Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

I, for one, won't buy anymore ATV's when I transition to HDR. Aside from not taking the ATV seriously for many years, calling it a "hobby", their business model hindered the ATV's potential. Apple wanted to own the content and its revenue, whereas Roku is content to profit from the hardware alone. Apple didn't predict how popular competing content providers would become.

I'm going with a more inclusive ecosystem in the future.
 
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.
Even the current ATV4 is perfectly capable of playing high-bitrate 1080p files (such as Blu-ray rips) using apps like Infuse or MrMC.
 
1Gbps Internet and no data cap. Competitive Internet markets don't have caps.

Yes, exactly... Fiber with FTTH here, 1Gb/s, no caps at less than 40€, with landline and TV included. And Internet box includes a lot of services, such as NAS, wifi, Android TV, VPN...
And with 16€ extra, I also get mobile, unlimited voice, unlimited 4G+ data, no caps either.
So, I could stream 4k every evening without problem, including from my mobile...
Having the choice between 4 mobile operators and around six fiber operators (and more with ADSL) certainly drove prices down...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhfenton
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"
Yeah,

But of all these alternatives you mention only the chrome cast ultra and the from the roku premiere +, you can have hdr.
And the chrome cast is just a displayer in which you need a smartphone/tablet to stream from.

Compared to a roku ultra it is not that more expensive.

And I live in Europe , roku is just in the us. So worldwide, this Apple TV will have less competition.
 
Yeah,

But of all these alternatives you mention only the chrome cast ultra and the from the roku premiere +, you can have hdr.
And the chrome cast is just a displayer in which you need a smartphone/tablet to stream from.

Compared to a roku ultra it is not that more expensive.

And I live in Europe , roku is just in the us. So worldwide, this Apple TV will have less competition.

Yes, market differences probably help. Even I think the Roku at 119 is overpriced for what it is.

once you break past the $100 barrier, you need some really compelling feature in a settop box. You have to convince purchasers of TV's today, that after spending 500, or even $1000+ to go out and buy an additional box. Especially when most TV's today have built in "smarts" already.

Both Roku's and Apple TV's high end offerings are probably not worth it in the long run at these prices.
 
I, for one, won't buy anymore ATV's when I transition to HDR. Aside from not taking the ATV seriously for many years, calling it a "hobby", their business model hindered the ATV's potential. Apple wanted to own the content and its revenue, whereas Roku is content to profit from the hardware alone. Apple didn't predict how popular competing content providers would become.

I'm going with a more inclusive ecosystem in the future.

If I didn't have so many iTunes movies and tv shows I wouldn't bother either.
 
Because 1 HDMI goes to the projector/TV and the other one to the AV amp for best image performance.
Every good Blu-ray reader has 2 HDMI outputs.

Excessive in this day and age. I’m an AV snob and have spent a great deal on gear over the years and grew up with great systems and worked in music doing production and engineering. That said, I think people who think they’re getting performance improvements from things like this are fooling themselves

Dual HDMI outputs is not done for performance or quality reasons. The only reason two outputs is desirable is as a concession for people who have an older AVR which cannot handle 4K/HDR video streams. Two outputs allows you to send the audio to your legacy AVR/Receiver and send the 4K/HDR video directly to a display that supports it.

If you've got an AVR/Receiver that supports HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 then there's no reason to split the outputs and you can achieve the same exact performance and quality by routing everything through it.
 
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.

I'd be willing to bet, Apple won't price it more than $129 and it will be only one version (64GB).

(Many did not buy the 64GB version because they never filled their 32GB box with more than 16GB of apps).
 
Finally decent specs that aren't junk. Now hoping Apple don't limit its capabilities and lock it down.
 
Xfinity does it to me.. or I can pay an extra $50 for unlimited. I’ve gone over twice but they don’t charge extra until the 3rd time.

Depends on where you are located. Comcast waives the cap if they face fierce FIOS competition in a market. We have no cap in the Philadelphia, PA area (and surrounding burbs) because there is stiff Verizon competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhfenton
The A10 Fusion is a quad core SoC and the A10X is 6 core. I dont expect an AppleTV would be in need of the extra lower power cores though, so maybe it'll be a new custom chip based on the A10X.
 
I would likely buy this in a heartbeat to replace my Fire TV Stick and Chromecast.
Yeah, I don't need the fancy remote or storage or app support. Just Air Play, Netflix and a few internet streams. Apple has "gotten" so big that they have completely "forgotten" the little guys that got them there.

We'd be happy with an iPhone Air, Apple Watch Air, TV Air, iMac Air, Mini Air and so on. All a fraction of the power and features of their counterparts all for the masses who desire an Apple devices who's income is nominal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yvan256
Disclaimer: I have 2 4K TVs, one with HDR and I will be buying the 4K Apple TV.

The huge problem with all of this is that most people act like screen resolution is the only issue involved.

I have been watching movies ripped from Blu Ray that are 3GB to 5GB in size for a while and they have been very enjoyable.

I picked up a couple of Blu Ray players at a surplus sale and hooked them up to make sure they worked. I was all like "WTF? this looks incredible compared to my ripped movies."

I get so frustrated just trying to find content that is in 4K, and half the time when I find it, I end up having to go to info on my TV to make sure it is actually 4K.

Now, before you call me a 4K hater, as many have said, when you have a 4K, HDR, high bitrate, uncompressed source, shot in 4K, 4K is astounding.

Streaming a Netflix movie that was originally shot and edited in 2K, compressed to stream at a reasonable rate, not so much. Likely not as good as a 1080p Blu Ray.
 
1. Apple TV 3 had a single-core variant of the A5. Most A5 chips were dual-core. Could the Apple TV 4K have a triple-core variant of A10X?

2. Getting 3 GB is probably necessary given it's more advanced requirements, but it's going to sting a little bit for the iPhone 8 buyers who will likely be stuck in 2015 with 2 GB RAM. This is especially true since the iPhone 8 will likely cost 3X-5X as much as Apple TV.

3. The reason for dual HDMI outputs is NOT for image quality, because the image quality will be exactly the same unless you have a receiver that is intentionally changing the signal. The reason for dual HDMI outputs is for HDCP compatibility reasons and for audio track support. For example, my 4K PVR will not work at all with my 1080p TV through my 4K receiver. I just get an error message saying HDCP 2.2 is not supported. However it works just fine connected directly to my 1080p TV, because it knows to correctly downsample to 1080p and forget about HDCP 2.2 in the latter scenario. Unfortunately, in this latter scenario any advanced audio tracks will not work because the HDMI is going directly to the TV, and bypassing the receiver. Having a second HDMI output would allow advanced audio tracks to be decoded by the receiver. This also helps in the reverse scenario where you have a 4K TV, but an older receiver. These older receivers often cannot transmit a 4K signal, so anything going through it would be limited to 1080p. With a dual-HDMI player, the 4K TV gets 4K and HDR, and the older receiver can decode TrueHD tracks, etc. since each component would get its own HDMI connection.

4. A 25 Mbps connection is sufficient to stream 15 Mbps, according to Netflix, and it's probably true in most instances unless your internet service provider is unreliable. However, even if 25 isn't quite enough with crappy ISPs, 50 Mbps is commonplace in urban areas. I have 1000 Mbps, but the norm in the area is 25-30 if you're cheap, and 50-60 if you're a bit less cheap. Mid-range cost is 100-150 Mbps, and higher end cost is 300+ Mbps. I pay CAD$76 per month for 1000 Mbps, which works out to about US$63 per month. So, the main concern isn't speed IMO. It's data usage. I have unlimited data usage, but many people don't. I only use about 200 GB per month, but many high speed plans up here are less than that, while many people will use significantly more than 200 GB per month.

5. 4K isn't just about 4K. It's also about HDR. HDR is great. Unfortunately, my main movie device is a 1080p projector. To get true 4K HDR means about US$8000, or fake HDR with 4K is about US$3000-$5000 in a projector. I went with the 1080p Sony VPL-HW45ES which at the time was around US$1800, and will go 4K later. Nonetheless, if the Apple TV 4K is decently priced, I'll buy one. I've been meaning to get another Apple TV, and I may as well get a 4K one. It turns out that most streaming 1080p is worse than 1080p Blu-ray, but streaming 4K is better than streaming 1080p. It's also true that streaming 4K downsampled to 1080p is can often be better than directly streamed 1080p. Unfortunately, most machines just stream the 1080p stream if it detects you aren't using 4K.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't need the fancy remote or storage or app support. Just Air Play, Netflix and a few internet streams. Apple has "gotten" so big that they have completely "forgotten" the little guys that got them there.

We'd be happy with an iPhone Air, Apple Watch Air, TV Air, iMac Air, Mini Air and so on. All a fraction of the power and features of their counterparts all for the masses who desire an Apple devices who's income is nominal.
App support would be a must for me. I don't need the rest of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephAW
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.

A GTX 1080Ti can barely play 4K games at 60 FPS, and you're expecting a mobile chip to do the same?
 
[...] while tvOS game developers will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of leveraging the processor's power to create immersive 3D experiences to rival modern console titles.

Incorrect. There has to be an actual good development experience for game developers to be lured to the platform, and also significant potential market share.

It's not all not about the technology no matter how great it may be. The lack of game developer interest in AppleTV will most likely continue.
 
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.

Weird that I CAN see a noticeable difference between streaming 4K netflix or Amazon and non-4k Netflix or Amazon... In my living room I sit approximately 15 feet away from my 70" TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott911
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.

DTS-HD I'm not so concerned about. DTS on the other hand is more feasible when considering bandwidth. It doesn't take that much for regular DTS, as I run a Plex VPS with movies that I have encoded with the DTS audio track and have no problems with bandwidth on my 50Mbps connection.

However this is the main reason why I never buy movies from iTunes. I'd rather buy the disc and encode it myself.
 
Last edited:
Apple, you have a golden ticket to print money if you can convince AAA developers to create games (seriously). Please market this properly. The AppleTV 4 was such a missed opportunity. I have game pads collecting dust because of your ignorance towards what casual gaming looks like.
 
Incorrect. There has to be an actual good development experience for game developers to be lured to the platform, and also significant potential market share.

It's not all not about the technology no matter how great it may be. The lack of game developer interest in AppleTV will most likely continue.
They need a big game (like Destiny 2) to be put on the platform to gain attention. Lots of folks would pay 150 instead of 299 to play it. Or try to get EA to actually put the full version of Madden on it.
 
I'm definitely interested in the new ATV. I still use my 4th gen a lot as I don't have cable and all the stuff I watch is free which is pretty decent stuff offered by NBC, ABC and The CW.

I don't have a 4K TV but if the price is reasonable I'll buy the 5th gen ATV just for the added performance for the games I have.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.