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.
iPad 3 to Pave Way for 1080p iTunes Content and a New Apple TV?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
14 days on Apple returns. If this is rolled out as "one more thing" with a new iPad, you'll be around 14+ days too late.
Of course, we may get nothing in March too- no announcements yet. This
TV could wait until Fall (though it is encouraging to hear that stocks in lots of retail channels are low).Open standards and options
Don't forget about 4k.
If finally true, it will be brilliant when Apple finally allows 1080p via iTunes and ATV (and possibly a true Apple TV?). Right off the bat, there will still be many of us with broadband connections so slow and abbreviated (by ISPs) that 1080p is only a theoretical dream. Although I can assure you that even a 720p HD movie is a possibility on a flaky connection, if willing to download it overnight. In direct streaming? Well, that is still going to require a robust broadband connection, or a good deal of compression.
The limitations imposed by self-serving ISPs is something that Apple has been pressing up against for years now. But instead of them throttling their options to us to suit the notion of the limited broadband your ISP thinks you should pay royally for, better that it is all there and available -- so that any bottlenecks are perfectly obvious.
Even on a small screen the difference between SD and HD content is perfectly clear. If a subjective decision, those wanting a decent experience are invariably better off opting for HD, and paying the price in larger files and money to get it. If 720p can work surprisingly well, at larger screen sizes 1080p will be noticeably better. But at minimum one can have the choice; as is some offerings from iTunes have four offerings, SD and HD as a rental, and the same for purchase. There is no reason two more, as HD 1080p for rental and purchase, could not be added for a total of six options, as well. Who could complain in having at least the choice, even though 1080p media will likely command even more of a price premium?
In the meantime, do not forget that 4k resolution is just around the corner as reality. Sony already sells a true 4k projector for those wishing to spend a bundle one something as capable, but yet without 4k media for commercial sale. But it will come.
So then the question when truly amazing video and audio possible from that we have at home, why we may not have it? Whether ourselves in not opting for that standard, or someone in the chain of supply placing an unnecessary restriction?
Don't forget about 4k.If finally true, it will be brilliant when Apple finally allows 1080p via iTunes and ATV (and possibly a true Apple TV?). Right off the bat, there will still be many of us with broadband connections so slow and abbreviated (by ISPs) that 1080p is only a theoretical dream. Although I can assure you that even a 720p HD movie is a possibility on a flaky connection, if willing to download it overnight. In direct streaming? Well, that is still going to require a robust broadband connection, or a good deal of compression.
The limitations imposed by self-serving ISPs is something that Apple has been pressing up against for years now. But instead of them throttling their options to us to suit the notion of the limited broadband your ISP thinks you should pay royally for, better that it is all there and available -- so that any bottlenecks are perfectly obvious.
Even on a small screen the difference between SD and HD content is perfectly clear. If a subjective decision, those wanting a decent experience are invariably better off opting for HD, and paying the price in larger files and money to get it. If 720p can work surprisingly well, at larger screen sizes 1080p will be noticeably better. But at minimum one can have the choice; as is some offerings from iTunes have four offerings, SD and HD as a rental, and the same for purchase. There is no reason two more, as HD 1080p for rental and purchase, could not be added for a total of six options, as well. Who could complain in having at least the choice, even though 1080p media will likely command even more of a price premium?
In the meantime, do not forget that 4k resolution is just around the corner as reality. Sony already sells a true 4k projector for those wishing to spend a bundle one something as capable, but yet without 4k media for commercial sale. But it will come.
So then the question when truly amazing video and audio possible from that we have at home, why we may not have it? Whether ourselves in not opting for that standard, or someone in the chain of supply placing an unnecessary restriction?
What "great expense"? To Apple? There are many little set-top boxes for <$99 with a 1080p chipset inside. There are many little set-top boxes with netflix, etc and Blu-ray playing mechanisms inside for <$99. Certainly the largest company in the world can find a way to add 1080p chips to their little set-top box too without it adding "great expense".
Or maybe you refer to "great expense" to us consumers? If so, perhaps you believe that just because Apple rolls out a 1080p capable
If it's not great expense to Apple or us consumers, could you elaborate on who will suffer this great expense?
If your an Apple fan you should be used to great expense to the consumer! And of course Apple will make you pay more for 1080P and HD audio streaming, again it's business sense, your going to want to make your money back, and yes it is a BIG investment to roll out something like this, you can't see it, but think about the extra servers to store the bigger files, the codecs and compression licenses, HD audio licenses even. Nothings for free. But all I see on iTunes is the exact same pricing as other services or even more, without offering anything different.
Cherry picking slow-internet countries without referencing faster internet countries is a biased argument. How about Korea, Japan and many others that run circles around the UK and areas of the U.S. in terms of broadband speeds?
And again, don't stream 1080p if it can't work for you. Just keep choosing the 720p or SD option exactly as you do now. If your 720p
Lastly, there are plenty of (legal) sources of content other than just the iTunes store. I've owned
Now, apparently, people like me may finally be able to get one of these that will be able to push my 1080HD video to my HDTV without the downconversion then upconversion done in the existing & prior model. And guys like you find fault with that because... why exactly? Your 720p or SD will play to it's MAXIMUM potential on better hardware, just like one-core software will run to it's MAXIMUM on dual core or quad core hardware. You lose NOTHING if Apple rolls out better hardware. Apple will win something by doing so (more hardware sales to the "1080p or bust" crowd). Consumers like me will buy more units and get what WE want out of the little box too. More units going into homes mean more studios will be tempted to rent/sell their stuff on iTunes so people like you will get a broader mix of video to watch. EVERYBODY WINS with better hardware. There is no downside.
Consumers like you are still in the tiny minority, and how was I cherry picking country's with slow BB speeds? Are you suggesting Korea and Japan watch more iTunes films then America?? Are they markets Apple wants to push iTunes into? Maybe they are I guess, if it wants to get all the films converted into the correct language or have subtitles.
And I'm afraid Apple WILL have to wait for the worlds BB infrastructure to catch up, unless it's willing to poor billions and billions and billions into it? Or do you think it's cheap to lay fibre to the door of every house in the western hemisphere, then make it work and link it all together with a backbone capable of supporting such throughout across all the various ISP's and pipe owners? You getting the picture yet (pun intended
)Is AT&T or Google or the US government going to accelerate it's fibre roll out JUST because Apple wants them to and has launched 1080p and HD audio streaming services? Or do you think they couldn't care less? And that's just thinking about the US.
Apple can roll out what ever hardware they want, good for them, still doesn't change the fact BB speeds are not good enough in it's primary markets.
I believe you were replying to this post (as was I).... I didn't say anything about Apples, other than an obvious joke.
Depends on the movie of course - Avatar fills a double-layer without extras.
A reasonable point, as long as when I launch the stream I can select "96kHz/24bit 8 channel lossless, original French audio track, and American English subtitles".
Average video bitrate max is 40 Mbps, but peak bitrates can be more.
ATV2's 100Mbit/s LAN port is fast enough to handle Blu Ray streaming, even if you factor in hardware overhead.
You can have a 500GB size movie file, and it will stream just fine on the Fast Ethernet port.
Only if it's a 14 hour movie.
Very important point. Just because your ISP says you have a 50 Mbps link, you should not expect to be able to stream a 40-50 Mbps BD stream. In fact, it's likely that you see some buffering issues trying to stream an 8-10 Mbps DBD stream.
New look?
Any word on how the new iPad is going to look? What are the visual differences if any?
Any word on how the new iPad is going to look? What are the visual differences if any?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I see. In my own case, Apple won't "make me" pay for any 1080p or HD audio streaming. I don't even want a 1080p
TV for iTunes store rentals/purchases. The little box can do a whole lot more than just rent/buy content from iTunes. I have over half a decade of 1080HD video shot on consumer camcorders imported, edited & rendered with iMovie from as far back as the 2006 version. Since about 2006, those 1080p renders have dropped right into iTunes and played there just fine. I've had >720p HDTVs since 2001. I'd like to be able to flow all that video from iTunes to my 1080p HDTV without downconversion. This ONE bit of Apple hardware is the weak link in the chain.You came out against 1080p by referencing select places in the U.S. and select places in Britain, as if those slow speeds represent ALL places everywhere. If you dig in deep on the 1080p vs. 720p subject- especially away from HERE- you will discover that lots of people in lots of places have been downloading and streaming 1080p for years now through services like Vudu.com. They are not on some alternate Internet, nor all clustered in places with fibre. I'm in the U.S. myself and I like streaming 1080p via Vudu (and I don't use an alternate internet- or even fibre- either).
I certainly concede that some people in some places will not have sufficiently robust broadband for 1080p. But those people can still download whatever format they download now (SD or 720p). 1080p won't be forced upon anyone- just an option... just like 720p wasn't forced on anyone when it was added as an option to the SD offerings in the iTunes store.
No cause to shoot down 1080p from Apple just because some won't be able to make use of it. Many don't max out quad core chips in Macs but no one argues against them: "one core is good enough", etc.
No, just pointing out that cherry-picked broadband speeds can vary greatly. Just because maybe YOU have broadband that might be too thin for 1080p doesn't mean EVERYONE has the same limitations. Besides, it really doesn't matter anyway. Just as SD video options remained when bigger, higher-bandwidth-required 720p was rolled out, I expect SD & 720p options to remain when 1080p files are rolled out. Then, those people is select areas of the U.S. & Britain can keep downloading whatever works for their limited broadband and people in other parts of the U.S., Britain, Korea, Japan, etc can download 1080p if they desire it. Everybody wins.
Guys like you argue against 1080p because "720p is good enough" or "broadband infrastructure issues" or "bigger file storage issues" or "the chart", etc. Essentially the message seems to be "720p works for me so no one should have anything else." However, guys like me argue for 1080p for ourselves without saying 720p or SD should be discontinued. In the former, it limits the benefits for those wanting 1080p; in the latter, guys like you lose NOTHING: you can still enjoy your 720p or SD to it's fullest on better hardware.
More simply:
- Stick with 720p MAX, and only "720p is good enough" people can get what they want.
- Embrace 1080p hardware and the "1080p or bust" crowd gets what they want too AND that same hardware will maximize the playback quality of 720p or SD. Plus, Apple will sell more hardware to boot. EVERYONE WINS.
See the difference? I never understand why that doesn't resonate.
Didn't say anything like that. What I did say is that only demand for broader pipes will result in the keepers of those pipes to do their job (and expand them). Advances that create demand motivates change. Nobody rolled out Thunderbolt peripherals before there was TB ports to plug into. Nobody had Blu Ray discs for sale before there were any players on which to play those discs. HDTVs had to come before HD television signals. Etc. You build the hardware to grow the demand and then suppliers fill the demand. That's how it always works.
If you wait until broadband supply is EVERYWHERE, we'll never get 1080p via
TV. Broadband supply for 1080p EVERYWHERE may never come.----------
So give up on the near-realtime streaming and switch back to the model of downloading enough of the movie (or all of the movie) before it begins to play. A little more buffer space on a 1080p
TV3 should work nicely. Or just make sure it's out-of-box storage option(s) is set up to download more of the movie before playback begins. Planning ahead is the easy solution to the worrisome broadband problem in some areas when the person still wants to view the 1080p version of a film.
Last edited:
"You came out against 1080p by referencing select places in the U.S. and select places in Britain"
Don't quote me out of context, you just lost my interest in you. I stated AVERAGE broad band speeds quite clearly in my post, that does NOT read as 'select places'!
And why are you still hell bent on comparing wiring up the planet to a part of a computer? They are in entirely different leagues and I think you need to realise that. But you carry on believing it's a simple task that ISP's will only do when Apple streams 1080P and HD audio (you keep leaving the audio bit off!), because Apple makes the world go round.
Don't quote me out of context, you just lost my interest in you. I stated AVERAGE broad band speeds quite clearly in my post, that does NOT read as 'select places'!
And why are you still hell bent on comparing wiring up the planet to a part of a computer? They are in entirely different leagues and I think you need to realise that. But you carry on believing it's a simple task that ISP's will only do when Apple streams 1080P and HD audio (you keep leaving the audio bit off!), because Apple makes the world go round.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
apolloa, obviously you have some issue against 1080p. If you are happy with 720p or SD, I'm happy for you. A 1080p TV won't change anything for you. Everything can stay exactly "as is" for you. No one is trying to force 1080p on you.
I'd like a 1080pTV FOR ME. I don't really care about the usual arguments against it. I don't even need the Internet at all for what I most want to do with it.
I'm in that U.S. where it apparently averaged less-than-ideal broadband for streaming. When I stream 1080p from Vudu.com (for a couple of years now), it works just fine for me. But I am sympathetic to others with slower connections. If someone can't stream it real-time, they can simply be patient and buffer more of the movie before it starts to play. That would work even for dialup connections if they were willing to wait long enough.
If they are not willing to wait, they can choose the 720p or SD version... whatever they choose now. No one loses with this rumored hardware upgrade. It doesn't require worldwide broadband upgrades to function. 1080p files may not stream in near-real-time to everyone but that means they'll just have the option to be patient for the 1080p version... or they can select one of the smaller files if they want their wait to be less.
Argue all you like against it but it's coming anyway. If Apple still agreed that 720p is "good enough" in 2012, they wouldn't have put a 1080p-only camera in the iPhone 4s (and probably the upcoming iPad3 too). And 1080p video is going to look much better on an iPad3 retina display than scaled up 720p. And knowledgable people shooting video in 1080p on their iPhone 4s or iPad3 are not going to remain content at being unable to easily push it at that resolution to their (likely) 1080p HDTVs. It's obvious that the upgrade has to be coming.
TV won't change anything for you. Everything can stay exactly "as is" for you. No one is trying to force 1080p on you.I'd like a 1080p
TV FOR ME. I don't really care about the usual arguments against it. I don't even need the Internet at all for what I most want to do with it.I'm in that U.S. where it apparently averaged less-than-ideal broadband for streaming. When I stream 1080p from Vudu.com (for a couple of years now), it works just fine for me. But I am sympathetic to others with slower connections. If someone can't stream it real-time, they can simply be patient and buffer more of the movie before it starts to play. That would work even for dialup connections if they were willing to wait long enough.
If they are not willing to wait, they can choose the 720p or SD version... whatever they choose now. No one loses with this rumored hardware upgrade. It doesn't require worldwide broadband upgrades to function. 1080p files may not stream in near-real-time to everyone but that means they'll just have the option to be patient for the 1080p version... or they can select one of the smaller files if they want their wait to be less.
Argue all you like against it but it's coming anyway. If Apple still agreed that 720p is "good enough" in 2012, they wouldn't have put a 1080p-only camera in the iPhone 4s (and probably the upcoming iPad3 too). And 1080p video is going to look much better on an iPad3 retina display than scaled up 720p. And knowledgable people shooting video in 1080p on their iPhone 4s or iPad3 are not going to remain content at being unable to easily push it at that resolution to their (likely) 1080p HDTVs. It's obvious that the upgrade has to be coming.
Last edited:
1080p will be better than 720p if they are compressed the same, but I'm afraid that Apple will lossily compress the 1080p version down to the bitrate of 720p.
I happen to have a Blu Ray player. I've tested it a few times on a very large screen. The H.264 compression was very visible, and there were lines all over the movie. On the same screen and everything, I tried a Feroudja DVD player with a 1080p upscaler. People never believe me when I say this, but it was much better quality than the Blu Ray except that the color was not as good. My dad, cousin, and brother all agreed. I replaced the Blu Ray player with a TiVO and left it to collect dust.
I just hate it when people think they know more about my DVD player than I do. Only those who have seen the tests can ever believe me.
I didn't use the same movies, for each, but I used new ones. The Blu Ray movies were indeed 1080p.
Last edited:
Okay .. so you're saying 480p is good enough for any home theater enthusiast? Now why didn't you use the same movie, same player? (you know Bluray player can also up convert DVD) and compare both side by side if possible. If 1080p had visible lines on huge screen, I doubt 480p will do any better.
Or even better, how about comparing Bluray and DVD on a hi-end bluray player with Faroudja chip in it? Now that's a comparison. You were comparing a good DVD player to a regular & generic BD player. You called that an experiment?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
When SD was the standard in the iTunes store and Apple rolled out 720p as the "bigger file", "higher bandwidth required for downloads", etc option, did Apple overly compress the 720p such that it look bad/worse than the SD? No, it seems it is generally accepted- even here- that the Apple choices for 720p compression vs. quality yielded a better looking file than the SD file. So why do we think the 1080p compression vs. quality decisions will yield a 1080p file that looks worse than the 720p. It just won't happen.
Best guess is to look at the quality of the iPhone 4s 1080p video. That is Apple decision-making toward balancing quality vs. compression. I just don't find too many people complaining about that quality. To the contrary, I see lots of people gushing about how great it is.
Not arguing that, just typical that the next new thing would be just around the corner from when I make The Purchase...
Please add the Apple TV to your buyer's guide
Dear MacRumors: Respectfully, I think this needs to change. This post notes the increasing likelihood of an update, and your new coverage of OS X Mountain Lion and its addition of AirPlay for Macs gives even more reason to believe an update is imminent.
As a buyer, I would be pissed if I bought an Apple TV now, only to find out that it was updated shortly thereafter. Isn't that a reason for your buyer's guide in the first place?
Dear MacRumors: Respectfully, I think this needs to change. This post notes the increasing likelihood of an update, and your new coverage of OS X Mountain Lion and its addition of AirPlay for Macs gives even more reason to believe an update is imminent.
As a buyer, I would be pissed if I bought an Apple TV now, only to find out that it was updated shortly thereafter. Isn't that a reason for your buyer's guide in the first place?
I purchased mine a few months ago and would have appreciated the heads up. That said at £99 it's not a massive investment. If Atv 3 is similarly priced I'll get another and just move the Atv 2 to my dinning room TV(like most people here seem to be doing).
With all honesty, I'd pay no attention to that guide anyway. It's just scripted, and has no intelligence at all. Here's what it says about the iPod classic:
Yep, can't wait... new iPod classic coming soon!
With all honesty, I'd pay no attention to that guide anyway. It's just scripted, and has no intelligence at all. Here's what it says about the iPod classic:
Yep, can't wait... new iPod classic coming soon!
I noticed that too - funny - that dog is long dead, don't hold your breath for a "new" brick iPod.
BTW, I wouldn't call it scripted and useless - it's a good place to go to quickly find content around each product.
I think all Apple products of "significance" should be tracked - and the iTV is definitely one of them.
Don't know if this will come true though:
http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/06/best-...e-itv-details-42-inch-display-1499-price-tag/