An In-Depth Look at Storage and App Thinning on the New Apple TV

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm confused why Apple didn't decide to support 4k out of the box.

Profit. We'll all buy this "4" and then replace it with the "5" ("now with 4K") as soon as Apple rolls that "5" out: 2 profitable sales instead of one.

Besides, haven't you heard around here: 4K is "stupid", a "gimmick", "a new version of 3D", "you can't see the difference," "the chart", "until the whole internet is upgraded", "until everything in the iTunes store is available in 4K", and so on... which of course will all immediately evaporate once Apple rolls out the "5". In other words, the anti-4K crowd won't bash Apple when they embrace it in this product... just as you won't see them bashing Apple for already embracing 4K in pretty much everything else they sell... including their most important product. It's only stupid here because this one thing from Apple doesn't play 4K.

All you haters need to just be patient! Take note that most 1st Gen Apple products are lacking in major hardware and software features. By Generation 3 this Apple TV will be the future of living room entertainment!

This is generation 4 of TV.

 

[mariusignorello]

"If Jobs was still alive he would FIRE EVERYBODY!!!"

/s

He would fire everybody if he got word of the Apple Pencil. And then have an aneurysm. Poor guy.

Not sarcasm.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I honestly don't see why full size apps aren't allowed. They allow you to download 4gb apps that can take up much more space once installed, on 8gb iPhones as long as you have the space.

I know. I find it bizarre that you can download the 2GB Guitar Hero Live on a 16GB iPhone with (for most) but can't on an ATV with 3x the storage. Of course this means true "off line" games are probably not possible as the ATV will always have to be d/l to keep ahead of the user. Didn't M$ get into hot water and then back pedal for trying to require the Xbox One having to have Internet access 24/7?

All you haters need to just be patient! Take note that most 1st Gen Apple products are lacking in major hardware and software features. By Generation 3 this Apple TV will be the future of living room entertainment!

Funny stuff. Love the irony.

 

[RamGuy]

Isn't this somewhat backwards? I do get the whole app-thining idea and I do find it to be both smart and good. But if I bought the Apple TV 64GB, what real benefit do I have with this 200 mb limit? Wouldn't it make more sense for the the entire app to be downloaded and when you have used a set % amount of storage the app-thining would start to kick in?

At least have the limit be larger than 200 mb? What happens those days my Internet has gone to hell and I want to watch something? What is the real point of having a 64GB vs a 32GB model if they are going to be this aggressive with the app-thining for the get-go regardless?

 

[Precision Gem]

I don't know what watch you have but mine doesn't have bad battery.

I always get more than a full 20 hour day from my watch, and can actually go 2 days between charges.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Profit. We'll all buy this "4" and then replace it with the "5" ("now with 4K") as soon as Apple rolls that "5" out: 2 profitable sales instead of one.

Besides, haven't you heard around here: 4K is "stupid", a "gimmick", "a new version of 3D", "you can't see the difference," "the chart", "until the whole internet is upgraded", "until everything in the iTunes store is available in 4K", and so on... which of course will all evaporate immediately once Apple rolls out the "5". In other words, the anti-4K crowd won't bash Apple when they embrace it in this product... just as you won't see them bashing Apple for already embracing 4K in pretty much everything else they sell... including their most important product. It's only stupid here because this one thing from Apple doesn't play 4K.

It's stupid because there is very little if any content compared to 1080p. Not to mention that EVERY ISP has instituted data caps. The data needed for 4K streaming is high. If 4K right now, was as widely available as 1080p, yeah I would be upset that it wasn't included. However, I am not. There simply isn't enough content to justify adding that feature. It's not stupid, it makes sense.

http://business.financialpost.com/f...uy-a-high-resolution-4k-television-not-really

According to a recent report by market research firm NDP, during the first three months of 2015, 4K televisions maintained a relatively small market share, contributing to just five per cent of overall television sales. However, since most 4K TVs cost considerably more than a standard definition television, 4K sales accounted for 16 per cent of dollars spent on TVs, a two per cent increase over the same period last year.

“Regarding the outlook for 2015, much depends on the course that the industry will take on setting prices, particularly during the holiday shopping season. If prices continue to drop at their current rate, and given the broad number of 4K models currently being introduced into the market, I would expect the unit share of 4K to increase from the current 5 per cent to approximately 15 per cent by the end of the year,” said Mark Haar, director, consumer electronics and home at NPD Group.

Content wait

The main drawback of 4K TVs is that there just isn’t much native content available to consumers.

Television manufacturers such as Sony and Samsung often boast about 4K televisions’ ability to upscale 1080p content to a higher resolution. Upscaling takes a standard 720p or 1080p high-definition resolution video, and then increases the pixel count to 4K, adding additional detail and improved visual fidelity in the process.

But critics say upscaling isn’t worth the additional cost. Geoffrey Morrison, a journalist with CNET who frequently reviews and writes about televisions, says most people will notice a marginal improvement over standard 1080p when content is upscaled, but that the improvement is hardly worth the current cost of a 4K television.

“Unless someone is planning on getting a really big TV (over 60 inches) the added detail of 4K won’t really be noticeable. Since nearly all content is 1080p (or lower) and will be for many years, even people wanting to ‘future proof’ will probably be fine with 1080p for this TV,” Morrison said.

Morrison believes the more noticeable improvement in televisions will come from what is referred to as “high dynamic range” – technology that makes a TV’s picture more closely resemble how the human eye views objects – and expanded colour, which makes colours more vibrant and realistic, rather than the additional pixels of 4K.

“TVs aren’t really worth the premium over a good/cheaper 1080p model. 4K TVs will be better and cheaper next year,” said Morrison.

Another barrier to 4K televisions is the amount of content available in 4K is still very minimal. Consumer physical disc versions of 4K movies or television shows still don’t exist, although 4K Blu-rays and players are expected to arrive at some point in 2015. Because of the lack of physical content, movie and television shows, streaming platform Netflix has become the leader in 4K content.

But in Canada slow Internet connections and restrictive bandwidth caps are an obstacle for those interested in subscribing to Netflix’s slightly higher priced $11.99 4K subscription plan (a basic Netflix subscription costs $7.99).

“Increasingly most of our live action originals are available in 4K. That started withHouse of Cards season two and rolled into season three, Bloodline and Daredevil. It’s the largest selection of 4K content available outside of Sony’s set-top box,” Cliff Edwards, Netflix’s director of corporate communications.

Waiting until 4K becomes a more viable resolution platform for content creators is likely a better option than purchasing a 4K television right now, which some experts estimate could still take a number of years.

I know. I find it bizarre that you can download the 2GB Guitar Hero Live on a 16GB iPhone with (for most) but can't on an ATV with 3x the storage. Of course this means true "off line" games are probably not possible as the ATV will always have to be d/l to keep ahead of the user. Didn't M$ get into hot water and then back pedal for trying to require the Xbox One having to have Internet access 24/7?

I understand what they were trying to do and app thinning but they did it on the wrong platform. ATV is not mobile and sits in one spot and on WI-FI (usually high speed). No need to subject it to any restrictions.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old "evidence" against 1080p when Apple was still clinging to 720p.

The lack of content is the lamest of excuses as it makes no sense at all for any Studio to test any 4K movie or show for TV until there are 4K TV boxes in lots of homes. Wave the magic wand and make a 4K version for TV of everything in the iTunes store right now: how much money can be made? Not a nickel. Why? Because the HARDWARE MUST COME FIRST. It can't possibly work the other way.

Note how there are absolutely no apps in the iPhone app store dependent on the A10 yet. Maybe the A10 hardware development should wait until all the apps in the app store are coded to take advantage of it's unique features. Until all software in the app store is fully upgraded to take advantage of future hardware, Apple should just stop advancing the hardware.

This was a great opportunity for Apple to create the market... to be first with a viable, robust source of a new media superior to pretty much any other source out there. And it seemed to be a perfect fit given that the most important product to Apple rolled out with an ability to shoot 4K. As tens of millions of us shoot videos on our new iPhones, we're already creating tons of 4K video looking for some easy, "just works" way to reach our 4K TVs.

Lastly, there's no downside for the "1080p is good enough" crowd just as there was no downside for the "720p is good enough" crowd back when all this same #*!$% was slung against 1080p. Better hardware can play lessor software just fine... or, more clearly, a 4K TV could feed pristine 1080p or 720p or SD to a non-4K TV just as well as this box will. Games rendered for 1080p or 720p would simply upscale for those with 4K TVs just as 1080p or 720p movies upscale for them now. No downside for anyone had Apple gone ahead and made this thing 4K capable.

 

[rdlink]

When it comes to a set top box like this, what's wrong with a regular HDD? I'd rather have one less device to worry about storage and manage the content on it.

Speed, reliability, heat and noise. Other than that nothing.

 

[trip1ex]

Isn't this somewhat backwards? I do get the whole app-thining idea and I do find it to be both smart and good. But if I bought the Apple TV 64GB, what real benefit do I have with this 200 mb limit? Wouldn't it make more sense for the the entire app to be downloaded and when you have used a set % amount of storage the app-thining would start to kick in?

At least have the limit be larger than 200 mb? What happens those days my Internet has gone to hell and I want to watch something? What is the real point of having a 64GB vs a 32GB model if they are going to be this aggressive with the app-thining for the get-go regardless?

The size limit makes lots of sense.

The customer can install and start using the app very quickly which will make for a very responsive and positive customer experience.

Also it's a bandwidth saver on both sides of the fence. ON the customer side and on the developer/Apple side. If I don't like a game then gigs of bandwidth haven't been wasted.

It also keeps apps more focused and less bloated.

I'm sure, much like on the iphone, that app sizes will increase as needs/experience warrant. I think they'd rather error on the low side for now to keep the customer experience tight.

Apps can download more information as needed. Up to 2gb worth. So there will be a use case for having that extra 32gb of storage. As Apple said, those that will download lots of apps/games are that use case.

 

[Deelron]

What I don't get is why do this "app thinning" this way? Why not just download the apps in full to the same computers to which the TV must be connected anyway...

Because an Apple TV can have quite a bit of functionality without being connected to a computer as just a Netflix/Hulu/iTunes etc. streaming box?

Just because someone has a specific use case (I also mostly stream from a local server), doesn't mean it's the only use case, or that someone has to use every feature to make it worthwhile for them.

 

[npmacuser5]

Hoping Apple would use the Apple TV more as a media hub with storage. Manage music, photos, content for IOS devices. Essentially remove the need for a Mac in the home environment. Oh well just another streaming device that at this point I do not need. See how Apple TV develops over time before making any final decision.

 

[macfoxpro]

I think that totally depends on what you may need it for. In my case,I'm not planning on downloading any games at all. I don't even think I'll use the Siri remote. I've got over 3Tb of content in my iTunes library that I stream off of other Apple TV's in my house. I buy a lot of blu-rays,the ones with the digital copies. I upload the digital copies into iTunes all the time. That way family and friends can enjoy my digital library throughout the house.

I was going to buy another ATV anyway for another room in the house. So I'll enjoy the faster processor,live screensavers and much needed updated menu.

So for me I have no intent,at least not initially of downloading any games/apps.

32gb is just fine for my situation. Not everyone,but me for sure.

I hope that is the case for me, as I will be getting the 32gb as well.
I'm a little worried that they will introduce some new apps that will revolutionize the way we watch/use our tv. And therefor use up the storage.
I'm not big into mobile style games, but there could be some family games that will change that.
We shall see.

 

[BWhaler]

Not sure this is going to matter in reality, but I am now glad I purchased the 64gb version.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Because an Apple TV can have quite a bit of functionality without being connected to a computer as just a Netflix/Hulu/iTunes etc. streaming box?

Just because someone has a specific use case (I also mostly stream from a local server), doesn't mean it's the only use case, or that someone has to use every feature to make it worthwhile for them.

Yes, so my consumer-biased argument would be "why not BOTH options?". Conceptually, TV development philosophy was already entrenched with this content-sourcing dependency of being tethered to the home computer running elsewhere in the home. Code already existed for it to work that way. This required a rethink to break that relationship for just the one kind of software while persisting it with the other kinds of software (the movies, tv shows, podcasts, music, etc).

Both options would resolve the problem for people with pinched bandwidth. Download it once and you don't burn any more bandwidth downloading it again and again. However, if you are traveling with it or if you want to take it over to a friend's house and play some games there, the ability to also draw data from the cloud would be nice too.

I'm not really putting it down... just mystified why they went this way. Downloading the same data over and over seems like a less elegant solution than downloading it once and streaming it within the home network... just like they do for the movies, tv shows and music we buy. Of course, it does help create a mentality of paying more for upgraded storage models where leveraging the relatively massive hard drives already in the tethered computer would pretty much mean one-size-fits-all.

 

[Locoboof]

I hope that is the case for me, as I will be getting the 32gb as well.
I'm a little worried that they will introduce some new apps that will revolutionize the way we watch/use our tv. And therefor use up the storage.
I'm not big into mobile style games, but there could be some family games that will change that.
We shall see.

Very true! I think we'll be ok with 32gb. Downloading those family games as well key apps we may want in the future. Worst case,we can sell the 32gb online for 35% less and buy the 64gb. Lol

 

[laurim]

The new Apple TV is the second strike in a row for Apple. The first was the Apple Watch.

OK, so this new Apple TV. What are its big new features?
- Siri? Most people I know never use Siri on their phones, so why would it be a huge selling point?
- Universal search? Sure, this is a great idea, but when Plex and Amazon aren't available, it's kind of pointless. "Univeral search" isn't "universal" unless it covers all the big players.
- Gaming? The remotes cost $79!!! More than the much, much, much better gaming controllers from Sony and Microsoft. Come on Apple, you can't get away with charging the Apple tax if your products are demonstrably inferior.

Says you. I use Siri and my Watch quite a lot. Just used it today for directions while driving. Used it on Saturday when I wanted to know the name of a song in a movie. Use it on my watch to do quick math calculations and to take memos of things I want to remember later. Use it all the time on business trips to find places to eat near my hotel. It's a huge selling point for me, along with universal search because I have forgotten to check Netflix before renting a movie on iTunes and later found out it was already available on Netflix. It would be nice to have Amazon in that mix but most of the movies on Amazon Prime are on Netflix anyway so it's not a deal breaker for me. I just bought a Playstation 4 and already have an Xbox so the gaming aspect isn't for me. But Homekit automation will be.

 

[Deelron]

Yes, so my consumer-biased argument would be "why not BOTH options?". Conceptually, TV development philosophy was already entrenched with this content-sourcing dependency of being tethered to the home computer running elsewhere in the home.

Taking a stab at why, I would imagine streaming a video file is a very different premise then executing remotely stored program data over a possibly unreliable local connection (particularly in the use case of wirelessly networked AppleTVs), a hiccup in accessing network stored program data would be far more detrimental to the user experience then waiting for a video to buffer.

That being said, I would find it neat if it could do both, but I could see it likely being a non-factor over time (as developers ignored would ignore the tethered storage group for the larger tethered+non-tethered group).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

With respect, I'd trust my own local network reliability far more than hoping there's no hiccups between home and some distant server in the cloud. Much like streaming a movie from the local hard drive vs. streaming it from the cloud, optimize the software to adapt for such hiccups. In other words, if Apple shared your concern, optimize for such hiccups and fall back to downloading from the cloud when the hiccup can't be resolved. That seems like best of both worlds.

Here's a counter scenario: when your internet is down, can you play any games on this new TV? Personalizing it: I happen to live in Florida. We occasionally will get a hurricane (or sometimes 2 gnats landing on the line) that might cost us an internet connection for upwards of several days. In such times, we're just looking for something to do to pass the time. Gaming is a good diversion. Will we be able to play any game on this new box in such a (obviously not very common) scenario? Stored in full on our local drive- like movies, tv shows, music and so on- means all that can be consumed in full with or without an internet connection.

 

[Jazwire]

Not to mention that EVERY ISP has instituted data caps.

Not "every" ISP has caps. Charter actually uses the reason, "We don't have caps", in their TV ads as a selling point.
No caps or throttling above any limit on my 130/5 service.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It starts that way. Then it morphs into "we don't have caps*".

"Unlimited" begat "Unlimited*" and it's amazing how an asterisk can introduce "unlimited" to concepts like "throttling". "Yes, it certainly is unlimited but..."

I just did a quick google search of: charter unlimited internet throttling
Give that same search a try and start reading many articles about the meaning of "we don't have caps."

My provider- the wonderful Comcast- touts a 250GB cap that "is waived" for now. But it's only a matter of time. These sellers of bandwidth have been watching their cousins- the sellers of wireless bandwidth- get away with "unlimited*" for years. The blueprint for how to further monetize their wired bandwidth is already well established and proven. And here comes these bandwidth-eating devices that are significantly handicapped in their usefulness if the bandwidth is not "unlimited".

Pair that with this whole "cord cutting" mentality which- if the masses embrace it- means taking revenue right out of most of these wired bandwidth seller's coffers and you should be able to easily guess where this will go.

 

[Phil A.]

Not to mention that EVERY ISP has instituted data caps.

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK it's simply not true to say every isp has instituted data caps (in fact, most offer unlimited data, albeit with some using traffic management).

I have Virgin cable and can download at 150mbps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if I want without hitting any caps, slowdowns or any other restrictions (they do have traffic management at peak times on uploads, but that's not really relevant here as there is none on downloads)

 

[AtomicGrog]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old "evidence" against 1080p when Apple was still clinging to 720p.

'

I could argue the same for 3D TV. I avoided buying one 2-3 years ago in favor of a much cheaper standard 1080p and still don't regret it.

 

[Juicy Box]

When it comes to a set top box like this, what's wrong with a regular HDD? I'd rather have one less device to worry about storage and manage the content on it.

If this would have happened, there would have been many posts claiming that Apple is too cheap to put a SSD in the new ATV and that the HDD is too slow.

I wouldn't mind having a larger HDD in the ATV, but that does bring some issues with it. Speed, noise, heat, power, moving parts, and size to name a few issues.

 

[2010mini]

Profit. We'll all buy this "4" and then replace it with the "5" ("now with 4K") as soon as Apple rolls that "5" out: 2 profitable sales instead of one.

Besides, haven't you heard around here: 4K is "stupid", a "gimmick", "a new version of 3D", "you can't see the difference," "the chart", "until the whole internet is upgraded", "until everything in the iTunes store is available in 4K", and so on... which of course will all immediately evaporate once Apple rolls out the "5". In other words, the anti-4K crowd won't bash Apple when they embrace it in this product... just as you won't see them bashing Apple for already embracing 4K in pretty much everything else they sell... including their most important product. It's only stupid here because this one thing from Apple doesn't play 4K.

Profit??? really?? from their least profitable device??? The ATV 4 does not have 4k because:

-4K is still in its infancy
-4K is forked
-4K content is still sparse
-Apple has ZERO 4K content
-It will take another 10 years before 4K TVs become mainstream to NON tech users like you and I
-By then this Apple TV will be ancient

 

[Juicy Box]

Not to mention that EVERY ISP has instituted data caps. The data needed for 4K streaming is high. If 4K right now, was as widely available as 1080p, yeah I would be upset that it wasn't included.

I agree with you about the 4K except that every ISP has NOT instituted data caps, at least not in the US. I see this in many tech forums, but it is not true. I think people just see it and just assume it is correct. Comcast, the largest ISP in the US currently enforces it's data cap in a few areas, and it has recently expanded, but the data cap is not all or even most of it's covered areas.

Verizon Fios doesn't have a data cap anywhere. They send out warning letters for customers with crazy high usage, like the one guy with the 7TB in a month.