Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm scared to see how much this thing cost. We'll find out tomorrow. This could also be an awesome "stealth" casual gaming console like the Switch. 4K Games at 60 FPS. If only mobile games got rid of that fremium crap - I'd rather pay $10 or $13 for a full experience then some freemium crap which is why I stopped getting mobile gaming apps.
Yup. Mobile gaming is ded! However we do get ocassional $5 gems.
 
This keynote, and Apple this year is all about H265. It's kind of guaranteed and it is the reason why new Apple TV comes out.
H265 inside mp4 container. I tried creating my own h265 inside mp4 file and it failed to transfer to my 10.5” iPad over latest iTunes.
 
Shouldn't be much more than what they are already charging I would think. You have to stay competative in the market.

Competitive understandability. Though some equivalent Apple laptops similar specs, etc. can be purchased for a 1/3 cheaper. I think the price point will be about $199 - $249.
 
Since it has 203 cores, this mean will have A8X
So we will update from A8 to A8X? I think for 4k hdr they need A10 or A10X
 
Great but if the starting price is $199 won't matter. If Apple wants to be king of content then it's going to have to make it's streamer's price more competitive. It needs to go back to the $99 price point even if that is "cost." Simple "razor and blades" business model.

I have a $39 Roku Express that does everything my ATV4 does other than AirPlay. A 4K Roku can be had for $59. Top of the line is $99.

And for disclosure, I have two ATV4s. One I bought on Black Friday 2015 for $99. The other I got free with DirecTV Now. I would have never bought a ATV4 at their regular prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
How long before all the 4K haters take over this thread?
[doublepost=1505128774][/doublepost]This is shaping up to be my dream Apple Device. 3 or 4 HDMI 2.0a 60 Inputs would be awesome. But I guess that's only for receivers.
 
I avg 800gb a month and I'm one person and I don't even think I stream that much - but you download a couple of free games on your console and binge a 4K season and it adds up quickly. There's no way ISPs can survive if they DON'T start doing bandwidth caps and tiers. I'm pleasantly surprised Xfinity hasn't started yet, but I can see them doing it in a few years. I know they are testing it in a few markets.

Hopefully not as video encoding standards improve. H265 offers massive efficiency gains over H264, for example. Netflix did a study on it recently and found that H265 could give the same quality as H264 at 35-50% lower bitrates. This means that whilst the demand for higher resolution streams increases, the need for bandwidth shouldn't scale linearly because of improvements in video encoding.

That being said, your monthly bandwidth is way outside of what I would imagine to be 'normal.' Most people, even streaming TV box sets on Netflix throughout the month, won't be getting anywhere near 800GB of used bandwidth. I suspect that ISPs don't mind a few outliers with huge monthly averages because the majority of their customers don't stress their networks at all.
 
I want to like it but it lacks a compelling case to buy it based on what's been shown so far.
It's not really competing with consoles - sure 3gb / A10X is an upgrade but compare that to the PS4 or XBox One.
It's not competing with Netflix or similar because there is no real subscription model.
Streaming high resolution media is something most browsers are very good at these days so it doesn't really offer much there either.
Hundreds of dollars to stream from your device isn't exactly compelling. I'd like to see -
  • Serious graphics power and serious storage to play real games and store a large collection of them on the device.
  • Serious controllers to play those games, which if Bluetooth need to be the latest version of it.
  • Decent audio ports.
  • More RAM
  • At least 256gb storage
Best of all though would be a unified content offering for a seriously competitive price. At least when it was Blockbuster et al distributing the content there was no concern over who held the copyright. Now you need five streaming services just to get a sliver of what should be available.
 
4K is so overhyped. You can't tell the difference from a 1080p TV if you sit back from the TV like 6 ft (which most people do). Plus with the data caps the cable companies are placing, you'll run out of data after a movie or two. It's all bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mozumder
New A10X powered 4K AppleTV with a BUNDLED GAME CONTROLLER.
Now that would be dynamite.

1BA06494-D50A-4287-A12C-7E97C56F7EE7.0.0.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
Hopefully not as video encoding standards improve. H265 offers massive efficiency gains over H264, for example. Netflix did a study on it recently and found that H265 could give the same quality as H264 at 35-50% lower bitrates. This means that whilst the demand for higher resolution streams increases, the need for bandwidth shouldn't scale linearly because of improvements in video encoding.

That being said, your monthly bandwidth is way outside of what I would imagine to be 'normal.' Most people, even streaming TV box sets on Netflix throughout the month, won't be getting anywhere near 800GB of used bandwidth. I suspect that ISPs don't mind a few outliers with huge monthly averages because the majority of their customers don't stress their networks at all.

Yes, but are they streaming 4K? I'm streaming 4K on YouTube, Netflix and other services and like I said, it's only 2 or 3 hours every couple of days and on the weekend I'll binge 8 or 9 hrs of 4K tv. Not to mention the avg Game Download these days is 50GB and PS+ and Xbox offer 2 or 4 free games a month. That's 200GB right there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.