I can't imagine Apple is doing this on purpose. They gain nothing by excluding countries. It's more likely some ridiculous licensing or lawyer babble at work here they could not avoid (yet).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV App Size Limited to 200 MB Local Storage, Has 2 GB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't imagine Apple is doing this on purpose. They gain nothing by excluding countries. It's more likely some ridiculous licensing or lawyer babble at work here they could not avoid (yet).
Well they didn't say it was "disallowed", just limited... But I get your point. It probably does cache data and just purges the oldest data when it's used. So the higher storage model will result in better performance (as well as still twice the potential # of large "200 mb" apps). I'm not sure that (just reading the quote) that it would download the data *every time* you launch the app. Caching seems more likely, it'll download it the first time it needs it and keep it until something else needs that space (heh, similar to the way iOS manages RAM).
![]()
Earlier today Apple revealed the long-awaited fourth-generation Apple TV, which includes an App Store that allows developers to create apps and games for users to download. The new Apple TV also comes with either 32 GB or 64 GB of local storage. However, Apple's new App Programming Guide for tvOS, first spotted by developer Steve Troughton-Smith, includes some interesting insights into how developers can use that storage. For instance, apps are limited to 200 MB of local storage.
This means that each app is limited to a 200 MB shell that downloads the assets it needs to run whenever necessary. The new Apple TV, despite having a base of 32 GB of storage, does not have persistent local storage, which means that each time an app is in use it has to make a request to iCloud to re-download the assets it needs to run.![Screen-Shot-2015-09-09-at-4.36.05-PM.png]()
As noted by MacRumors' sister site TouchArcade, it's likely this decision stems from iOS 9's App Thinning, which reduces the size of apps so that users don't use as much of their local storage on their devices. Apple TV apps are universal apps, allowing developers to create one app that can work on iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad and Apple TV. However, because the apps are universal apps, the overall storage size of the app includes assets that aren't entirely relevant for each device. For instance, an iPhone user would have no need for the iPad or Apple TV assets for an app on their iPhone, and an Apple TV user would have no need for iPad or Apple Watch assets on their Apple TV.
Additionally, as noted by Troughton-Smith, Apple has revealed in its programming guide that the new Apple TV has 2 GB of RAM. Normally, Apple declines to publicly reveal how much RAM its iOS-based devices include. For instance, the discovery of how much RAM is in each new iPhone model is regularly speculated about until a teardown or speed test from a third-party can determine it independently.
The new Apple TV will begin shipping in nearly 80 countries at the end of October. The new Siri Remote is only available in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Canada and Australia. Other countries will receive a remote that replaces the Siri with a Search app. The new Apple TV is priced at $149 for the 32 GB version and $199 for the 64 GB version.
Article Link: Apple TV App Size Limited to 200 MB Local Storage, Has 2 GB RAM
Just went by the content of the MR story, dude. Didn't jump anywhere. Someone in this thread (very nicely) has cleared up how it actually works.
No. Not your fault though. This MR article is crap and the author does not understand on-demand resources. On-demand resources are cached locally.
That means they get downloaded the first time they are needed but are stored locally for a while. Later they may be discarded, which means they would need to be downloaded again if they were needed again later.
Typically caches keep the most frequently and recently used resources and discard infrequently used knew when space is low.
The effect is it wont have to download resources too often.
Also, apps don't have to use on-demand resources until 200MB. That's a lot, and will mostly affect games (where you might make the data for each level or resolution a resource) or other apps with a lot of content... You really need to get into video, audio, or a fair number of bitmaps/textures to get to that limit.
This makes absolutely NO sense. If I can already use Siri in english on my iPhone 5S, in Portugal, why on earth should I be barred to do so on a hypothetical Apple TV I may buy? WHY? I don't have access to a lot of Siri-provided services here, but the ones that are available are well worth it, even considering I have to speak to it in english (my accent was already good enough to begin with, but it's always a good for training it further… And Siri's accuracy seems to be getting better, too).
IMHO, Apple has no excuse and are risking sales with… I won't even call it a dick move. It's their stupidest move ever regarding Siri, and if it was due to legal issues, I'd expect nothing short of a public apology and explanation.
Also, Netflix just arrived in Portugal very recently or will very shortly (maybe it was just announced and will arrive in October, that's probably it). Seriously, it *doesn't* add up at all!
P.S.: Is that why they're dragging their feet with the worldwide Watch launch? Or is it just a supply chain issue? I, for one, wouldn't mind at all using Siri with it in english as well, and keep replying to my text messages in portuguese on my iPhone as usual, instead of dictating. Hell, I wouldn't mind using the Watch with all of its interface in english if need be.
Last edited:
There is. Netflix already offers 4K on some "Smart" TVs. YouTube has 4K (and even 8K!) content.
The 4K Blu-ray standard was just finalized, with players due to hit the market this month.
I am an indie cinematographer and pretty staunchly against 4K television, as we can barely get good 1080p quality outside of bluray. Compression on 1080i cable is just abysmal with macro blocking everywhere. iTunes Store content looks terrific for how compressed it is, but it can be a lot better.
All THAT said, the weirdest thing about the AppleTV not supporting 4K is that the iPhone 6S SHOOTS 4K. I expect it will be pretty compressed footage, but it is strange to sell people on 4K shooting and give absolutely no way to ever see it in 4K. You would HAVE to take your footage out of the iOS ecosystem and onto OSX to ever see it at that resolution.
So, from a consumer standpoint, I could see one of the strongest reasons for owning a 4K TV to be viewing their home videos as they were shot. Apple should have made that possible, otherwise, they should have just focused on the new iPhone shooting more crisp 1080p footage down-rezed from 4K to save precious storage space and work alongside the rest of the eco-system. I shoot a Canon C100 into an external ProRes HQ recorder. It works in this way. Captures 1080p off of a 4K sensor. It is absolutely glorious 1080p that is sharp as a tack.
Pretty well said.
Only thing I'll add is that, besides the obvious strangeness of being able to shoot 4K on an iPhone but not being able to view it on a TV using an apple device in its native resolution, I expect Apple won't update it to 4K till over 50% of households have a 4K set. They dragged their feet releasing a 1080p Apple TV as well.
Absolutely. the second they include 4K at all, they will also be expected to offer the videos in their store at 4K. This brings up two issues. First, studios will probably (definitely) want to charge a premium for 4K versions. Second, the iTunes movie library is currently 1080p and would require a massive overhaul.
I know I had to deliver my movie to iTunes at 1080p on TAPE. Yes, magnetic tape. HDCAM tape. That way, they control the encoding from a super high quality source that is less likely to corrupt. I was surprised by that, as my master is in ProRes HQ but they wanted a tape. As far as I know, there are no 4K HDCAM tapes.
And that's precisely why the jump from 32 (interesting base config... where have I NOT seen this before?) to 64 is just 50 bucks: You will likely barely even need it.
The more you need more storage, the pricier it gets, the more they shaft you on the entry model and the more they will pacify you with the ability to just use iCloud... *cough*
Glassed Silver:mac
So I will have to download or stream anything over 200mb? Guess that's a no buy then. I already use most of my data cap streaming video I don't need anymore streaming...
I don't understand why the app is forced to re-download assets > 200 MB on every launch. Why can't those assets only get wiped if the system requires it (i.e. storage is full)? Otherwise leave them on the flash until space is needed, then start deleting the least-recently used or lower-priority assets first. That's how things like TiVo and many other similar systems work. This seems like a ridiculous waste of network bandwidth and something that is going to hit people's monthly data caps hard (I'm already close to mine every month).
They do. It's part of the app thinning feature they are introducing in iOS 9. The only difference appears to be that Apple is not restricting initial app sizes to 200 MB. I suppose they can do this for the Apple TV because developers have not written any apps for it yet and would not have to go through the trouble of slicing up their apps just to support iOS 9. iOS developers can do the exact same thing now and benefit from much larger app sizes as a result.
You understood it wrong: tvOS will not delete any content unless it runs out of space.
I think we are all missing something here. Have you ever been gravely disappointed in an Apple Product? Do you all think they just spent tens or millions of dollars on this thing to ship a gimped product? I'm sure it will be great. On another note, I hope this opens the possibility to more frequent Apple TV updates. If they keep popping the latest and greatest A-series chips in here the gaming possibilities will get better and better.
You forgot Japan in your list of countries! I was so worried until I checked the JP Apple site and it lists the Siri Remote as a feature.
I genuinely don't know who this product is for, and who is buying it.
Do we have sales numbers in the USA and Europe (for previous Apple TV generations)?
Netflix and such can be seen directly on any Smart TV.
Those with older TVs probably have an 'Internet Box', at least in Europe, that will basically do everything the Apple TV does except AirPlay.
(Not sure on the Mac side, but any recent PC can display wirelessly on any recent TV with WiDi and such. It even works with a basic now-abandoned WinRT Tablet).
And those with none of the above can purchase super cheap dongle such as Chromecast.
So is the core market people wanting to rent or purchase movies on iTunes?
Do we have sales numbers in the USA and Europe (for previous Apple TV generations)?
Netflix and such can be seen directly on any Smart TV.
Those with older TVs probably have an 'Internet Box', at least in Europe, that will basically do everything the Apple TV does except AirPlay.
(Not sure on the Mac side, but any recent PC can display wirelessly on any recent TV with WiDi and such. It even works with a basic now-abandoned WinRT Tablet).
And those with none of the above can purchase super cheap dongle such as Chromecast.
So is the core market people wanting to rent or purchase movies on iTunes?
It has nothing to do with your mastery of English. It has to do with not tuning Siri to be smart enough to search through Portuguese Netflix, etc. Your local content is different, and dealing with proper names/movie titles etc. is HARD.
Curious why you think you are deserving of a public apology. Not all features are available in all markets. End of story.
Sure. I get that. I still have the right to be pissed. They had years upon years to invest in speech recognition for foreign languages, why do they keep dragging their feet? And now I'm thinking just how will Siri deal with international movies and foreign actors on the US store? On a case-by-case basis? Aha…
While I'm at it, I really can't fathom how can the accent of turn-by-turn directions in portuguese be so crappy that it doesn't even get the pronouciation of “keep” (as in “keep to the right/left/etc”, its most common utterance) right, when speech synthesis on OS X is so much more accurate. It does not compute… Even if it was a space-saving measure, it shouldn't affect the pronouciation itself, as street names are diverse enough to warrant the full thing as far as rules are concerned. They might as well use one of the older voices, and we would still be better served.
Really! On OS X, “Joana” is as amazing as the default Siri voice and whatever is the default english voice in OS X, while that awful, awful voice from Maps (and, I'm guessing, also Voice Control, which I deactivated in favor of Siri for obvious reasons) is comparatively worse, pronounciation-wise, than *even* “Fred” from System 1.0. Yep. So much for attention to details… :/
Last edited:
It's for people that like the Apple Ecosystem. As always there is alternatives... but we like Apple.
You're basically suggesting we don't need it because there are alternatives, but...
SmartTV's won't play apple movies/show or games.
Neither will your PC.
Neither will your Chromecast.
So why wouldn't we just buy an AppleTV that does what it does...and also plays netflix