keeps flowing toward products like BD players- some of which are incorporating other :apple:TV-like media features- instead of flowing into Apple's pockets. A 1080p-capable competitor gives the content producers another medium through which to test sales of 1080p content, without having to give a cut to Walmart & Best Buy, nor pay for packaging, physical distribution, etc.

Until 1080p :apple:TVs are entrenched, those who want 1080p video for their 1080p HDTVs pretty much have to spend their money on something other than Apple's solution. If Apple (really Jobs) is so anti-BD, the best thing he could do is give the marketplace an alternative option for the masses- a way to get 1080p content on the HDTVs without having to buy a BD player and BD media. Until then, he/Apple cedes maximum quality to the "bag of hurt".

in the meantime, what's the point (apart from those few people who have hd camcorders/BR etc but i am assuming they are a minority?)
The point is that 1080p is the current MAX standard, and the MAX standard readily available in consumer TVs. It's probably as good as it gets for the masses for the next decade or so, until the next standard gains enough traction. When each TV is sold, that 1080p "full HD" pitch is a big piece of the pitch. Even Joe Sixpack can grasp that 1080p is "more" than 720p. When he buys the little boxes to hook to that TV, he probably has enough tech knowledge to seek out 1080p boxes, which is currently BD players, and a few channels on Satt/Cable. A 720p MAX box from Apple falls short of that.

Another point is that there is lots of content available in resolutions above 720p: Quicktime Trailers on Apple's site, Youtube videos, vodcasts, etc. And these exist BEFORE there's a 1080p :apple:TV on which to enjoy them. If Apple leads with the hardware, the number of units sold will be an enticement for much more to offer the option. Else, buyers may seek their 1080p box via added features within BD players, or other dedicated boxes like WD Live and similar.

It doesn't fit in with Apple's methodology of giving us open systems. If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do, you're not buying 1080p so it's a waste building that into the atv.
It is not an open system when consumers are locked into a single source of delivery for the content. iTunes is great and all- and I myself use it with my :apple:TV, but things would be much more "open" if I could also use content via apps or otherwise from sources like netflix, blockbuster, hulu, etc. Yes, there's some hacks for some of that, but I wouldn't call Apple iTunes an "open" system relative to the :apple:TV.

By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...
Yes, but one might argue, we've already done that with the :apple:TV that exists today... and since 2007. It's time for that next system to come out with playback specs better than the one they delivered in 2007.

Would we be so quick to "forgive" them with this kind of justification if they were using 2007 tech in new Macs, iPhones, iPods, iPads, etc?

Besides, I'm sure atv will be hackable and the JB teams will have 1080p shortly after release...
No, if the hardware is too weak for 1080p, it's not likely a hack can make it stronger. Some argue that the current :apple:TV has the hardware to be able to play >720p, but no one has been able to hack it to do so, and still keep the interface, etc that makes it pretty great (otherwise).

If Apple rolls this one out as "720p is good enough" again, they won't get my money (and I'm a huge fan of :apple:TV, owning 2 of them myself).

HobeSoundDarryl
Aug 15, 2010, 12:47 PM
FWIW, a Blu Ray rip is 20-40 gigs, while a 720p encode of that for Apple TV is 2-4 gigs. The bandwidth required to download a 1080p movie simply doesn't exist for the home consumer, and won't for a long time to come. Thus 1080p for Apple TV is wasted cost/effort. It's not even practical to rip and store full 1080p versions of movies, as you'd fill up a 2TB HDD with less than 100 movies and choke your network trying to stream them.

Really? Are you comparing the size of uncompressed BD 1080p rip to a thoroughly compressed Apple (barely) 720p file to make this point? You do realize that some 480i DVDs when ripped will come in bigger than 2-4GBs, right?

If you would compare Apples to Apples, it would be the file size of a (barely) 720p file vs. the same as a 1080p file (just the video, no extras, both encoded and compressed with h.264). In other words, rip a master file from a BD disc then pump it through Handbrake or similar to yield 2 files: one at 720p and one at 1080p. Of course, the 1080p file will be larger, but it will not end up as 10X larger for the average movie. The larger (but not THAT much larger) file gets those who want maximum picture quality on their HDTV a superior picture, in exchange for the tradeoff of a little more hard drive space. These days, big hard drives are CHEAP. IMO, it's a great tradeoff... if we only had a Apple/iTunes-friendly way to push them to our 1080p HDTVs.

However, for those happy with Apple 720p "as is", no loss to you should they roll out a 1080p :apple:TV. More horsepower can play your smaller 720p files to their maximum potential. But it doesn't work the other way.

I realise that some/many people have 1080p-capable camcorders. But the same issues apply here too. You're unlikely to have a significant library of 1080p camcorder files, because it's impractical to store that much.

I'm one of those people, and speaking from direct experience, this is not true. Again, yes a 1080p or 1080i rendered file is going to be bigger than rendering it down to 720p or Apple's 960 x 540 option in iMovie (what I call Half HD). But the average file size is certainly not 10X bigger. I have dozens of hours of home movies and they all fit in a folder on one 2TB hard drive, along with lots of movie rips, lots of iTunes music, etc.

If I'm willing to chop the resolution on down to 480i or VHS resolution or 320 x 240, etc, I can end up with files way smaller than Apple's 720p. But those will pay in terms in how nice the picture looks in exchange for smaller and smaller files to store. No one seems to argue for Apple to go back to 480i resolution in the iTunes store, do they?

You can shoot in 720p, probably not be able to tell the difference in quality, and store 10x as much footage.

No, it's easy to see the difference. I've tried every method to MAX out the :apple:TV I have now relative to playing back 1080i then 1080p home movies captured in the last few years. Whether I render them in 720p or 960 x 540, it is obviously inferior to hooking the camcorder directly to the HDTV and watching the full 1080 footage. Everyone in my household notices.

On a related observation: the current :apple:TV is "strong" enough to play back DVD rips at full quality. In other words, Handbrake rips look just as good to all eyes in my household as the original DVDs. But those same eyes can easily see the difference between original camcorder video, 720p and 960 x 540. Why? :apple:TV has the hardware capable of DVD resolution, but not 1080... and contrary to many apologists on this topic (and, of course the "chart"): it is pretty easy to see the difference for even the most untrained eyes.

720p (with upscaled 1080p output) on the ATV/iTV is all that the vast majority of the market needs, because that's all the vast majority of the market are going to be feeding it.

Then, I suppose 486 or Pentium processors are good enough for computers, because the majority of market doesn't tax those with how they use their computers? I suppose 3G is overkill, because the majority of the market doesn't push it to its limits? Etc.

Besides the idea of wanting to support whatever Apple thinks with any logic- sound or not- why do we accept 2006 capabilities in this ONE thing from Apple, then gripe & complain about the lack of 2012 chips, graphics cards, etc in Apple's other major deliverables?

Even if we want to drink the koolaid, there is no downside to desiring 1080p playback in the next-gen :apple:TV. Those that believe this "720p is good enough" will still get what they want at the fullest level it can be realized. And those that want a little more can find what they are looking for too in a new, terrific product from Apple. Apple wins by selling more units to both camps rather than catering to just the "720p is all I need" crowd.

It's not like using 1080p chips instead of 720p adds cost or yields a higher retail price (we can easily see that many other manufacturers are selling little boxes with 1080p playback capabilities for retail prices well south of :apple:TV retail. I'm sure Apple can do it too).

Scarpad
Aug 15, 2010, 02:53 PM
Okay, I have been reading all this information from various sites for a while now and I think it seems the big picture of the whole ecosystem is overlooked.

To start off with the 720p vs 1080p is not a big issue in my opinion. The reason for this is because you have to look at the apple ecosystem as a whole and the benefit of that. IF you buy a HD [720p] movie from iTunes. Your able to access and watch this same movie (due to the fact a SD version is included also) on virtually any apple device and pc. You can play it on your :apple:TV, :apple:ipod, :apple:Mac, iPhone, iPad, and last but not least Windows PC's. Meaning you buy one piece of content/movie and you can virtually have it anywhere with you. The reason there staying 720p is for compatibility sakes, they don't want to start having to say: Device A, C are supported but devices B and D are not. Where as as it stands now, Device A,B,C,D are all supported. Now I have a few HD movies, purchased through iTunes, and the quality is pretty good. Sure there are better things out there. I know this for a fact. I also have a popcorn hour and many 720p / 1080p rips of some bluerays that I have. I would say that iTunes HD is not as good as some of those persay, but for convience/quality. It's pretty damn good. If your a true videophile/audiophile yeah it probably isn't good enough. (I have a 42" 1080p LCD HDTV, not a top end model but decent)

Like I said the big part of it is the ecosystem and it all working together pretty seamlessly. My only gripe with it really is the DRM (also prevents using like boxee to play the media instead). But all things considered thats not really that bad if you think about it as that allow you to set it too 5 computers. But that doesn't have a limit on other devices, as long as they sync to one of those 5 computers. meaning I could have a streaming :apple:TV in every room of the house and never have a problem with the limit, I could even setup a computer at a relatives house and use one activation and potentially allow them stream to every room in their house because :apple:TV's don't count towards the activation/licensing.

Okay this is about the whole cloud people keep talking about it and using to much bandwidth. I for one think it will be an assisted cloud. What I mean by this is that my itunes library at one point was 500 + GB after encoding all dvd's and hd video I could. But this cloud assisted library would most likely be for only purchased content. Point number one being that number alone that I have is way to big to ever conceivably fit onto current :apple:TV and who knows how much it will grow in the future. So the new :apple:TV would work just like the current one, and how I use my library is from streaming from my Mac! The whole idea with the cloud storage I feel would be for more mobile usage and only paid itunes content. If your on the go and say you own 50 GB of iTunes paid music (I realize thats a lot of money), that will not fit onto your 16 GB iphone now will it? So this is where streaming comes into play, where iTunes Cloud would allow one to stream all music/movies/videos/etc purchased from itunes to stream to your mobile device. Obviously you'd have intelligent sync at home so that way the most listened to content is stored on the device itself. But this is how I see the cloud storage working, you keep it all locally at home via download, but can stream from the cloud when mobile!

And lastly about the new device and people saying there are better solutions out, roku/ps3/xbox 360/vudo/etc. I don't think there is one that gives you as many options. Buy a movie from xbox 360 zune market place, can only watch/view on your xbox that I know of (I don't have a zune so I could be wrong, so it may be able to watch it on a pc? or zune ?). Buy a movie from the PSN download store in HD. Only watchable on PS3 (maybe psp again I don't really know). Or buy a movie on vudoo and only viewable on vudoo! I don't know about everyone else but I see a huge trend your locked into each platform. Now thats not to say it isn't the same for iTunes. But iTunes allows one to watch it virtually anywhere while as your stuck on vudoo, on just your tv if thats what you get which just Sucks!!!! Now for the whole netflix streaming, it's pretty sweet but there are problems with content providers with it. Some movies not available for streaming or they publishers could decide to pull there content anytime. At least with itunes if I buy it and download it, and for whatever reason they pull say music or movie from itunes for purchasing. I can still watch it cause I still own it much like a DVD or blueray because I have the file still (like a physical disk). Now thats not to say Apple could shut down all DRM activations and etc and really screw you over, but at this point I would find that highly unlikely compared to when Microsoft did that with there Playforsure or whatever DRM it was called.

So for purchasing digital downloads, I really see iTunes as the best in the current market. When looking at all the aspects. If the new :apple:TV will run apps then I'm sure we can expect netflix/Hulu and more to show up on it. :D.

I gander at my writing and see that wow this was really long, I don't know how many people I could expect to read the whole thing but this is my big take on the whole situation. I have some more thoughts on it, but for now that's enough for one post lolz.

No If I buy Say Warehouse 13 in HD for $2.99 I get a full 1080p version, I Can go to my Zune Software and DL to my Zne HD a 720p version and a SD for no exta cost. And I can Re Downoad it as well,

Flynnstone
Aug 15, 2010, 03:59 PM
No, it's easy to see the difference. I've tried every method to MAX out the :apple:TV I have now relative to playing back 1080i then 1080p home movies captured in the last few years. Whether I render them in 720p or 960 x 540, it is obviously inferior to hooking the camcorder directly to the HDTV and watching the full 1080 footage. Everyone in my household notices.



Bingo.
I have a 1080p TV. The only reason I haven't purchased an AppleTV is that it doesn't do 1080p.
Presently I grab a laptop and use it for displaying 1080p content. I also use it for iTunes rentals, but it kind of a pain.
For me, I will not buy a 720p AppleTV for my 1080p TV.
I will buy a a 1080p AppleTV if and when it comes available.

iTiki
Aug 15, 2010, 05:37 PM
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.
Please, do yourself a favor and buy some glasses. You will be amazed at what you have been missing. There are cheaper cuts of meat and box wine, too. For most of us, we prefer something better...

Flynnstone
Aug 15, 2010, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by bigpatky
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

Please, do yourself a favor and buy some glasses. You will be amazed at what you have been missing. There are cheaper cuts of meat and box wine, too. For most of us, we prefer something better...

I took the first quote to be tongue in cheek.

Revels
Aug 16, 2010, 10:38 AM
1080p is great. Stick Avatar on and sit back and marvel at it.

But 1080p streamed isn't going to work for a fair while. Internet speeds are progressing so fast that it won't be long until we look back and think how silly it was that we had to wait while something buffered.

If Apple offer an 'all you can watch' subscription then I'll jump at it. 720p is fine for me for my weekly shows and new movies. I like having everything at the click of a button and being able to pick a film and watch it straight away is a real plus for me, that's far more important than 1080p.

I never rip anything at that anyway, the space it takes up is huge!!

musio
Sep 1, 2010, 04:20 PM
yep, disappointed, no 1080p...but...did you see iron man being played on steve's gigantic projector? Looked pretty good to me at 720p...

tommylotto
Sep 1, 2010, 04:54 PM
Point 1: The 720p downloads from the iTunes store look every bit as good as the bluray disk FROM NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES. If you can tell the difference, you are sitting too damn close. (Or you have a really, really big screen)

Point 2: I use MakeMKV and handbrake to encode 1080p BluRays for the current AppleTV. The resulting 720p files look every bit as good as that downloaded from iTunes (thus from normal viewing distances as good as the bluray).

Point 3: I too like to get real close to my 1080p flat screen see the difference and feel all superior, but I know you can't tell once you get back to the couch.

Summary: I too would have preferred it if it played my 1080p MKV's or at least 1080p m4v's as it would save encoding time, but in the grand scheme its no big deal. Access to content, convenience and download times are more important.

BTW my LASIK corrected eyes are 20/10, so toss that argument out.

These comments only concern downloaded content, not broadcasted HD, which has lots of problems as transmitted.

Icaras
Sep 1, 2010, 05:27 PM
Point 1: The 720p downloads from the iTunes store look every bit as good as the bluray disk FROM NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES. If you can tell the difference, you are sitting too damn close. (Or you have a really, really big screen)

No I am not sitting too damned close, but I do own a pretty big screen, a 60" KURO display, and 720p and 1080p is readily distinguishable from the couch. Comparing iTunes HD to blu-ray is a joke.

I did read your last sentence however, and it seems the doctor messed up on your lasik eye surgery if you're mistaking iTunes quality to Blu-ray quality. I'd get a refund if I were you, or find a good lawyer.

Flynnstone
Sep 1, 2010, 10:05 PM
I have a 60" 1080p Sony and am disappointed that we didn't get 1080p :mad:

But at $99, I ordered one.

auero
Sep 1, 2010, 10:47 PM
I don't understand why a Blu-ray rental from blockbuster is 4.99 here and that comes in 1080 with DTS-HD, DB-HD, TRUE HD, etc.. and for the same money I'll stream a movie from Apple at lower quality, and different sound. For the regular consumer it might not be a difference but for us home theater/movie junkies, it does matter. We spend a lot on our equipment and want it to look and sound great.

gugy
Sep 1, 2010, 11:14 PM
Right now I am looking into the MacMini.
I know it's way more $$$ than AppleTV but lack of external drive support, 1080p and variety of codecs is a turn off.
At least I can throw any codec at the Mini and will play. Also I hope Apple eventually updates Front Row. I heard Plex and XMBC can have a steep learning curve. I need something simple so wife and kids don't get discourage using the device.

hfletcher
Sep 2, 2010, 04:31 AM
- 1080p looks better than 720p. FACT. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses

- True 1080p content (i.e high bitrate blu-ray quality) comes in at MASSIVE file sizes. Even on a 50mb connection, downloading something like 20gb of video will take ages.

- But, Apple should have allowed 1080p content to play back on the device - I suspect the only issue is the firmware which would need an update to allow this.

raygungirl
Sep 2, 2010, 04:44 AM
Does this mean that the Netflix streaming videos won't be in 1080p through the Apple TV? Or just the videos through iTunes? If the Apple TV won't be able to do Netflix in 1080p, I won't bother to get one. :\

I really wanted one, especially for the price, but at this point I'm spoiled by all the easily accessible (and often free) HD out there. (HD antenna = better over-air HD than we get with our cable company.) If Netflix WILL be in 1080p, I'm totally getting one of these. $99 flat fee > $60/yr Xbox Live subscription to be able to stream Netflix.

Also, I'm not sure if the Xbox currently streams Netflix in full 1080p or not, but it certainly looks like it to me. So the Apple TV would have to do the same for me to justify buying one. We have a nice TV and it deserves HD. :)

Edit: I stand corrected, Netflix's HD is supposedly only 720p on Xbox (for now), but it looks so good on our 40" Sony that I couldn't tell. I'm actually kind of shocked. Now that I think of it, it isn't quite as insanely sharp as Blu-ray, but on our size TV, it's very hard to tell the difference. http://mashable.com/2010/02/08/netflix-1080p/

nelmat
Sep 2, 2010, 04:47 AM
There is a lot more out there than apple downloads and disc-based media. And what about the future?

I certainly wouldn't consider iTV if it didn't support 1080p - there's plenty of competition that does.

More interested to see what it supports in terms of new software/streaming services and how it interacts with the wider web community and household devices.

Could you name a single company who stream video at 1080 please? I know plenty of boxes with 1080 out, but not a single content provider who streams it.

nelmat
Sep 2, 2010, 04:49 AM
Does this mean that the Netflix streaming videos won't be in 1080p through the Apple TV? Or just the videos through iTunes? If the Apple TV won't be able to do Netflix in 1080p, I won't bother to get one. :\

I really wanted one, especially for the price, but at this point I'm spoiled by all the easily accessible (and often free) HD out there. (HD antenna = better over-air HD than we get with our cable company.) If Netflix WILL be in 1080p, I'm totally getting one of these. $99 flat fee > $60/yr Xbox Live subscription to be able to stream Netflix.

Also, I'm not sure if the Xbox currently streams Netflix in full 1080p or not, but it certainly looks like it to me. So the Apple TV would have to do the same for me to justify buying one. We have a nice TV and it deserves HD. :)

Netflix streaming video isn't in 1080p anywhere. The networks simply don't have the capacity and very few people have the dl speeds or bandwidth required for this.

nelmat
Sep 2, 2010, 04:51 AM
- 1080p looks better than 720p. FACT. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses

- True 1080p content (i.e high bitrate blu-ray quality) comes in at MASSIVE file sizes. Even on a 50mb connection, downloading something like 20gb of video will take ages.

- But, Apple should have allowed 1080p content to play back on the device - I suspect the only issue is the firmware which would need an update to allow this.

lol - yes 1080 looks better than 720. The 4096 that apple and youtube are currently rolling out looks even better.

It's all irrelevant. Maybe apple should release a box that plays 4096 as well?!

There's no point increasing the price point of a unit at this stage that won't be able to realise 1080 playback for at least the next couple of years (the lifespan of this product revision).

raygungirl
Sep 2, 2010, 04:53 AM
Netflix streaming video isn't in 1080p anywhere. The networks simply don't have the capacity and very few people have the dl speeds or bandwidth required for this.

Yeah I just did the research myself and discovered that. :o I'm seriously shocked, I'm really a stickler about video quality (it irks me when it's not up to snuff, or god forbid the aspect is wrong), so I'm embarrassed I couldn't tell the difference.

It definitely explains why Apple didn't think it was a big deal to worry about 1080p, though. It really isn't that noticeable to most people, or on small-ish TVs. (We used to have a 65", and I think we'd be able to notice on that, but on the 40"? I seriously can't tell.)

jp102235
Sep 2, 2010, 08:24 AM
I don't understand why anyone would be against 1080p capability. You are not forced to store and view 1080p contents if you don't want to. And those that have 1080p TV and 1080p contents (e.g., home movies, YouTube, Blu-Ray rips) can enjoy 1080p if they want to.

I can give you a good reason: its disingenuous. The only 1080p content is either home movies or bluray - ATV is not optimized for either (bit rate limitations bring it far below the 40Mbps and 19Mbps that bluray and OTA provide). The "HD" that is sold by Apple,dish, direcTV and comcast is NOT HD at all. it is "HD-lite". Current DVD offers better bitrate than what is being sold to us as HD - even at 1080p. Buying a wd tv live because it does 1080p is quite silly in my opinion (it cannot support the bit rate of "true HD") as you will gain ZERO benefits (better image quality) to the improved resolution.

bottom line: 1080p does not guarantee a better image.
-so don't waste $ on hardware to generate it if your source material can't anyway-

jp

jp102235
Sep 2, 2010, 08:36 AM
- 1080p looks better than 720p. FACT. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses

- True 1080p content (i.e high bitrate blu-ray quality) comes in at MASSIVE file sizes. Even on a 50mb connection, downloading something like 20gb of video will take ages.

- But, Apple should have allowed 1080p content to play back on the device - I suspect the only issue is the firmware which would need an update to allow this.

this is partially incorrect.

what looks better is based on the information content of the signal. Bit rate of the signal is a better quantitative predictor of image quality. example: I can upscale crappy youtube videos to 1080p - and they will still look crappy.
the difference is the source material, more specifically the bit rate.

I too wish that apple tv could handle high bit rate sources (I don't care about 1080p) - but it (and pretty much anything else) have difficulty doing it. I have seen complaints in the wd live forums, as well as other player forums about high bit rate playback capability.

I really hope someone could compile a list of players and their avg/max bitrate playback stats.

AlienSexGod
Apr 15, 2011, 05:59 AM
FWIW, a Blu Ray rip is 20-40 gigs, while a 720p encode of that for Apple TV is 2-4 gigs. The bandwidth required to download a 1080p movie simply doesn't exist for the home consumer, and won't for a long time to come. Thus 1080p for Apple TV is wasted cost/effort.

Hey wayward & co. clearly you have not much experience with encoding movies. Most people do them in .mkv format and a quality H264 Blu-Ray backup comes in around 5-8Gb. I find using Handbrake that I can make a very good looking .m4v usually around 3-4Gb (yes less that SD DVD size) and the quality blows 720p out of the water if you have a 1080p screen.

Fact is Jobs & Co blow ... they are screwing us on purpose. Why do MacPros use slow server chips & slow serve ECC ram when they could make mass profit selling thinner aluminium towers with Sandy Bridge 2600k i7 processors running at 4Ghz with cheap Quality Corsair XMS3 2000Mhz DDR3 ram right now? iPad 1 had the cutout in the aluminium frame waiting for the cam. How much would 1 million cams cost from a manufacturer ... maybe $5... why wasn't it implimented? Because they are dickheads who are laughing at us... we will wait till the market is saturated then give you a must have upgrade. Drip feed. They will supply a 1080p Apple TV in a year or so when people stop buying the other one.

Vote with your bucks, spread the word... I have been an Apple reseller and consultant for over 17 years and I won't sell that hobbled rubbish. I supply & use the below instead:

Asus O!Play HD2 USB 3.0 Media Player, Internal 3.5 HDD storage with NAS, Full HD 1080p, RMVB Support, Card Reader, Remote, USB/eSATA Combo, LAN, iTunes support.

UNix BSD based OS X rocks and Apple UI is elegant but their business practises blow .. they could have 30% Mac Market share now easy right now if they went for mid & long term rather than short term greed.

toypadlock
Apr 15, 2011, 06:28 AM
Hey wayward & co. clearly you have not much experience with encoding movies. Most people do them in .mkv format and a quality H264 Blu-Ray backup comes in around 5-8Gb. I find using Handbrake that I can make a very good looking .m4v usually around 3-4Gb (yes less that SD DVD size) and the quality blows 720p out of the water if you have a 1080p screen.

Fact is Jobs & Co blow ... they are screwing us on purpose. Why do MacPros use slow server chips & slow serve ECC ram when they could make mass profit selling thinner aluminium towers with Sandy Bridge 2600k i7 processors running at 4Ghz with cheap Quality Corsair XMS3 2000Mhz DDR3 ram right now? iPad 1 had the cutout in the aluminium frame waiting for the cam. How much would 1 million cams cost from a manufacturer ... maybe $5... why wasn't it implimented? Because they are dickheads who are laughing at us... we will wait till the market is saturated then give you a must have upgrade. Drip feed. They will supply a 1080p Apple TV in a year or so when people stop buying the other one.

Vote with your bucks, spread the word... I have been an Apple reseller and consultant for over 17 years and I won't sell that hobbled rubbish. I supply & use the below instead:

Asus O!Play HD2 USB 3.0 Media Player, Internal 3.5 HDD storage with NAS, Full HD 1080p, RMVB Support, Card Reader, Remote, USB/eSATA Combo, LAN, iTunes support.

UNix BSD based OS X rocks and Apple UI is elegant but their business practises blow .. they could have 30% Mac Market share now easy right now if they went for mid & long term rather than short term greed.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y292/ItazuraStrikesAgain/Other/Cool-Dog-Hey-Cool-story-bro411.jpg

AlienSexGod
Apr 18, 2011, 02:10 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y292/ItazuraStrikesAgain/Other/Cool-Dog-Hey-Cool-story-bro411.jpg

Thanks man... I am kinda surprised that my rant is still public. It's the truth but the sometimes the truth is ugly and it hurts. :cool:

Oh & those Sandy Bridge Quad core i7 2600k (unlocked) processors run at 4.6Ghz rock solid stable on air cooling right now & cost less than $300 each in bulk. Cheap 2000Mhz ram has been available now for more than 6 months!
Imagine building a Mac Tower with fast PC gaming hardware, but mac eproms on the mobo so it booted OS X, that came with optional OEM Windows 7 Pro for gamers & people that desired it. All the Mac Bashers would go "Fark I hate Apple they finally built a Mac that I have to buy"... sexy aluminum tower with efficient cooling, lastest overclocked processor, last generic 3D fast graphics cards I can upgrade, fast high performance memory with industry standard LIFETIME warranty.

Everyone thinks Jobs is a legend but really he was just sales and marketing in the beginning and when he came back the second time and claimed the success of the iMac the truth was the iMacs were done by Gil Amelio but not quite released. Sure buying NeXt and getting OS X to run on UNix BSD was smart. The rest Apple engineers and designers did.

World domination of platforms so be the goal not short term greed. Apple has had the best platform for countless years but why have they made it so hobbled for so long? Why is market share still so small & marginalised?

But why didn't they drive the nail in Microsoft's coffin when Vista was a dog? Build cheaper faster macs based on PC gaming technology? Either they are dumb or screwing us short term ... you guys decide but please don't tell me 720 half high def is a great thing!

AwakenedLands
Apr 18, 2011, 03:42 AM
Thanks man... I am kinda surprised that my rant is still public. It's the truth but the sometimes the truth is ugly and it hurts. :cool:

Oh & those Sandy Bridge Quad core i7 2600k (unlocked) processors run at 4.6Ghz rock solid stable on air cooling right now & cost less than $300 each in bulk. Cheap 2000Mhz ram has been available now for more than 6 months!
Imagine building a Mac Tower with fast PC gaming hardware, but mac eproms on the mobo so it booted OS X, that came with optional OEM Windows 7 Pro for gamers & people that desired it. All the Mac Bashers would go "Fark I hate Apple they finally built a Mac that I have to buy"... sexy aluminum tower with efficient cooling, lastest overclocked processor, last generic 3D fast graphics cards I can upgrade, fast high performance memory with industry standard LIFETIME warranty.

Everyone thinks Jobs is a legend but really he was just sales and marketing in the beginning and when he came back the second time and claimed the success of the iMac the truth was the iMacs were done by Gil Amelio but not quite released. Sure buying NeXt and getting OS X to run on UNix BSD was smart. The rest Apple engineers and designers did.

World domination of platforms so be the goal not short term greed. Apple has had the best platform for countless years but why have they made it so hobbled for so long? Why is market share still so small & marginalised?

But why didn't they drive the nail in Microsoft's coffin when Vista was a dog? Build cheaper faster macs based on PC gaming technology? Either they are dumb or screwing us short term ... you guys decide but please don't tell me 720 half high def is a great thing!

Apple's goal is to make money. The rest is secondary. Their drip-feeding business model, coupled with an app-store nickel-and-dime strategy, seems to be working quite well.

As for 720p vs 1080p, not a big deal to me. I seriously cannot tell the difference when watching a movie. While it would be nice to push the limits of hardware, you already explained pretty well why Apple won't do it. I've had the original Apple TV for a few years now, and it's always had issues for me. I finally moved on to Boxee on a home-made Ubuntu system that is running perfectly, kicks my old Apple TV's butt, and isn't locked down.

fabian9
Apr 18, 2011, 02:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y292/ItazuraStrikesAgain/Other/Cool-Dog-Hey-Cool-story-bro411.jpg

Thanks man... I am kinda surprised that my rant is still public. It's the truth but the sometimes the truth is ugly and it hurts. :cool:

Oh & those Sandy Bridge Quad core i7 2600k (unlocked) processors run at 4.6Ghz rock solid stable on air cooling right now & cost less than $300 each in bulk. Cheap 2000Mhz ram has been available now for more than 6 months!
Imagine building a Mac Tower with fast PC gaming hardware, but mac eproms on the mobo so it booted OS X, that came with optional OEM Windows 7 Pro for gamers & people that desired it. All the Mac Bashers would go "Fark I hate Apple they finally built a Mac that I have to buy"... sexy aluminum tower with efficient cooling, lastest overclocked processor, last generic 3D fast graphics cards I can upgrade, fast high performance memory with industry standard LIFETIME warranty.

Everyone thinks Jobs is a legend but really he was just sales and marketing in the beginning and when he came back the second time and claimed the success of the iMac the truth was the iMacs were done by Gil Amelio but not quite released. Sure buying NeXt and getting OS X to run on UNix BSD was smart. The rest Apple engineers and designers did.

World domination of platforms so be the goal not short term greed. Apple has had the best platform for countless years but why have they made it so hobbled for so long? Why is market share still so small & marginalised?

But why didn't they drive the nail in Microsoft's coffin when Vista was a dog? Build cheaper faster macs based on PC gaming technology? Either they are dumb or screwing us short term ... you guys decide but please don't tell me 720 half high def is a great thing!

Apple choose their Market very carefully. Cheap low quality computers for the masses yield very low profits and is not something they are interested in. The money, as with most other things, is in the high end of the Market!

AlienSexGod
Apr 19, 2011, 01:04 AM
Apple's goal is to make money. The rest is secondary. Their drip-feeding business model, coupled with an app-store nickel-and-dime strategy, seems to be working quite well.

Well obviously they are doing well financially but most of it now comes from ipod/pad, iphones now & my point is they could and arguably should be doing much better in computer market share considering.

Regarding 720 vs 1080 ... I admit from a distance on some screens the difference does not appear huge .. ie 720 is a massive upgrade from SD but if you care to A/B 720 vs 1080 on say a 50+ inch Panasonic/LG/Samsung plasma whihc these days are around 1k mark the differnce & detail is very noticeable.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apple choose their Market very carefully. Cheap low quality computers for the masses yield very low profits and is not something they are interested in. The money, as with most other things, is in the high end of the Market!

Duh Fabian ..... what did I talk about? .... elegance and superiority of Unix based OS X & ALUMINIUM (ie expensive case) towers.
30% pc market share with superior OS & design would still be high end, achievable and be very profitable.

If you sell 6 times what you were even at an lower margin you are still making much more.

Part of my point is that giving us 1080 Apple TV now would assist Apple in increasing market share and those additional profits would assist countering the loss of profit of the drip feed sales & marketing. It would cost maybe $2 more to produce if a chip change was needed which I doubt.

fabian9
Apr 19, 2011, 01:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

6 times more customers to support, possibly more issues if cheaper products are used to maintain a sensible profit margin, this leads to a decrease in customer satisfaction, destroys apples reputation and brings it in line with all the other pc manufactures...

Topfry
Apr 19, 2011, 04:57 AM
The thing is - I think there is a definite difference in 720 v 1080p, but even though I am a big film fan, I personally really don't mind the slight difference in resolution, if the frame rate is acceptable, and the focus of my attention can remain on the movie rather than the technology.

In the case of apple tv, the gains of (relatively speaking) renting a movie as you need it, balance out the compromise over resolution; and being a smaller file than a 1080, regular streaming doesn't aggravate my ISP, (or my wife, while we wait for a movie to be buffered) I think the longer wait for slower real world streaming of 1080p films would be more irritating, unless of course you have a very fast Internet connection.

Nevertheless I would love Apple to offer the higher resolutions, if it meant reducing the price of 720 movies to the price of standard def; the biggest problem with the apple tv is the price of the rentals, if they could renegotiate these to something more competetive, I'm sure there would be a much bigger take up of the atv. There's a psychological barrier I have to overcome, every time I'm about to rent a movie... Can't I get this cheaper somewhere else?

Dr McKay
Apr 19, 2011, 05:29 AM
Could you name a single company who stream video at 1080 please? I know plenty of boxes with 1080 out, but not a single content provider who streams it.

Microsoft stream 1080p via their Zune service on the Xbox 360, or you can download a copy if you dont want to stream.

Im pretty sure Sony offer 1080p streams via PS3 too.

AlienSexGod
Apr 19, 2011, 06:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

6 times more customers to support, possibly more issues if cheaper products are used to maintain a sensible profit margin, this leads to a decrease in customer satisfaction, destroys apples reputation and brings it in line with all the other pc manufactures...

Fabian please stop trying to put words into my mouth ... never suggested cheaper components ... maybe thinner aluminium on the overkill current tower that is all. Also how about some balance in your perspective? .... that means 6 times more people to sell Applecare to and other Apple products, more resources to improve UI & OS to leave MS & Google in the dust.

Looking at your signature now I can see why you have little idea of what I am talking about ... you use a 13" MacBook which uses or in your case used leading edge technology for not much more than the PC competition. Buy a Mac Pro right now mate & see how you feel huh? ... unless you have money to burn & don't care.

Dr McKay
Apr 19, 2011, 06:56 AM
Looking at your signature now I can see why you have little idea of what I am talking about ... you use a 13" MacBook which uses or in your case used leading edge technology for not much more than the PC competition. Buy a Mac Pro right now mate & see how you feel huh? ... unless you have money to burn & don't care.

His signature says 13" Macbook Pro...

ThatsMeRight
Apr 19, 2011, 09:24 AM
And don't forget the PS3 with blu-ray. It isn't that popular in the US, but in Asia and Europe the PlayStation brand is more popular than the Xbox brand.

Sparky9292
Apr 20, 2011, 01:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

The thing is - I think there is a definite difference in 720 v 1080p, but even though I am a big film fan, I personally really don't mind the slight difference in resolution, if the frame rate is acceptable, and the focus of my attention can remain on the movie rather than the technology.

In the case of apple tv, the gains of (relatively speaking) renting a movie as you need it, balance out the compromise over resolution; and being a smaller file than a 1080, regular streaming doesn't aggravate my ISP, (or my wife, while we wait for a movie to be buffered) I think the longer wait for slower real world streaming of 1080p films would be more irritating, unless of course you have a very fast Internet connection.

Nevertheless I would love Apple to offer the higher resolutions, if it meant reducing the price of 720 movies to the price of standard def; the biggest problem with the apple tv is the price of the rentals, if they could renegotiate these to something more competetive, I'm sure there would be a much bigger take up of the atv. There's a psychological barrier I have to overcome, every time I'm about to rent a movie... Can't I get this cheaper somewhere else?

There's no difference between 1080 and 720 other than filesize for me. Plus I have Rodgers cable which has caps on bandwidth so I really suffer with file size.

AppleTv rental prices are too high $5.00

Redbox rents for $1.00!! And I can rip those with handbrake too.

AlienSexGod
Apr 20, 2011, 01:30 AM
His signature says 13" Macbook Pro...

Very good Benji Boy! Last I looked a MacBook Pro was in the MacBook family. My point stands ...those series use bleeding edge tech and are decent value for money. Hobbled Apple TV, MacPros & iPad 1's are/were not value for money.

Back on topic anyone actually had a look at 1080 P rips on a large 1080 quality screen? Even on a iMac 27" they look amazing!

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

There's no difference between 1080 and 720 other than filesize for me.

Your screen and/or eyes must be weak then.