Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is why I don't immediately jump off the Apple bandwagon like some others here appear to be doing. Over the years of using Windows machines I've learned that specs never tell the story and only are posted to spark the interest of the usual spec-jockeys.

Sure, the new FireTV has voice assistant, but doesn't it offer all the good functionality as Siri does on the new TV? That's yet to be seen.
Sure, the new FireTV has a UI, but it as intuitive, beautifully detailed, laid out nicely and simple to use as the new TV? That's yet to be seen.


Have you used a current FireTV? They have a very slick interface and the voice function already works extremely well. I found it to be an equal device to my Apple TV and use both regularly.
 
Looks like I'm getting a Fire TV over an AppleTV although I'll probably wait at least a couple months to see what Roku does and to see some reviews on all the options.

Honestly though, with this new Fire TV I don't see any reason to get an AppleTV unless you're already locked into the iTunes ecosystem for movies/tv.

I find it funny that people here actually think Apple is going to do a software update so the AppleTV 4 will support 4k. They'll simply force you to buy a new device like they always do (a device that probably won't be released for another 3 years).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
I find it funny that people here actually think Apple is going to do a software update so the AppleTV 4 will support 4k. They'll simply force you to buy a new device like they always do (a device that probably won't be released for another 3 years).

Some are new to Apple and you are 100% correct. Apple is going to make you re-buy the Apple TV to get 4k.
 
And probably only the newly released films (after 2010) worth the treatment of 4K resolution. Of course, the master copy would always have the maximum possible picture quality but the losses of quality for films before 2000 when transcoded into 1080p Blu-ray are negligible. That being said, I do hope we will see more 4K releases in the future. And general acceptance of HEVC as well.
This is a common misunderstanding. Older movies that have been shot on film can absolutely benefit from 4K, provided early-generation source elements (perferably camera negatives) are available and modern film-scanning equipment is used to digitize them. Many recent restaurations of classic films were done at 4K resolution (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia, which is over 50 years old and looks absolutely stunning in the restored version).
 
...And when Apple TV outputs 4K then you guys will just sit around whining about how Apple is only innovating by upping specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
I can't fully disagree with that statement, but you have to double check that the content was actually shot in 4K and not upscaled from 1080p before streaming... but it would be nice to watch 4K video shot on a 6S at full res if I have a 4K TV... without needing a third party device or an actual Mac hooked up to the TV.

Yeah, really waiting on new Macs to see whats coming up. I not really in the market until next to replace my 2012 but will certainly be looking for a desktop Mac Mini or iMac to hook up to my TV for playback.

I did stream Interstellar 4K and then watched the upscaled BlueRay and couldn't tell the difference. Both looked excellent.
The bad thing about upscaling is it's only as good as the source so poor video looks really poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI
Wait, are you saying Apple TV is the "future of TV"? Laughable.
If this isn't the future, then Apple TV most definitely won't be.

Your anger is obviously much greater than your reading skill. He even wrote: "...Not saying Apple TV will rule the pack..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: TT D'arby
Software and content aside, though those are very very important, I don't think this beats the new ATV at all. They both have pluses and minuses.

ATV has a better GPU, offers more storage, has a simpler and more clever remote, supports HDMI-CEC.

FireTV supports a higher resolution, allows expandable storage, and has a first-party optional controller for more money.

I don't think one is clearly superior on the tech side of things. They are about even in most ways, and merely different in some others.

I'd also add that there are many areas where the comparison is important yet unknown as of yet, including:

  • Power consumption (at idle, while viewing HD, etc)
  • Quality of hardware (Amazon has had no problem putting out a device - the Fire TV Stick - with severe quality issues with regards to the WiFi hardware, to the point that many people including myself suffer network dropouts only resolvable by unplugging the device, waiting 15 seconds, and restarting it again ... after having that experience with Amazon I'm going to wait until there are a lot of reviews for any hardware they put out!)
  • Gaming ecosystem (the Amazon Fire TV has been out for a good long time, and games are hardly worth mentioning there; will Apple TV fail as miserably?)
  • App support (given that they both support all the same services minus iTunes for Amazon and minus Amazon for AppleTV, this comes down to quality of implementation, which will take some comparative and critical reviews to sort out)
  • Depth of universal search (Amazon says it searches Amazon, Hulu, HBO Go, Crackle, Showtime, and Starz; AppleTV says it searches iTunes, HBO [Now/Go], Hulu, Netflix, and Showtime). At launch, that's pretty much a draw. Significantly, Amazon long ago (April, 2014) promised Netflix search by the end of 2014, but it is still absent, so it doesn't appear that Amazon is setting the world on fire with universal search. We'll see if Apple does better. Of course, if you find more of your content comes from Netflix than from Crackle+Starz, or vice-versa, there is already a meaningful difference between the two.
  • How much of Alexa's Siri-clone functionality is available now and how much "next year" (see the Alexa blurb on Amazon's page if this doesn't make sense to you); if Siri is as capable on the AppleTV in October as it seems, Alexa will seem anemic until sometime "next year". If indeed they ever appear; remember the April 2014 promise that Netflix voice search would be available by end of year, and how Amazon doesn't list Netflix on their universal search capabilities even today?
  • HEVC (H.265) support - Amazon says it will start streaming its 1080p content in HEVC as well, which is very good; if Apple is not doing the same then this is a huge point in Amazon's favor as it allows same quality with about half the bandwidth (or superior quality in the same bandwidth) as H.264

Personally, I have a lot more invested in iTunes than in Amazon content, and so will gladly pay the premium for the Apple product just based on that. For others not so entrenched in either ecosystem, though, I think it is a hard decision that I'd advise they wait on until at least the most preliminary reviews are in (reviews critical of Amazon's Fire Stick network capability were fairly easy to find about a month after release, but could have been found with a bit of digging even a week after the first units shipped).
 
  • Like
Reactions: duervo
IMHO 4K is overrated and mostly a gimmick but all tv s will get this resolution. Don't get me wrong, my picture quality is flawless but if you don't need a new tv it's not worth spending a thousand or 2 for it.
4K is overrated for video unless you sit close enough and/or has very large set, but it is bringing few valuable enhancements: (1) H.265 or HEVC compression that is about twice as efficient as H.264, (2) increased color space and HDR, (3) frame rates up to 120.

Furthermore, 4K brings very noticeable improvements when viewing text and images. And as a side benefit, it will probably put nail into 3D's coffin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Or Apple add 4K now and you won't have to buy another one when you upgrade your TV. Meanwhile, those of us with 4K can enjoy 4K as well.

There is nothing in the AppleTV hardware keeping the to-be-released AppleTV from supporting "4k low-framerate" just like the Amazon Fire TV will in the same timeframe. They both appear to be using HDMI 1.4 hardware; Apple is explicit about it but Amazon is simply saying that they only support resolution+framerates compatible with HDMI 1.4.

That said, I suspect Apple will put out a new rev of the AppleTV when they come out with 4k support, and will support 4k@60-120fps, with HDR. But, if they were only not releasing 4k support because the iTunes infrastructure wasn't ready for it, then switching that on just as much as Amazon has would be a software update, not a hardware refresh.
 
4K is overrated for video unless you sit close enough and/or has very large set, but it is bringing few valuable enhancements: (1) H.265 or HEVC compression that is about twice as efficient as H.264, (2) increased color space and HDR, (3) frame rates up to 120.

Furthermore, 4K brings very noticeable improvements when viewing text and images. And as a side benefit, it will probably put nail into 3D's coffin.

Well, HEVC/H.265 compression is not dependent on 4k resolution. It can (and at least Amazon has stated it will) be used for more efficient 1080p streaming (and below) as well. I'm hoping Apple will switch iTunes to have an H.265 stream for its contents alongside the existing H.264 streams, but they haven't said as much. Half point there to Amazon for at least promising they will do that at some point in the future (only a half point though because they have a history of breaking such promises).

Increased color space and higher frame rates are benefits of the bundle of tech known as "4k", and while there is nothing tying them to 4k itself you probably won't see them on lower-res content. The problem with these is that they require HDMI 2.0a connectors, and Amazon appears (by the fact that they only support 30fps 4k video output) to only be shipping HDMI 1.4 connectors. So, yes, that is a nice benefit for 4k, and what will probably drive more people to 4k than pixel-peeping resolution you have to press your nose to the screen to really appreciate (okay I exaggerate ...), but Amazon's "4k" has neither of these.
 
I'll be waiting for whatever Roku does. I have a Roku 3 and I hope the Roku 4 keeps the USB drive. I don't know why Amazon went with microSD over USB since USB transfer speeds are far faster and it's easier to remove USB, add files like movies, and put back in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI
Are you kidding? Amazon will have an app out asap. They want people buying Prime.

Exactly. Making Amazon Instant Video a compelling service is far more important to Amazon than artificially pumping up their (traditionally sold at near-loss prices) Fire TV business. Prime is a huge cash cow, which also ties customers into Amazon's ecosystem. Amazon Instant Video is likewise a "sticky" business. Set top boxes are not sticky at all.

This is of course why Amazon has had a pretty nice IOS app for years, which has supported AirPlay fully, etc.

Why didn't they have an Apple TV app? Because for that they needed to work directly with Apple. Now they do not, and can release the same thing they had for their IOS app (unless it relies heavily on web views). The only thing they need to work directly with Apple on (and so the only thing I see as unlikely to happen) would be universal search support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardfan
Its an extra $50.

The Amazon FireTV with 40GB of storage ("Gaming Edition" which includes the built-in 8GB and a MicroSD for another 32GB) is $139.99. Which is $10 less than the 32GB Apple TV. I assumed that was what he was comparing.

That said, there is no Amazon Fire TV with 32GB of built in storage, or 64GB of built-in storage, at any price (just like there isn't an Apple TV with 128MB of removable storage at any price). Given Android's history with supporting removable memory sticks, this may be a significant difference between the products.
 
1) 4K is a new standard which is about more than just resolution. 2160p is one part of it. It isn't all of it.

2) 24fps unconverted to 30fps looks like garbage too. However, 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps all can be converted quite nicely into 120fps because the math works and there are no dropped or doubled frames.

But the Fire TV supports UHD resolution at "up to" 30fps. Presumably they can manage, as everyone else can, a 24fps refresh cycle natively.
 
Looks great but I am not upgrading my 2 Fire TV's unless they have a great deal like they did last year during the holidays. My current Fire TV's work great but lag a bit on certain apps but when Fire OS 5 comes out on them which is basically Lollipop then they will run much better even the 1st Gen Fire TV will run great and since it is Lollipop it will support many more apps.

As for the Apple TV it is a major disappointment. I might not care about 4K now but if my TV goes I am surly going to get a 4K set anyway and right there the Apple TV is already outdated.

So true. And I don't have an electric vehicle right now, but if my car gets stolen, I'm going to get one anyway, so right there that tankful of gas is outdated.

If you are going to be buying a new TV in the very near future, then, yes, worry about getting a set top box that will work on it. But it is foolish to worry about what your "next" TV might support if you don't have rather concrete plans to replace it. If history is a guide, if you buy a 4k TV in January and can't live with plugging a non-4k device into it, you can sell your AppleTV 4 for a net loss of about $15-20 (the difference between new sale price and eBay price on AppleTVs, which has been pretty consistent aside from ATV2 since the very first edition) and buy an Amazon Fire TV at that point instead.

How is this so hard for people? I mean, are you paralyzed with fear about all your decisions each day, needing to "future proof" everything you buy? Or is this something specific to your set top box?

Also the new remote for the Apple TV is horrible. No navigation buttons just swipes which I already hate doing on a touch screen. Forget about older people trying to use it. The 2nd Gen Fire TV is already future proof and they did not even foul up the remote. The Fire TV remote is great to use and easy to navigate even my Grandmother can use it.

Pretty serious allegations against the usability of the remote. I'm so glad you got your hands on an early release unit to give it that thorough try-out!

Oh. I guess you are just assuming things about an unreleased product. For buttons vs swipes, if the demos of the remote are consistent with the real remotes when they come out, I have a very hard time seeing how anyone would have a harder time dragging a finger left and right across a pane rather than locating and clicking a particular button half a dozen times to do the same. Maybe withhold judgement until you've actually used it.
 
I'm not looking at these primarily for their streaming functionality. In the same way that I don't compare smartphones for their phone calling features. The original function may no longer be the dominant function.

I'm probably going base my purchase on the app stores. I think this is a new convergence device that will be a hub of family entertainment, and more, and not strictly limited to TV or movies. I see Apple winning this race but I'm going to sit back for a while to see how they mature in the coming months.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.