the new apple tv - 1080p isn't needed

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by musio, Aug 12, 2010.

  1. macrumors 68000

    musio

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #1
    †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...
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    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.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68000

    musio

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    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!!
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 68000

    musio

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    AD7863

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    #6
    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.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 68000

    musio

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #7
    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
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    It's really my name! Tough growing up, but love it now :)

    There are lots of ways they make money (of which they make plenty!). That tactic needn't be one of them.
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    Sure... 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').
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68000

    musio

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Flynnstone

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Cold beer land
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    #16
    +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.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    TJRiver

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    #18
    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
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    Gasu E.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    Not far from Boston, MA.
    #19
    <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.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    reebzor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page