4K Apple TV Could Feature A10X Fusion Chip and 3GB of RAM

[budselectjr]

could you explain this more? wouldn't the Projector TV go to through the AV receiver anyway?

It's helpful(necessary) for HDCP issues that can arise if you have an older receiver that isn't HDCP 2.2 compliant. You can bypass your receiver for the video running that directly to your 4K display/projector and run the audio to the receiver which isn't HDCP protected.

 

[iReality85]

Wonder how many people actually have the bandwidth for 4K content.

Considering a 25Mbps internet connection is recommended for streaming 4K content, quite a few I'd imagine. People have been able to buy such plans for years now. Heck, even my 60 year old parents have >50Mbps for $55/mo.

The real issue is whether people have 4K TVs at this point.

 

[mmm1345]

Data caps are completely unnecessary--they don't even address the key issue of peak traffic--and don't exist in competitive Internet markets. If you live in Cincinnati, you have never seen a cap--and never will--because you can choose between fiber (up to 1Gbps) from the phone company (about 80% coverage now, building to 90-95%) or cable Internet from Spectrum/Charter.


$50 extra for unlimited? Man, do they need some competition.


I suspect we sometimes hit 200GB in a day. Heck, when we first signed up for our cloud backup service, we uploaded 8TB in the first couple weeks. We only have one 4K TV at the moment, and we generally can't stream 4K video to our computers with 4K monitors; but bandwidth usage is growing fast. And we stream outbound too--both live OTA TV and stored video--from two home Plex servers to our mobile devices and remote PCs. I don't know how ISPs with caps count outbound data usage.


I believe Internet data caps will eventually fade away, as we are gradually seeing in the wireless universe. Cable ISPs in particular have issues with peak demand, and data caps do little to address that.


1Gbps Internet and no data cap. Competitive Internet markets don't have caps.

This is why I would always be lery of completely cutting the chord and going with a streaming option like Hulu Channels, PS Vue or Layer 3. As long as I have to get my bandwidth through Comcast (no competition) I think it's inevitible that they'll start pulling shenanigans to throttle services like PS Vue and Layer 3. Not to mention the cost of these "Live TV Alternatives," is pretty expensive.

 

[burgman]

You've apparently never watched a 4K TV without poorly compressed media in a home setting. It's especially better when it has HDR.

I'm looking forward to this upgrade. I suspect they keep the prices exactly the same at $149 and $199 but they also keep the current AppleTV with 16gb for $99.

The difference between full broadcast 1080P and streamed 4K isn't that much even with HDR at 6 to 12 feet. HDR 10 is the worst of the new standards but was created by TV makers so free to them, Dolby Vision is a much better standard, one example is HDR 10 has a 1000 nit brightness level, DV has 10,000 nits.Streamed content varies greatly on compression, dropped frames, CDM management, and other artifacts. Add that so little content was shot with 4K and above in mind, watching a lot of content in up converted fake 4K looks far worse. An easy test is to watch some YouTube 1080P, 4K, 8K videos and choose different resolutions. Looking at stats for nerds and some honesty in viewing tells the tale. Marketing dept's are genius in hyping their next best thing, 4K HDR in today's world is just another one. The real jaw dropping experience is between Dolby Vision and HLG. Marketing and consumers have killed better technology in the past, we need smarter consumers and neutered marketing dept's.

 

[Shoju]

Point taken. And the iPhone is not a phone. It's a multimedia communication internet device.

„...are you getting it? These are not three devices..!” (scnr )

 

[budselectjr]

The difference between full broadcast 1080P and streamed 4K isn't that much even with HDR at 6 to 12 feet. HDR 10 is the worst of the new standards but is Created by TV makers so free to Them, Dolby Vision is a much better standard, one example is HDR 10 has a 1000 nit brightness level, DV has 10,000 nits.Streamed content varies greatly on compression, dropped frames, and other artifacts. Add that so little content was shot with 4K and above in mind, watching a lot of content in up converted fake 4K looks far worse. An easy test is to watch some YouTube 1080P, 4K, 8K videos and choose different resolutions. Looking at stats for nerds and some honesty in viewing tells the tale. Marketing dept's are genius in hyping their next best thing, 4K HDR in today's world is just another one. The real jaw dropping experience is between Dolby Vision and HLG. Marketing and consumers have killed better technology in the past, we need smarter consumers.

More importantly, Dolby Vision has dynamic metadata. I'm very happy Apple is supporting both.

 

[fokmik]

What?
A10X is tri-core, at least to the OS. There's six cores, but only three visible to the OS at any time.

A10X is six cores, the cpu is on the new ipad pros
We are talking the total of cores, not the cores that are running on the same time

 

[ValO]

New A10X powered 4K AppleTV with a BUNDLED GAME CONTROLLER.
Now that would be dynamite.

I agree,
With this hw Apple has to make advancement in popular games being released for this new Apple TV. All the big names should develop games for it. A standard controller made by Apple is needed for this.
With this soc, it should be able to offer performance that is equivalent between a ps3-ps4.

 

[DNichter]

I wonder if it would be powerful enough to stream a plex library (1080p and above) from a NAS..
Considered picking up a Mac mini for this very reason but I’ll wait and see how the new Apple TV performs. This might be cheaper and easier than another computer.

You can use an NAS to stream 1080p and some 4K currently (although it won't look as good). I recommend a QNAP TS 251+.

 

[Applebot1]

It's Apple, of COURSE it'll be outrageously expensive compared to its competitors. Roku Premiere +, Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV are under $80. I'd bet the AppleTV will be $250.

Yea that's my thoughts unfortunately

 

[gnipgnop]

A standard controller made by Apple is needed for this.

Apple seems to be limiting themselves to hardware that leverages a specific Apple designed technology to differentiate themselves from competitors. I don't see much of an opportunity to do that with a gaming controller. Bluetooth for those doesn't need a W1 chip to extend range since they're going to be used so close to the TV or iPhone/iPad screen.

 

[chrisbru]

I hardly use my Apple TV

Well I use mine all the time. Glad we could both put this interesting information out there.

 

[triangletechie]

Have to agree. First you gotta get past all those that don't have enough bandwidth. And those that do won't see much difference. You need a big screen tv to really see the difference. 75" or more.

absolutely false. I have a 4K 65" Samsung TV and notice a huge difference between 4K and 1080p. The key is HDR. That really shows a big advantage for 4K content with a big boost in color.
[doublepost=1505138551][/doublepost]

I think it will be under $149. The cost of the processor is still comparatively cheap. I don't see it going over $200

I wonder if they are going to just offer 1 storage option. If just 1 option, maybe $199 for a 128 gb version. But if it's 2, I'm not sure what the tiers would be but I think they would want to keep the highest one at $199 or less.

 

[Marco Klobas]

If only it would have bit perfect audio output and ditch that forced 48kHz up/downsampling nonsense.

 

[2010mini]

Data caps are completely unnecessary--they don't even address the key issue of peak traffic--and don't exist in competitive Internet markets. If you live in Cincinnati, you have never seen a cap--and never will--because you can choose between fiber (up to 1Gbps) from the phone company (about 80% coverage now, building to 90-95%) or cable Internet from Spectrum/Charter.


$50 extra for unlimited? Man, do they need some competition.


I suspect we sometimes hit 200GB in a day. Heck, when we first signed up for our cloud backup service, we uploaded 8TB in the first couple weeks. We only have one 4K TV at the moment, and we generally can't stream 4K video to our computers with 4K monitors; but bandwidth usage is growing fast. And we stream outbound too--both live OTA TV and stored video--from two home Plex servers to our mobile devices and remote PCs. I don't know how ISPs with caps count outbound data usage.


I believe Internet data caps will eventually fade away, as we are gradually seeing in the wireless universe. Cable ISPs in particular have issues with peak demand, and data caps do little to address that.


1Gbps Internet and no data cap. Competitive Internet markets don't have caps.

I live in a competitive ISP market. When it was just the cable company, service and price was ridiculously appalling. After the phone company announced they were installing fibre.... prices dropped quickly and service improved.

 

[gnipgnop]

I wonder if they are going to just offer 1 storage option. If just 1 option, maybe $199 for a 128 gb version. But if it's 2, I'm not sure what the tiers would be but I think they would want to keep the highest one at $199 or less.

Yeah, seems highly unlikely that any configuration would be over $200. My own guess would be that the ATV4 gets a price drop and the ATV5 keeps similar pricing to when the ATV4 was first released.

 

[ValO]

Apple seems to be limiting themselves to hardware that leverages a specific Apple designed technology to differentiate themselves from competitors. I don't see much of an opportunity to do that with a gaming controller. Bluetooth for those doesn't need a W1 chip to extend range since they're going to be used so close to the TV or iPhone/iPad screen.

All that technical stuff doesn' t matter.
It is all about marketing, by releasing a standard gamecontroller by apple themselves, will provide game developpers by a reference design, and will sell more controllers by apple themselves , so more people will use it, that will entice game developpers even more.

 

[justperry]

Noted

I don't either, I can imagine why many users in the US would use this, it's just wasting money in Europe and lots of other places cause it's barely usable.
I wasted €200 on this thing.

 

[2010mini]

absolutely false. I have a 4K 65" Samsung TV and notice a huge difference between 4K and 1080p. The key is HDR. That really shows a big advantage for 4K content with a big boost in color.
[doublepost=1505138551][/doublepost]
I wonder if they are going to just offer 1 storage option. If just 1 option, maybe $199 for a 128 gb version. But if it's 2, I'm not sure what the tiers would be but I think they would want to keep the highest one at $199 or less.

Steve Jobs was the one that got rid of the HD in the Apple TV. The market for people who manage their own content is tiny.

 

[LordVic]

it's not the CPU that people care about in these settop boxes. Sure, the A10x will provide a great smooth experience. But if the cost of entry is too much, most people are going to opt for the slightly slower, but equally competent settop box.

Right now, Even with 4k added to the Apple TV. there's no tent-pole feature that sets teh Apple TV apart that warrants it's premium price-tag over any of the competition.

Apple TV (assuming aTV 4 maintains same price with the new features):
$149.00

Amazon Fire TV w/ 4k and HDR support:
89.99

Amazon FireStick (limited to 1080p)
39.99

Roku 4K boxes
Roku Ultra: 119.99
Roku Premiere+: 89.99
Roku Premiere: 69.99

Roku 1080p boxes:
Streaming Stick: 49.99
Express+: 44.99
Express: 34.99

Google Chromecasts
4K Ultra: 69.99
Chromecast: 35.00


Apple TV needs a big price cut if they want to actually be competitive in the settop box market and not just be the "hobby"

 

[shaunp]

Considering a 25Mbps internet connection is recommended for streaming 4K content, quite a few I'd imagine. People have been able to buy such plans for years now. Heck, even my 60 year old parents have >50Mbps for $55/mo.

The real issue is whether people have 4K TVs at this point.

I have too, but I know a lot of people who have this in theory, but in practise they have to live with massive contention on their broadband.

 

[Rigby]

....and it STILL doesn't support DTS/MA-HD audio tracks! I'll never understand why Apple doesn't add this feature. I'll stick with my Nvidia Shield TV box.

The Infuse and MrMC apps can decode DTS-HD and TrueHD. The reason why Apple doesn't support it in their native Movies app is simple: You can't buy movies with these audio formats on iTunes. No other streaming provider today uses them either because they use quite a bit of bandwidth.

 

[gnipgnop]

Right now, Even with 4k added to the Apple TV. there's no tent-pole feature that sets teh Apple TV apart that warrants it's premium price-tag over any of the competition.

Disagree. The App Store on the Apple TV is way beyond any of it's competitors. The Shield TV has gaming, but the target customer is primarily someone who wants to stream from their gaming PC.

 

[mmm1345]

Considering a 25Mbps internet connection is recommended for streaming 4K content, quite a few I'd imagine. People have been able to buy such plans for years now. Heck, even my 60 year old parents have >50Mbps for $55/mo.

The real issue is whether people have 4K TVs at this point.

25mbs is "recommended" but considering these broadband providers rarely deliver close to what you are paying for, I'd say you'd need at least a 50mbs plan to stream 4K. With the assumption your provider will avg 30 or 40 on a 50mbps plans.

It's already hard to find a 1080p screen in larger sizes (50+) now. So it'll become standard and a lot cheaper in 3 years. The problem is a LOT of people just got their nice 1080p TVs in the last 5 or 6 yrs, so I don't see those people upgrading anytime soon and that's fine. 4K should be treated as just another resolution option and unlike other switches, if you don't want 4K you don't have to get it and 4K Content downsampled still improves the overall picture quality of 1080p content. So theoretically everyone "wins."

 

[Rigby]

Because 1 HDMI goes to the projector/TV and the other one to the AV amp for best image performance.

The reason why most UHD Blu-ray players have two HDMI outputs is so that you can use them with older AVRs that don't support 4K video passthrough (you connect one HDMI cable to the TV/projector, and the other to the AVR for sound).