It won't until it's jailbroken, or until you can install an app that allows a 3rd party to do a streaming conversion.
There's nothing in Apple's recent history that says they have any interest in supporting anything other than h.264.
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
It won't until it's jailbroken, or until you can install an app that allows a 3rd party to do a streaming conversion.
There's nothing in Apple's recent history that says they have any interest in supporting anything other than h.264.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
$990K is piddly for a company selling tens of billions each quarter now. If you want to make an argument over $5 parts, do we all really need dual and quad cores in our Macs? Do we really need updated graphics cards in our Macs? Do we really need Thunderbolt in our Macs? Etc.
Competition in the marketplace has LTE already- for months now. I'm seeing commercials for competition that keys on LTE every night on television (and I don't even watch that much television with commercials). Apple's wireless partners are promoting LTE like crazy to try to sell people on other smart phones (that don't cost them as much in subsidies).
If they put it in and only 1 person actually uses it, they can tout it as an iPad3 benefit in the marketing... "fastest network speeds ever", "links to the iCloud faster than ever before", etc. In reality, lots of people will use it- sooner or later- if they include it. If they don't include it, then the next upgrade that might have it is probably March, 2013. Just think about that.
Personally, I could care less either way. I'm enormously more interested in a 1080p
TV3 than an iPad3.
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
Apple has previously sold
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
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.
I actually watch everything in SD because it's 1 USD less (and still some movies are 4.99 with a US iTunes acct) on a 32" 1080p LCD TV (cheapest TV available at the time.)
If it's $99/119 and 1080p that's OK. If it's $149/169 that's really crappy.
Also, the ATV2 form factor is so small that it probably costs more to produce than those with spinning discs (thermal tape applied between the top of the A4 and the underneath of the plastic cap, for example).
XBMC on ATV2 has been rock solid for me. I've been running the nightlies for about a year now, currently on Eden RC2.
If it's anything like ATV2, ATV3 won't be interesting for me until there is a jailbreak. If they use the A5, jailbreak will be out very quickly. If it's A5X or A6, could be a looooong time.
yes, bitrate/s is what most people fail to comprehend. compressed 1080p looks worse than less compressed 720p. it's just like the MP/GHz/MPG_improvement race where people fall for the gimmick.
Honestly...this is why I'm holding off on buying the HDMI dongle for my iPad. If I'm already spending $40 on that I might as well wait to see what they could produce for $100. Give me something pretty awesome with the Apple TV and I would use that instead of the HDMI dongle.
Exactly. Apple has been encouraging developers to use Airplay and highlighting those that do in cool and exciting ways. Like the Real Racing 4 player on the screen mode. I can totally see this increasing with more games, etc. I think that all this 7 inch iPad talk is really a 7 inch iPod Touch change up to give it a new spot in the line up. No longer would it be the hobbled step child of the iPhone but instead it's a touch remote or a game controller with your Apple TV.
They likely won't give it a ton of press at the keynote but it will likely be mentioned. As might changes to iTunes. Imagine something like 60% iPad, 20% Apple TV and 20% iTunes content changes to work with either/both. Then releasing them on the same day or the Apple TV a few days before means you have a great up sell on launch day. Apple might even hop on the crazy and offer a discount if you buy both. Probably only like $50 but it would still be unheard of for Apple to do something like that outside of a Black Friday offering
Been really solid for me too, and I do check for updates every couple of days. Last week there was a couple of them.
Those would likely be a silent release or a one sentence mention. IF 802.11ac is even ready to go out on the market. They might not quite be. Of course Apple could give the iPad and Apple TV the right hardware to be able to be compliant with a software update and then send that out when the new computers launch and silently update the Airport line up at the same time.
----------
it won't be free. IF the studios and networks allow a Plus style upgrade you can expect to make $2-3 dollars for each tv episode and as much as $10 for movies depending on the pricing.
And it is possible that on TV they might only allow this on current season pass buys only.
That's hilarious. They already drastically overcharge for 720p movies. $20 (plus tax) for many of them when you can buy the Blu-ray with high bitrate 1080p for $20 or less on Amazon (and no sales tax). People are crazy if they're willing to pay another $10 for 1080p, especially since the bitrates will likely be 70% lower than a Blu-ray.
Anyone else think the rumored price increase on the new iPad might be due to it being bundled with AppleTV? I know, it's a very, very long shot for a number of reasons, but think of the people it would pull into the Apple TV world prior to the launch of some glorious new product later this year...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, but compression is only driven by the choices made for how much to compress the content sourced from NetFlix or iTunes. The suppliers of that content could turn down the compression to better than blu ray if they liked (though that would fatten up the file sizes to bigger than blu ray file sizes).
Internet bandwidth is not the big factor in such decisions, just one factor. For example, if there was a supply of blu-ray quality movies available to download from a video e-store, the download buffering time could just go up to make it work. Instead of starting in seconds or a minute or two, you might have to start the download in the morning to watch in the evening or start it a day or two before you want to actually watch it. For those hungry for blu ray quality, that time-to-start tradeoff may be acceptable. On the other hand, if they are in a hurry to start the show, they could just choose a more compressed version or a 720p or SD version.
There should be no confusion that 1080p must be more compressed than 720p or SD just because it's 1080p (it could be the opposite just as easily). Apple could make the 1080p a reference quality file to promote the "better than blu ray quality*" of iTunes video if they (and the Studios) wanted. It's just choices they make.
yes XBMC works great with xvid content, 720p mkv got lots buffering, I am running wired connection. I am using it every night, so with the faster processor upgrade and 1080p would be nice, that's if only JB'ed.
I have only been to the South Hills Village store once, because the Shadyside store was under construction in May when I purchased my iMac.
The people at the SHV store were much nicer and less arrogant than the ones at Shadyside.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Then things "as is" is great for you. And if your "as is" hardware breaks and you buy an
TV3, you'll just have hardware that is a bit more capable than the SD software that you throw at it. Lots of the hardware in our Apple stuff is much more capable than the software we throw at it. This won't be any different. Roku makes a little box with 1080p playback hardware priced (for profit) at $69: http://www.roku.com/roku-products#3 If Apple leverages it's much greater muscle (than Roku), it can probably get it's costs per unit at much less than Roku. But even if it can't, if Roku 2 can retail at $69, Apple could buy them from Roku for $69, rebrand them with an Apple logo and Apple software and sell them for $99 to still make the Apple profit margin.
And I seriously doubt that thermal tape costs more than disc spinning hardware and a laser.
You seem very, very cost focused. It sounds like you already have the hardware you need to play your SD video. This new hardware is far overkill for you. But maybe other people can get what they want with this new hardware? There's no loss to you if Apple makes something that they can buy and enjoy too. In fact, you can win... because more people with
TVs in their homes means greater temptations for Studios to sell & rent more content through the TV. That should get you even more SD versions of videos to watch on whatever you use now.I agree with what you're saying but to provide some perspective:
Blu-Ray usually runs 40Mb/s or about 300MB/min or roughly 36GB for a 2-hour movie.
On an average connection in the US (average 6-10Mb/s) or 1MB/s, you're looking at a 10-hour download.
Even if 1080p is available, it probably won't be at a reasonable bitrate.
Anyways, we'll see what happens. And, for the record, I'm not against 1080p, I'm against a 50% price increase to support it (or the requirement of a larger footprint/external power brick/spinning fan).
I can't argue with you because it is hilarious. Or really more ridiculous. But I work for an industry with their collective head up their collective butt when it comes to the sanctity of the physical disk sale. They are resisting digital because they think that it is assisting pirates, which is why they also charge and restrict as they do.
Personally I think all items should be SD, 720 and 1080. Sale and rental across the board all titles, all devices. Starting at 99 cents to 2.99 on the tv show eps and SD movies topping at 9.99, 720p at $15 and 1080 at $25 (perhaps $30 if you have some hella awesome extras in there). TV shows out no later than 2 weeks after the end of the season with two days after the original OTA as the preference. In all global markets. Movies out for sale within two months after the end of the major theatrical period with a feature only rental option within two weeks of that period (if folks want to pay a jacked up price like $20 for that rental, let them). Fully vamped to be a digital duplicate of the disks in terms of features, audio and subtitles via the whole Extras system. Again, all titles, all devices. Movies and TV shows (well at least season pass buys) and so on. And on TV shows the nets come out and publicly state that they are counting those 'views' with the ratings to decide on show longevity (thus ending the whole "I don't count cause i'm not a ratings viewer so who cares if I torrent everything" argument cause now you count and you know it)
And yes I totally think they should allow folks to price up and pay the difference to get the higher level video on all titles, complete my season for all titles and even for those things that didn't have Extras when you bought it, now have the Extras. With redownloads across the board on Movies (as well as the current music and TV). in all markets.
But I'm not a boss so I know I won't get what I want and they will still do their stuff moves. ANd since the studios control the copyright they have the power. Apple has always pushed themselves as a copyright friendly company so I don't see them flipping the finger and pulling a Google Music any time soon
You seem very, very cost focused. It sounds like you already have the hardware you need to play your SD video. This new hardware is far overkill for you. But maybe other people can get what they want with this new hardware? There's no loss to you if Apple makes something that they can buy and enjoy too. In fact, you can win... because more people with
Sure, every that I spend on something that doesn't offer any benefit, is a that I could spend on holiday.
Also, we get a fair bit of 720p programming over the air (maybe 10 of the 20 over-the-air channels.)
Therefore, my iTunes is lower quality than my over-the-air TV, usually
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, the math can work that way. But it won't make sense for Apple to roll out 1080p, make a big fuss about it, and over compress it so much that the press bashes it to death. That won't work nicely with touting retina iPad quality, which is probably the bulk of what this
TV 1080p push is about. So Apple will have to choose wisely to balance compression and qualty so that this 1080p video looks GREAT on an iPad3 and then GREAT on an HDTV via airplay or via an TV3.Does iPhone 4s 1080p look terrible? Over-compressed? My guess is that that is the minimum quality of compression Apple will choose since there is an expectation that this new
TV3 is going to airplay that video at native to our HDTVs. Everyone seems to gush about iPhone 4s video quality, but then some expect the iTunes rentals WE WOULD PAY FOR will be overly-compressed so they look worse than the compressed 720p or compressed SD. That doesn't make sense.Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get blu ray compression. But maybe the chipset in the
TV could be robust enough to handle blu ray rips, 28mpbs camcorder video, etc. closer to native. Then, iTunes store 1080p can be something in the middle while still allowing those of us who use our TVs as more than just an iTunes rental conduit to actually enjoy our stuff to its fullest.Yes, that is what that would mean. Personally, I would be fine with that. I generally cue up a movie I want to watch in the next day or two so that there is no chance of the playback catching up with the stream (and thus interrupting a movie). So, in my own case, if I was limited to the average download speed, I might rent my movie tonight to watch tomorrow night. Or, if I was in a hurry to watch it ASAP, I could still choose the 720p or SD version.
Furthermore, average is not everyone. Some are still limited to dialup but you're making no arguments to go back to <SD quality videos. Others have much faster speeds than average. And Apple sells this thing to the whole world, not just the U.S... and not just you or me. Some places in the world average much faster broadband than us Americans.
In the end, those that don't have the speed to download the 1080p can still choose the 720p or, as you do, the SD version. It will still work exactly as it does now, streaming down exactly as fast as it does now and plays back exactly as it does now. Those that have the capabilities- or patience- for 1080p can just get what they want too.
In the end, it's not about bitrate, it's about compressor quality. If a faster processor can enable a better codec that delivers a better picture at lower data rates, then who cares what the bitrate is?
As physical media, BR has the advantage in that you're keeping large file sizes all locally on disk. But the truth is that the codec BR players use is probably not terribly efficient- it doesn't have to be! As long as the movie will fit on the disk who cares.
As soon as you get into digital downloads you have to balance bandwidth against bitrate. Over the next 5-10 years one of two things will happen-
1. more complex codecs will allow for better image quality at lower bitrates OR
2. average bandwidth speeds and data caps will extend, making streaming much larger file sizes more feasible.
It's anyone's guess as to which of those things will happen first (I think the former), but undeniably digital downloads will ultimately eat physical media sales. The only question is timeframe.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No. Apple's not going to force an
TV onto someone who wants to buy just an iPad3 or force an iPad3 onto a person who want to buy just an TV3. If it was desperately important to Apple to move TV3 with iPad3 for some reason, they would simply give the TV3 away with each iPad purchase (like the fall education promotion that gives away an iPod with a Mac purchase). If it was desperately important for Apple to thoroughly populate homes with
TV3s, they would just price them a lot lower- maybe even take a page from Amazon and price them at a loss- or give them away with just about any Apple purchase, and various partner promotions... even offer the platform for free to TV manufacturers to build right into their sets.If they tried to force them as sales together, the consumer and press backlash would be steep: "I only want an iPad3, I have no use for that
TV" and vice versa, "why am I having to pay for this extra thing?" etc.Even in the bundling scenario, if the price is increased, the gripes would all revolve around the concept that it's costing more because Apple is making them buy an extra thing they don't want. It would be especially unappealing to those of us more interested in ONLY an
TV3 if we had to pay up for the bundle that includes an iPad3. For me personally, that would be almost as bad as having to buy a whole television to get an TV3 built into it.
Last edited:
This. When 720p content on iTunes is selling for the same, if not more than current 1080p blu-ray content sitting on the shelves, which of course is also subject to packaging, shipping, and stocking fees to the studios due to it being a physical product, I just find it hard to believe Apple or the studios would charge such a premium upgrade price to the consumers. If they have to charge anything to current iTunes HD movie/TV show owners, it has to be less than $5, and I think that's even hilarious still.
Nah, I disagree. Adding three flavors of video quality is confusing and would be quite convoluted to the customer at that point, and that's not how Apple likes to do business. Simplicity runs through all their product lines and this shouldn't be an exception.
Look at some content in the iTunes store now. They have up to 4 buttons next to the item: Buy HD, Rent HD, Buy SD, Rent SD. Now think of adding two more buttons to that. Then decide if you want to see the terms 1080p and 720p splattered across all over those buttons, or if you want to instead give them names like HD for 720p and HD+ for 1080p. Customers will just scratch their heads thinking whats the differences between the two. It was easier for Apple to say, "Hey, we just upgraded our music quality to iTunes +. Download now. Thanks and have a nice day!", and be done with it. For sake of simplicity, I think this is exactly what Apple will go through again.
Extras, as well other bells and whistles that have been upgraded to iTunes movie content over time such as Dolby Digital 5.1, Closed Captioning and Subtitles too. Movies in the iCloud definitely gets my vote too, and this will make it possible for customers to upgrade all their content.
Wrong
Wrong
And wrong.
LTE chips are actualy cheaper them 3G chips, their just not as advanced right now, and use up too much power but their components are cheaper
LTE frequencies are actualy cheaper too, and apple will help carriers by promoting LTE now and getting people ready to move over to LTE on the iPhone.
That will help the carriers continue to expand the cheaper spectrum and not have to waste more money updating 3G towers to make sure 3G customers are happy
Finally, Apple is a company with one goal: be the best. Make the best products
Provide the best service
And make customers the happiest.
You obviously don't know anything about what Steve stood for and what Apple is really about. I suggest you read his authorized bioography.
Companies that have a goal of making money quickly go downhill, like Microsoft