XBMC is available on the current version I have it running on both my ATV2's. They are not 1080p though, but I don't see the hype, 720p looks great to me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
98% of U.S. Apple Retail Stores Out of Stock of Apple TV [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
XBMC is available on the current version I have it running on both my ATV2's. They are not 1080p though, but I don't see the hype, 720p looks great to me.
Man this kinda blows, I just got the Apple TV for Christmas
I knew i should hve waited. How much do y'all think I can sell mine for now? Half price?
I dont really get this move from Apple, I mean idk what the new one will have, it might be worth it... But if apple was to come out with a real television set here in the next year I think that would be a slap in the face to those who buy this latest apple TV.
Then again the television set might have a hefty price tag... In which case people who want the current functionality of the apple tv they will get the one out now
Those who want EVERYTHING in one... Will pay up I guess.
I knew i should hve waited. How much do y'all think I can sell mine for now? Half price?
I dont really get this move from Apple, I mean idk what the new one will have, it might be worth it... But if apple was to come out with a real television set here in the next year I think that would be a slap in the face to those who buy this latest apple TV.
Then again the television set might have a hefty price tag... In which case people who want the current functionality of the apple tv they will get the one out now
Those who want EVERYTHING in one... Will pay up I guess.
It's a good idea, and I have no problem with Apple updating the Apple TV from 720p to 1080p. I don't need it, and I won't buy it if that's all the upgrade is.
In our living room, sitting back 15 feet from the television, I can't see any noticeable difference between a regular DVD and a Blu-ray, and cannot see a noticeable difference in 720p vs 1080p. Sure, there is a very, very minor increase in sharpness for a Blu-Ray vs DVD, and sure, given preference for one over the other, I'd choose Blu-Ray, but I wouldn't pay a penny more for the extra quality. I'm sure some would, and that's okay, just not for me.
The Retina iPad, on the other hand, WOULD be worth it, as I'm looking at my iPad from less than a foot away.
In our living room, sitting back 15 feet from the television, I can't see any noticeable difference between a regular DVD and a Blu-ray, and cannot see a noticeable difference in 720p vs 1080p. Sure, there is a very, very minor increase in sharpness for a Blu-Ray vs DVD, and sure, given preference for one over the other, I'd choose Blu-Ray, but I wouldn't pay a penny more for the extra quality. I'm sure some would, and that's okay, just not for me.
The Retina iPad, on the other hand, WOULD be worth it, as I'm looking at my iPad from less than a foot away.
who cares if he doesn't need the extra resolution - there are probably a lot of products this guy doesn't need either. Maybe he typed this on an iMAC and also doesn't need (fill in the blank) either.
I understand it's currently available. Why else would I be posting about it?
720p looks good. I'm not knocking 720p. The thing is, I have a lot of 1080p content and I want to keep it that way. I have an ISF calibrated 58" plasma and can easily tell the difference between the two resolutions on my current media center. Most people have have smaller screens than me, and at those sizes, 720p fits the bill perfectly. To each his own.
My head is really starting to spin now. The more I read, the more I'm leaning toward a macmini, over an atv, for a home entertainment setup, especially since I just learned about XBMC.
I don't care about 1080. Plus I just bought a 3TB TC. I think a macmini will meet my needs.
But a new ipad is done deal.
I don't care about 1080. Plus I just bought a 3TB TC. I think a macmini will meet my needs.
But a new ipad is done deal.
the 1080p argument.
* if you can't see the difference - fine. You can buy heavily discounted apple 2 's soon and continue to enjoy your life.
* if you're worried that the bandwidth of the world can't support 1080P - Worry away. As I push source material from my home through my own network, it's not something that's going to worry me.
* if you can't see the difference - fine. You can buy heavily discounted apple 2 's soon and continue to enjoy your life.
* if you're worried that the bandwidth of the world can't support 1080P - Worry away. As I push source material from my home through my own network, it's not something that's going to worry me.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I bet I understand all of this stuff better than you do. Sure Vudu is compressed and so is Apple 720p and so is Apple SD. With 1080p
TV hardware, at least we gain the OPTIONS to consider Apple's 1080p compression vs. Apple's 720p compression vs. Apple's SD compression when making iTunes rental choices... just as I can- for about 3+ years now- choose to rent the 1080p Vudu movie compressed vs. the iTunes 720p compressed or iTunes SD compressed version.Furthermore, iPhone 4s 1080p video is also compressed but I don't see hardly any complaints from iPhone 4s owners about the quality of the video they shoot. Instead, it's just the opposite: gushing love for the quality. If the premise is that this
TV update is influenced by the fact that Apple has decided it wants its iDevice-shot 1080p to be pushed on to our 1080p HDTVs without first being downconverted to 720p, then this TV is likely tohave hardware at least robust enough to pass on the quality/compression/bitrate being shot on iDevices. If that's "gushing love" good, then it should look great to see that on our HDTVs in the resolution- and compression- in which it was shot.Personally, I'm hoping the
TV3 will be able to do better than that myself- maybe getting fully toe-to-toe with blu ray chipset capabilities, which are also sold at a profit in retail boxes for less than $99. Maybe Apple has finally decided to fully compete with the "bag of hurt"? Sure, iTunes 1080p rentals will be compressed, maybe as much as Vudu 1080p, or more or less. But frankly, so what. It's better to have the options than not have the options.Apple also provides video editing software and just about all HD camcorders shoot in 1080p now. iMovie (or better) can edit that video and output it at 1080p. iTunes can import that 1080p video and it plays at 1080p right in iTunes (for years now). Odds are high that if you've bought an HDTV in the last few years, it's probably 1080p capable. Thus, this final link in the chain is all that's left to move our own content at full resolution to our HDTVs. Hopefully, this
TV3 will completely nail it as that final link.----------
Unfortunately, this is true. But there are sources of video beyond cable/satt such as our home movies shot with 1080p camcorders referenced above. iPhone 4s and probably iPad3 video is 1080p. A person can rip their blu ray collection for on-demand 1080p video. And there are services out there besides iTunes that offer 1080p streaming. If Apple builds in 1080p hardware this time, I expect some podcasts to immediately upgrade to 1080p (imagine hubblecast and similar at even higher resolutions). Etc.
Bottom line: our HDTVs are maxed out at 1080p capabilities. We have lots of sources of 1080p that is not just iTunes rentals. Apple has long provided the tools to edit & render at 1080p, and then store and play them in iTunes. All that "just works". This ONE thing is the only link in the chain that is not yet 1080p capable.
It's fine to feel as you do but I'll again point out that those who share your opinion lose nothing if Apple rolls out better hardware. If 720p or less is good enough for you, 1080p hardware will play that 720p or less to its fullest. And just as there is still SD options in the iTunes store, I expect 720p and SD options to still be available in the iTunes store if 1080p options join them. Then, those who feel as you do can retain the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE they have now... even if they purchase a new bit of hardware that can process a bit more.
My head is really starting to spin now. The more I read, the more I'm leaning toward a macmini, over an atv, for a home entertainment setup, especially since I just learned about XBMC.
I don't care about 1080. Plus I just bought a 3TB TC. I think a macmini will meet my needs.
But a new ipad is done deal.
make it spin more! check out PLEX !! Its way better than XMBC in my opinion!
Its the reason I sold my iMac and got a Mac Mini to do home theatre. Very slick interface and 1080P is great on it!
PLEX also has iOS clients so you can stream to the internet your music/video etc.
Recently PLEX was made available for Windows/Android.
see http://www.plexapp.com/
True, mine is 50". I think I am on the verge of where 720p and 1080p make a difference. I hope they are able to jailbreak the next ATV, I would buy another device for sure. I am also hoping for an official app store.
I understand it's currently available. Why else would I be posting about it?
720p looks good. I'm not knocking 720p. The thing is, I have a lot of 1080p content and I want to keep it that way. I have an ISF calibrated 58" plasma and can easily tell the difference between the two resolutions on my current media center. Most people have have smaller screens than me, and at those sizes, 720p fits the bill perfectly. To each his own.
1st off, the big difference between DVD and Blu-ray is not the number of pixels, however, the number of colors. If you look at a dark scene on a DVD, you will see color banding due to the DVD compression deleting colors. You see less of this on iTunes and much less of it on Blu-ray. Sound quality is also MUCH better on Blu than DVD or iTunes.
The things most important for quality of a movie, first is sound. This is why people should spend money on a good receiver and speakers before they think about upgrading their TV. Next is compression level. Compression drastically reduces color depth, reducing detail, no matter the resolution.
Once you have great sound and video that is not highly compressed, then you start thinking about the number of pixels.
The things most important for quality of a movie, first is sound. This is why people should spend money on a good receiver and speakers before they think about upgrading their TV. Next is compression level. Compression drastically reduces color depth, reducing detail, no matter the resolution.
Once you have great sound and video that is not highly compressed, then you start thinking about the number of pixels.
I think including LTE is, economically, a really bad decision for Apple unless they decide to sell three models: WiFi only ($499), 3G/CDMA ($629, +$130) or LTE ($729, +$130).Exactly right. And again, a companion rumor is that this new iPad will have LTE which is barely available when looked at on a national- and especially- international scale. Why build LTE into this iPad or the iPhone 5 until nearly everyone has LTE network speeds? Few seem to argue against LTE inclusion but many are quick to argue against 1080p files (even though there will still be the exact same 720p and SD options also available in the iTunes store).
If Apple must wait until the world's bandwidth is fully capable of delivering 1080p to nearly everyone, we wouldn't probably ever get a 1080p
If they make a separate LTE model and sell it for a little bit more, than that would save them costs on the 3G-models. And let's not forget, Apple is a company with one goal: earning money.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you get the latter maybe we won't need the former. If jailbreaking is mostly about running other software on the
TV and we get an app store, then maybe all that other software becomes apps. Then, instead of dealing with the issues associated with jailbreaking (such as updates undoing the jailbreak), you have all that other stuff running in an endorsed way. THAT would be great.That said though, I would certainly expect the jailbreakers to do what they've done with every version before this one.
If the cost increases 50% to support 1080p I consider that a major loss, as do most other consumers.
We had a prototype 5K camera doing 140fps for local broadcasting, but some hooligans smashed it
600k for the camera and 200k for the objective
You already can control the Apple TV with your iPod Touch, iPhone, or iPad. Use Apple's free Remote app from the app store. What we need to see is a remote app for Mac. I like to surf the web and watch Netflix. We should be able to control the Apple TV from our Macs
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Normal companies have the goal of earning money. Apple's goal is earning "insanely great" money. And the last few years their product line-up continues to work wonders towards this goal. Whatever configurations they have decided on, even if they don't please everyone, will very likely be a huge success.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
As I understand it, the LTE model falls back to 3G/CDMA as a universal device. That makes sense to me because LTE is not everywhere, so it has to be able to fall back to existing 3G for when the user is away from LTE sources. The iPhone 5 will need to be able to fall back as well.
Similarly, as I understand it, the rumor is that the pricing tiers stay the same... that the LTE "upgrade" is not going to cost us more.
If these understandings make any sense to Apple, I think the big debate about LTE is the concept of battery burn: does going LTE now burn the battery too fast? That's actually where I see the most likelihood that Apple would rule it out (again) from iPad3.
On the other hand, if a retina display is going to be showcased with 1080p video (which makes great sense), 1080p files- even fairly compressed- are going to be BIG files. For those that can't sit at a wifi connection long enough for the download, LTE is going to download those files much faster than 3G (note like many here, I'm consciously ignoring the concept of LTE/3G bandwidth tiers and costs)
And iPad3 1080p-shot videos to be pushed up to iCloud are going to get there much faster via LTE than 3G.
So overall (and with those big assumptions), I pretty much expect it in the next iPad. The iPad has the bigger battery to try to compensate for the battery burn issue. Apparently, this iPad will be thicker so maybe that buys room for a little more battery to hold the line at current capacity? Etc. We'll know soon enough.
I don't see separate pricing in 3 groups though: wifi only, 3G only and LTE. That seems unlikely from Apple. My bet is on wifi only and LTE with 3G fallback... hopefully the latter being universal so that the same iPad can jump from AT&T to Verizon and back.
I own 2 TCs and I love the fact that I always forget about them until someone asks about them. I actually wonder how long they'll last.
No, they could just use the same 3G chips in their current models. I think the LTE chips are still a little bit expensive and let's say they are only going to make a WiFi-only model and a 4G-model (that falls back on 3G). Let's see 100.000 4G iPads are sold, than I think only 1000 will actually use LTE. A LTE chip is, like what, $5 to $10 more than a 3G chip? Let's say $10. Than 99000 people also have LTE, but don't use it. If Apple had used a 3G chip, they would have saved $990,000!
Why not a real TV?
I understand all of the chatter is about the hockey puck apple TV.
What about an actual television?
My thought is that previous apple product announcements have not (to my limited knowledge) had the impact to air freight between China and the US as this announcement appears to have.
Either the volume of shipments in way higher than previous iterations or the product is much larger to require all of the cargo space that has been reported.
Again, this is pure conjecture, but I thought I would throw my two cents in.
I understand all of the chatter is about the hockey puck apple TV.
What about an actual television?
My thought is that previous apple product announcements have not (to my limited knowledge) had the impact to air freight between China and the US as this announcement appears to have.
Either the volume of shipments in way higher than previous iterations or the product is much larger to require all of the cargo space that has been reported.
Again, this is pure conjecture, but I thought I would throw my two cents in.
If you get the latter maybe we won't need the former. If jailbreaking is mostly about running other software on the
That said though, I would certainly expect the jailbreakers to do what they've done with every version before this one.
Maybe, but XBMC is only available on the iPhone and iPad via jailbreak right now. Though HULU would be a good option in an official store.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, this is another of the tired old arguments against 1080p... as if the cost must go up substantially if we get 1080p.
On the hardware front (the
TV3) itself, I expect it to be $99. Look around. There are plenty of little boxes that sell at a profit and are capable of 1080p for <= $99. Some of those also have extra hardware inside to spin a disc and shoot a laser. I would think the world's largest company could get similar pricing for it's 1080p chip functionality so that it too could deliver a 1080p set-top box for $99 at a profit.Apple has previously sold
TV (version 1) at higher prices. They believed price was a big obstacle to success. If they really feel that way, they are probably reluctant to go back toward those higher prices. I just purchased a 1080p camcorder that shoots 1080p at 28Mbps... far, far superior to the max Mbps capabilities of Apple 720p or SD. I'm sure it's not as good as the camera the hooligans broke but the video it shoots looks far superior on my 1080p HDTV than anything I can get out of my existing
TV. 1080p recording is increasingly available in all kinds of consumer devices: camcorders, cameras, even iPhone 4s (and probably iPad3). It's not jacking up the cost of those devices to crazy levels; instead, it's becoming a commoditized benefit thrown in as an added benefit on a phone (for example).On the software side, Apple may indeed price iTunes 1080p video rentals at a bit more than 720p or SD prices. But if that matters, you (and I) could still choose the 720p or SD version to save that money. 1080p won't be forced on anybody. It's just an option.
What gets me is not the res, but the compression rate. I see artifacts on NetFlix and iTunes content on Apple TV 2, but rarely (if ever) on Bluray.
1080P sounds nice and all, but I think the problem is the compression to fit the stream on the "Interwebz" (another overused term).