This is what the Apple TV could have been

[Rigby]

Roku claims 1700 channels and Amazon claims over 3000, I could not find a good source for android tv. If Apple does not best both of those number in 6 months I would be shocked.

Well, I stand corrected regarding the sheer number of Amazon's channels. I'd point out though that Amazon is missing some real heavy-weights. For example, there is no Ultraviolet provider like Vudu or Flixster on the Fire TV. That alone makes the Roku more versatile. There is also a plethora of private channels for Roku which are probably not included in their official count.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple TV didn't get either Amazon Video or Vudu anytime soon ...

 

[snowmoon]

There is also a plethora of private channels for Roku which are probably not included in their official count.

You can do some side-loading on the FireTV as well for non-approved apps, although they don't officially support it and it could break. I don't expect the same from the new Apple TV, but I do expect a plethora of apps pretty quickly.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple TV didn't get either Amazon Video or Vudu anytime soon ...

Considering Amazon's childish stance towards Apple, and other streaming devices, as of late I too do not expect Amazon video to come to the new Apple TV. That said the other providers ( Vudu, flixster ) do have iOS apps and porting to the new Apple TV would be relatively simple presuming there is no licensing issues.

 

[Rigby]

Considering Amazon's childish stance towards Apple, and other streaming devices, as of late I too do not expect Amazon video to come to the new Apple TV. That said the other providers ( Vudu, flixster ) do have iOS apps and porting to the new Apple TV would be relatively simple presuming there is no licensing issues.

I'm not so sure it's just Amazon that's being childish. And having iOS apps doesn't necessarily mean they will get on the Apple TV, be it because they don't want to or because Apple won't let them. The big guys could all have been on the existing Apple TV long ago ...

 

[pmcdunnough]

I'm not so sure it's just Amazon that's being childish. And having iOS apps doesn't necessarily mean they will get on the Apple TV, be it because they don't want to or because Apple won't let them. The big guys could all have been on the existing Apple TV long ago ...

Well the current Apple TV handles many of those channels just fine via AirPlay. Apple accounts for a very large percentage of streaming. If they don't support h.265 for 1080p and lower you aren't going to see a huge effort in movie night those streams to h.265.

The licensing fees are a major issue. You can't just say they will sort themselves out. What if they don't? The whole h.265 thing for HD seems a bit pointless.

As far as developers applying for iOS and not tvOS, tvOS is basically iOS. There will even be universal apps for iPhone, iPad, Apple TV. It's a huge deal and far more important than all the bragging rights that go with 4K support and multiple codecs in hardware support.

Finally, the Roku does not have environment. Apple does, Google does, Microsoft does and so does Amazon. While the Roku isn't about to disappear and it serves users really well now, it has no future.

 

[felt.]

My RPi2+Kodi takes care of all my "playing files from a network device on a local screen" needs.

 

[oshia86]

I can't honestly wait for the Apple TV. I've owned a Roku 2xs and Roku 3. I need something without the wifi interfering "wifi direct." Looking to move everything in the house over. The Roku 4 is just going to be more of the same.

 

[Rigby]

The licensing fees are a major issue. You can't just say they will sort themselves out. What if they don't?

Of course they will sort themselves out. The licensors have an interest in wide adoption and will eventually meet vendors at a price point that works for everybody. The same thing happened with H.264 and many other licensed technologies.

The whole h.265 thing for HD seems a bit pointless.

Not sure why you are saying this. The efficiency gains are significant.

As far as developers applying for iOS and not tvOS, tvOS is basically iOS. There will even be universal apps for iPhone, iPad, Apple TV. It's a huge deal and far more important than all the bragging rights that go with 4K support and multiple codecs in hardware support.

Other streaming boxes with app stores have been around for a while now, and the results are decidedly ho-hum. Not sure what you are expecting. "Crossy Roads" and clothes shopping on a TV will not change the world.

Finally, the Roku does not have environment. Apple does, Google does, Microsoft does and so does Amazon. While the Roku isn't about to disappear and it serves users really well now, it has no future.

Not only do they have a huge amount of channels, and are integrated in many smart TVs, but they are also the current market leader in streaming devices. I doubt that the Apple TV will significantly change that, unless Apple come out with a less expensive device comparable to the streaming sticks that Roku, Amazon and Google are offering.

 

[rhett7660]

Considering Amazon's childish stance towards Apple, and other streaming devices, as of late I too do not expect Amazon video to come to the new Apple TV. That said the other providers ( Vudu, flixster ) do have iOS apps and porting to the new Apple TV would be relatively simple presuming there is no licensing issues.

I am hoping you are wrong and Amazon allows their streaming service on the ATV4 (fingers crossed). If anything it is a way for them to make more money! But sadly, I have a feeling you are right about them not playing on the new ATV. We shall have to wait and see.

 

[jdillings]

Roku claims 1700 channels and Amazon claims over 3000, I could not find a good source for android tv. If Apple does not best both of those number in 6 months I would be shocked.

Amazon's claims are bogus because Fullscreen, Inc. has been flooding the app store with Fire TV apps for each of its YouTube channels. At last count, they are responsible for at least half (1500+) of the total channels. Even the biggest Amazon Fire TV news site now says the app store count is meaningless:
http://www.aftvnews.com/the-amazon-fire-tv-appstore-just-reached-4000-apps-but-its-meaningless/

 

[Snoopy4]

Well, I stand corrected regarding the sheer number of Amazon's channels. I'd point out though that Amazon is missing some real heavy-weights. For example, there is no Ultraviolet provider like Vudu or Flixster on the Fire TV. That alone makes the Roku more versatile. There is also a plethora of private channels for Roku which are probably not included in their official count.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple TV didn't get either Amazon Video or Vudu anytime soon ...

I'd be happy with imbeded Vudu that works with Siri and an Amazon app. This gives me access to the UVVU material and if I want to use Prime I can, even if it doesn't fully integrate.

 

[Supermallet]

The whole h.265 thing for HD seems a bit pointless.

Uh, what? Chopping your file sizes in half while retaining the same quality, or receiving significantly better quality at the same file size is pointless for HD? You've made some interesting arguments in this thread but now you're just being silly. HEVC is going to be the new standard, and I am positive Apple will release an ATV capable of supporting it in the future.

You seem to be under the impression that if Apple doesn't do something, then it must not be useful. That's pure malarkey. Apple doesn't dictate to the market. If it makes a good enough product it can sway the market, but it's not some all powerful entity.

 

[pmcdunnough]

Uh, what? Chopping your file sizes in half while retaining the same quality, or receiving significantly better quality at the same file size is pointless for HD? You've made some interesting arguments in this thread but now you're just being silly. HEVC is going to be the new standard, and I am positive Apple will release an ATV capable of supporting it in the future.

You seem to be under the impression that if Apple doesn't do something, then it must not be useful. That's pure malarkey. Apple doesn't dictate to the market. If it makes a good enough product it can sway the market, but it's not some all powerful entity.

- licensing
- consumer hardware largely not capable
- cost and time involved in converting libraries

If you could wave a magic wand and stream video in better quality at half the size then of course everyone would do it? Obviously there are issues stopping this from happening. You seem convinced that h.265 has already been agreed to as a standard for HD even though the compression algorithm is not yet finalized. This is wishful thinking on your part.

Out of curiosity, is h.264 the current standard for SD? Could be but I just am not sure. You could be right about h.265 but I have this feeling it is tied to UHD. I am not saying it shouldn't happen. I just would like to see some official statement from the major streamers that it is going to happen. Has Amazon said they will be streaming all their HD video in h.265 and or h.264? What about Google or Netflix or Hulu?

 

[Rigby]

- consumer hardware largely not capable

That is quite an ironic statement, given that we are currently seeing a wave of consumer products ranging from Blu-ray players over cellphones to streaming boxes that are H.265 capable. Heck, Apple's own A8 SoC and thus very likely the new Apple TV supports H.265 in hardware.

If you could wave a magic wand and stream video in better quality at half the size then of course everyone would do it? Obviously there are issues stopping this from happening.

It is already happening.

You seem convinced that h.265 has already been agreed to as a standard for HD even though the compression algorithm is not yet finalized.

I'm wondering where you are getting this. H.265 is an officially approved and published ITU-T standard. There's nothing in there that limits it to UHD resolutions.

 

[snowmoon]

Heck, Apple's own A8 SoC and thus very likely the new Apple TV supports H.265 in hardware.

Quite likely.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...lus-use-h265-codec-for-facetime-over-cellular

It's used for better quality facetime connections over cellular on the iPhone 6 and up.

 

[pmcdunnough]

That is quite an ironic statement, given that we are currently seeing a wave of consumer products ranging from Blu-ray players over cellphones to streaming boxes that are H.265 capable. Heck, Apple's own A8 SoC and thus very likely the new Apple TV supports H.265 in hardware.

To play back h.265 streams it is not enough to just have the codec. There is also the whole drm issue and licensing costs. The vast majority of playback devices out there that can play back h.265 streams from a legitimate site are not ready. There is a reason why the major streaming sites are not using it.

As far as your standards statements note that it is version 3 and was arrived at even before licensing fees were announced. Given that these fees were only recently announced I don't see how you can claim it as a standard ( not a technical compression algorithm). We are using the term in different ways. In any case we can all do a search on h.265 and arrive at our own conclusions.

It is my feeling that there are so many uncertainties surrounding H.265 that it is too early to declare it the winner/standard for streaming. You are citing specs, how great it is, etc .... and overlooking major issues such as patents and licensing costs. The more I read about it the more I feel Apple is right in being cautious with it and 4K.

 

[pmcdunnough]

Quite likely.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...lus-use-h265-codec-for-facetime-over-cellular

It's used for better quality facetime connections over cellular on the iPhone 6 and up.

"Exactly how Apple is implementing H.265 is unknown at this time, but considering the feature is restricted to the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, some speculate the new A8 SoC incorporates a specialized encoder/decoder module not present in older handsets."

This whole thread is full of speculation. Using appleinsider as a reference is fine but I wouldn't bet the farm on them.

Just to be clear here. I am not denying the existence of h.265 as a compression algorithm. I am simply saying it's not a sure thing that it will form the basis of the next streaming standard, and I am not alone in thinking that. The whole licensing and fees questions are not trivial. We aren't dealing with something that is public domain.

 

[snowmoon]

It is my feeling that there are so many uncertainties surrounding H.265 that it is too early to declare it the winner/standard for streaming. You are citing specs, how great it is, etc .... and overlooking major issues such as patents and licensing costs. The more I read about it the more I feel Apple is right in being cautious with it and 4K.

I think we are in agreement, I was just saying that the A8 SoC more than likely has accelerated encode/decode of h265 streams. If anything Apple is just hedging their bets.

The competing interests are bandwidth and cost. H264 won the game partially due to a very liberal policy on decoders which made is easier for playback to be included in virtually all devices. 4k video streaming, OTOH, is virtually DOA unless the US suddenly gets more bandwidth to each household ( unlikely ) or they can get a significant improvement in encoding. HEVC might be that improvement, but it's still too early to tell if it will be enough and at the right price point to drive 4k adoption.

HEVC is not the only next-gen codec on the block and VP9 is distributed royalty-free so it's far from a easy win for the MPEG-LA.

 

[Rigby]

It is my feeling that there are so many uncertainties surrounding H.265 that it is too early to declare it the winner/standard for streaming. You are citing specs, how great it is, etc .... and overlooking major issues such as patents and licensing costs.

I'm actually quite familiar with the situation. You have probably snapped up something in the news about HEVC Advance, but you don't know the background. As I said before, every time a new major standard comes to market there are tussles over the licensing agreements. Patent holders demand fees and vendors who are not in the patent pool oppose them. In the end, an agreement will be reached as always. H.265 has already been adopted by a number of big players, is widely supported in current hardware platforms, and is well on its way to succeed H.264 in many applications.

The more I read about it the more I feel Apple is right in being cautious with it and 4K.

And that is crux of it, isn't it? If Apple doesn't use it, it can't be good. I suspect you will change your mind once they fully adopt it (beyond their existing use in Facetime).

 

[oneMadRssn]

I think we are in agreement, I was just saying that the A8 SoC more than likely has accelerated encode/decode of h265 streams. If anything Apple is just hedging their bets.

I can see a hardware decoder/encoder being necessary where power efficiency is a concern, such as with battery-powered devices like smartphones and tablets.

However with a device that has a constant power supply, who cares about efficiency? What is stop Apple from implementing an h265 software decoder on the AppleTV? Or maybe one of the Apps that comes out in the app store might implement an h265 decoder in software. There is no doubt the A8 is powerful enough to support such a software decoder.

Whether or not the functionality is there in the SoC seems unimportant in this context.

 

[snowmoon]

However with a device that has a constant power supply, who cares about efficiency? What is stop Apple from implementing an h265 software decoder on the AppleTV?

Pure software decoding of these advanced codecs is silly, nobody does it for any critical function. Encoding is even more silly. Even an OpenCL based HEVC renderer still relies on the CPU for most of the work.

HEVC is VERY intensive and there is no way for them to do a respectable job with a pure software decoder, not at the bitrates necessary for 4k playback. VLC for windows recommends 4 cores i7 @ 2.3Ghz or better for HEVC decoding and that's not even getting into 4k or higher bitrate streams.

 

[nebo1ss]

Pure software decoding of these advanced codecs is silly, nobody does it for any critical function. Encoding is even more silly. Even an OpenCL based HEVC renderer still relies on the CPU for most of the work.

HEVC is VERY intensive and there is no way for them to do a respectable job with a pure software decoder, not at the bitrates necessary for 4k playback. VLC for windows recommends 4 cores i7 @ 2.3Ghz or better for HEVC decoding and that's not even getting into 4k or higher bitrate streams.[/QUOTE

Handbrake does an excellent job of software encoding H265 and seem to have no problem with it. Of course everyone would agree that offloading the encode/decode to hardware makes sense but lets not pretend it is 100 percent essential.

 

[bluespark]

Fact is that some people are in the same position i am in. I have an Upmarket AVR system that was pretty expensive when i got it and it does everything for me except it does not support HDMI switching. i don't actually need HDMI switching since my Television does that for me. However since I have six optical inputs on my Amplifier I use them for Audio decoding.

i will certainly be getting the ROKU 4. More choice is good.

That's the thing -- unlike the computer/iDevice market where Apple can safely assume that normal-to-high end customers generally will be abandoning older ports, the audio world has never worked that way. Many people handle their television's audio through systems that are perfectly good (and will be for the foreseeable future) but do not do HDMI switching. Case in point: I have always run my AppleTVs through high-quality outboard DACs, which don't support HDMI-in. For me, "upgrading" to the new AppleTV therefore would mean diminished sound quality.

 

[2010mini]

That's the thing -- unlike the computer/iDevice market where Apple can safely assume that normal-to-high end customers generally will be abandoning older ports, the audio world has never worked that way. Many people handle their television's audio through systems that are perfectly good (and will be for the foreseeable future) but do not do HDMI switching. Case in point: I have always run my AppleTVs through high-quality outboard DACs, which don't support HDMI-in. For me, "upgrading" to the new AppleTV therefore would mean diminished sound quality.

You have got to accept like I did that we are in the minority when it comes to the market Apple targets. Most people who buy a streaming box connect it directly to their tv via hdmi.

 

[thepixelpusher]

Roku has nice looking specs, but what is that worth when AppleTV4 will have the biggest volume of apps and consumer products that will be tying in to it.

The Roku specs mean nothing. It's like the 30 megapixel smartphone cameras that look worse than the 8 megapixel iPhone cameras. Sure the specs look good on paper, but in real world use they fail.

AppleTV4 will ride above the rest.

Only Amazon FireTV with access to Amazon Prime media content, Amazon original TV programs and Amazon Game Studios original game content will come close.

 

[Supermallet]

Roku has nice looking specs, but what is that worth when AppleTV4 will have the biggest volume of apps and consumer products that will be tying in to it.

The Roku specs mean nothing. It's like the 30 megapixel smartphone cameras that look worse than the 8 megapixel iPhone cameras. Sure the specs look good on paper, but in real world use they fail.

AppleTV4 will ride above the rest.

Only Amazon FireTV with access to Amazon Prime media content, Amazon original TV programs and Amazon Game Studios original game content will come close.

While I agree that there's more to a device than just specs, a set top box is not as complex of a device as a smartphone. Most people who want a set top box are asking can it play the streaming services, and some of my own media, and let me watch the movies and shows I want to watch when I want to watch them. The Roku absolutely does this for practically all media providers except iTunes. Same with the Amazon Fire. Apple is actually the most limited at the moment, but we'll have to see if an actual app store changes this.