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

[sammich]

After reading up on 4K and 8K, I might just skip 4K all together and wait a few years for 8K. Unless my current TV breaks, or 4K TVs drop in price a lot, I will hold on to my 1080p for a while.

I think the first 8K TV is huge and cost over $100k, but maybe by the time ATV6 comes out, they will be where 4K TVs are now.

The thing you need to keep in mind is that TVs generally cost more due to size than due to the number of pixels. In the same manner as silicon chips made from a wafer (which have a fixed cost), the more you can fit onto one wafer the cheaper it is to produce. Also, since a single imperfection can ruin the whole thing, the larger an object, the more wastage can occur and the higher the chance.

Thus, big TVs like that 8K one that was unveiled not long ago cost a lot of money because of a combination of early technology, aforementioned large display factor and yield concerns, as well as lack of economy of scale and probably just because they can charge that much because it's a niche product.

I bet you can buy the other recently announced 13" (?) 8K OEM panel in the low hundreds, if that. Although, I'm purely speculating.

 

[garylapointe]

I'm confused why Apple didn't decide to support 4k out of the box. Seems to me that it uses the same processor as the iPad Air and that device is pretty close to 4k resolution. Doesn't seem like it would be that much a stretch for Apple to bump up. I'm ok with the Netflix interface, but then again I haven't messed with the Roku. I've been without cable for probably 5 years now and use the AppleTV as my main entertainment device. I'm excited about the upgrade even if it's not totally perfect yet.

So they can release the AppleTV 4k model next year!

Gary

 

[iAK]

My iPhone records in 4k and so does millions of others... so there's a TON of 4K content. It's ridiculous that we won't be able to airstream it in 4K to the ATV. The new ATV even has AC WIFI now... I'm really hoping this will just be a software upgrade.

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.

 

[btrach144]

This product needs 4K. I'll consider it once Apple gets serious with 4K.

 

[iAK]

Tens of Millions of iPhones record in 4k - Apple may have ZERO content, but the consumer has plenty.

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

 

[usarioclave]

The problem with 4k streaming is twofold: the bandwidth required to do it and the hardware.

Can the A8 even push 4k? The Air 2 can, but that uses the A8X. Can the A8? Apple knows, and apparently they feel it can't. Maybe it could with enough tweaks, but that isn't the problem.

The real problem is bandwidth. Apple has pretty good aggregate bandwidth information. There are tens of millions of ATVs out there, and all of them expect a stream to start relatively quickly. What percentage of ATV's base could have a good user experience with 4k video?

Given the ATV4 doesn't do 4k, I suspect the answer is "not very many." More specifically, the large number of non-4k enabled users would be pretty pissed if Apple sold them a 4k capable device and the device was unable to do 4k because the end-user didn't have enough bandwidth to take advantage of it. A surprisingly large number of people in the general public don't understand end-to-end. And why should they?

Historically, Apple has tried not to over-promise and under-deliver. Apple would never ship a PoS like the Samsung Smart TV, which basically had a broken Netflix client. Apple's not going to sell a 4k box unless there's some probability that more than, say, 70% of its users could actually use 4k effectively.

 

[Deelron]

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.

It's not about your local network reliability vs. some server in the cloud, it's about the majority user base and their lousy home wifi connections that overlap with their 12 neighbors. I doubt the people who are streaming local content from a NAS/server on a robust or wired network are the majority user base (I'd like that to be true, but I severely doubt that it is).

And for the counter scenario, assuming electricty is not a problem or a priority but local connectivity is available, theres no reason you shouldn't be able to do so unless you load your AppleTV so full of apps that when you go back to use the ones you don't play except during emergencies it can't get the data (per how app thinning works). It's also assuming that the game/app you're playing doesn't require any internet connectivity itself (a rarer and rarer thing these days, sadly). In that unlikely case (electricity available but not limited, large apps being installed and used after the ones you'd want to use that pushed the additional app data (and are bigger then 200MB) but only run locally themselves with no online dependencies), yes you'd have to play checkers for a while.

 

[Aloft085]

So in other words, every developer is having to go throw lots of steps and lots of pain to make their app work because Apple is cheap and won't put in 64 GB and 128 GB?

This thing retails for only $150. The iPod touch 64GB is $250. The iPhone 6 64GB is $650. So you can see, their profit margin on this device is already going to be extremely small. So they can't just go giving away more SSD memory.

I think it's a fair compromise. I virtually never use more than 32 GB on my iPhone, and I have a ton of apps installed. I'd be happy with apps that take up far more than 200 MB.

 

[Juicy Box]

The thing you need to keep in mind is that TVs generally cost more due to size than due to the number of pixels. In the same manner as silicon chips made from a wafer (which have a fixed cost), the more you can fit onto one wafer the cheaper it is to produce. Also, since a single imperfection can ruin the whole thing, the larger an object, the more wastage can occur and the higher the chance.

Thus, big TVs like that 8K one that was unveiled not long ago cost a lot of money because of a combination of early technology, aforementioned large display factor and yield concerns, as well as lack of economy of scale and probably just because they can charge that much because it's a niche product.

I bet you can buy the other recently announced 13" (?) 8K OEM panel in the low hundreds, if that. Although, I'm purely speculating.

Thanks, but I am not sure what I would do with a 13" 8K TV. At that size would it look different than a 4k or 1080p?

When I mentioned the $100K+ 85" 8K TV, I was just saying that probably soon the TV manufactures will be making the 8K TVs in more suitable sizes for me and most people.... and a few years after that, they will probably be were 4K TV prices are now.

But 13" TV? I'd rather get an iPad Pro.

 

[sdf]

So in other words, every developer is having to go throw lots of steps and lots of pain to make their app work because Apple is cheap and won't put in 64 GB and 128 GB?

I feel like the Apple TV is going to end up like the Apple watch, AKA no apps!

As a developer myself, developers should absolutely get the extra pain so users don't have to deal with it. Nothing wrong with Apple requiring app thinning right from the start; I wouldn't be surprised to see smaller app sizes be a requirement for iPhone apps in a few years, too.

Apple Watch is an entirely separate problem. Frankly, there's a limited number of apps that have a useful watch component. I don't miss Apple Watch apps very often. There's less opportunity here for general apps than I expected.

But the requirement to support that remote control in AppleTV games dampens my enthusiasm a lot, and takes it from a device I want to develop for right now to one I'll put in my house for my own use eventually.

 

[kissmo]

I think this is the first time ever I jumped on the buy now train and ordered one - you know ... buying my own B-day present.

The trick is that always the first generation of something released by Apple tends to be overly simplified in terms of specs and functionality.

This generation of ATV to me feels like a trial from Apple to see how this market may develop. If they have success, if the platform can grow I suspect we will see drastic changes in OS, Apps and functionality in the upcoming 3 years.
The first 3 generations were the first steps - quite shy in my opinion - that's why I never owned an ATV.

On the 3rd or 4th generation (of this new ATV) will probably need to make an upgrade. For now I am glad to try it out and to be honest - pricing seems quite OK for an Apple product. (Cheaper than replacing my trackpad, mouse and keyboard with the new ones release by Apple recently )

We consume TV at home quite often - by TV, I mean Plex streamed media.
I am not a fan of cable TV and stupid news and commercials every 10 minutes.

Plex and maybe some fun Games/Apps for my kids would suffice.

 

[slal03]

Anyone know if Apple TV will be jail breakable and able to get KODI on it given it now has a proper tvOS?

If not I'll stick to my Apple TV 3 and Amazon Fire stick.

 

[usarioclave]

When you say 4k, you mean "streaming 4k from my NAS on my LAN."

When normal people say 4k, they mean "my Apple TV should be able to stream 4k no matter how crappy my broadband connection is."

 

[Nick Edinburgh]

With storage being cheap nowadays, Apple TV should have come with bigger storage sizes. 64/128 would have been better. Oh well, not upgrading till Apple TV supports 4K anyway.

Yawn. 4k whinge. You lose.

 

[oldmacs]

Because adding 4K would have defiantly made the experience for 1080p TV owners much worse /s.

The only reasons it doesn't have 4K is so they can have a selling point next year and for slightly higher profit margins (from not putting HDMI 2.0 ports). Its the same reason the 6S comes in 16GB and the 6 had 1GB of ram.

 

[MH01]

The 4K omission is purely to have compelling reason for people to upgrade down the road. I now have a device in my hand that records 4K video , the iPhone 6S, it's amazing that the Tech has come to my mobile device that I carry daily. It's disappointing that the Apple TV which is a desktop (sits next to the tv) does not support what I can record daily, and only cause apple is thinking profits and not aligning thier devices in thier ecosystem. So here I am being forced to buy an alternative solution.

What I do not get from apple is thier half arsed implementations, no 4K ATV, no usb-c support on new iMacs , 5400 rpm drives, making the fusion drives much worse with 24gb SSD...etc

There is no cohesion in the product range, it's individual products that are made and holding back features so you upgrade down the line.

less bean counting and more focus on the customer experience.

People will say 4K is not prime time yet etc..... Well it's more Prime time than using the iCloud as storage in 2015, and justify the 16GB iPhone 6S. It's just greedy decisions that give us these products in 2015

If your Are living in a metropolitan area, with excellent broadband , iCloud and 4K works fine. Also 4K TV sets are very affordable, especially for people who can afford apple products.

 

[Juicy Box]

The 4K omission is purely to have compelling reason for people to upgrade down the road. I now have a device in my hand that records 4K video , the iPhone 6S, it's amazing that the Tech has come to my mobile device that I carry daily. It's disappointing that the Apple TV which is a desktop (sits next to the tv) does not support what I can record daily, and only cause apple is thinking profits and not aligning thier devices in thier ecosystem. So here I am being forced to buy an alternative solution.

What I do not get from apple is thier half arsed implementations, no 4K ATV, no usb-c support on new iMacs , 5400 rpm drives, making the fusion drives much worse with 24gb SSD...etc

There is no cohesion in the product range, it's individual products that are made and holding back features so you upgrade down the line.

less bean counting and more focus on the customer experience.

People will say 4K is not prime time yet etc..... Well it's more Prime time than using the iCloud as storage in 2015, and justify the 16GB iPhone 6S. It's just greedy decisions that give us these products in 2015

If your Are living in a metropolitan area, with excellent broadband , iCloud and 4K works fine. Also 4K TV sets are very affordable, especially for people who can afford apple products.

I agree.
4K will be a nice addition with the ATV5. Similarly to the ATV3 when Apple added 1080p to a mostly unchanged ATV2.

But I think the other things you mentioned, like the 24GB SSD fusion drive is a lot more shocking than not having 4K on the ATV4. By the end of 2018, only 10% of the US would have a TV necessary to play 4K. So right now, the lack of 4K is not really going to make an impact.

 

[Juicy Box]

Because adding 4K would have defiantly made the experience for 1080p TV owners much worse /s.

The only reasons it doesn't have 4K is so they can have a selling point next year and for slightly higher profit margins (from not putting HDMI 2.0 ports). Its the same reason the 6S comes in 16GB and the 6 had 1GB of ram.

I don't think there will be a new ATV next year. Maybe 2017-18. And by the time that happens, 8K might be around and then the forums will be flooded with posts complaining about the lack of 8K support.

 

[Sol]

I THINK that the new device will connect over BT 4.0 directly, so there wouldn't be a need to have it over a WIFI network.. for gaming that would make phone or handset control, streaming much better.. also if there is difficulty like in a hotel network.

Bluetooth is just for audio. To my knowledge it does not have the bandwidth to stream HD video.

 

[bking10]

still blows my mind that there are consumers that take Apple's side on these issues. Just admit that they should have included 4K, but you will buy anyways. No need to get all defensive. Same with the 16GB iPhone. Everyone benefits if Apple stops this process of limiting a device only to have a better upgrade next year

 

[MH01]

I agree.
4K will be a nice addition with the ATV5. Similarly to the ATV3 when Apple added 1080p to a mostly unchanged ATV2.

But I think the other things you mentioned, like the 24GB SSD fusion drive is a lot more shocking than not having 4K on the ATV4. By the end of 2018, only 10% of the US would have a TV necessary to play 4K. So right now, the lack of 4K is not really going to make an impact.

Yeah that is true , guess the only reason I'm thinking 4K video at the moment is cause I have been attending the rugby World Cup finals and shooting a lot of 4K , and frustrating knowning that I need another device other than an ATV to play it back.

It would be great to just AirPlay it.

I just wish apple would commit and support standards they introduce. The usb c port should be available on the new iMacs ...

 

[garylapointe]

Yes but even home internet has a cap nowadays. Some as low as 250gb, which you can easily pass by downloading 5x50gb PS 4 games.

(That's a lot of games to download, you might need some help....)

I'd hope the box might be smart enough to cache parts of the apps that have been downloaded until it needs the space (or they've been updated). Apple doesn't need or want the unnecessary bandwidth at their end either. The Apple TV 1 was even pretty great at caching local files so I'm hoping this will be even better.

Gary

 

[Maury]

"This device is intended for in-home wi-fi/wired Internet, but it's clear that Apple [wants] to reduce the file size so that more apps can fit on the device. It's a bit disingenuous and not ideal for the game developer."

Ok the first statement... how does the part in front of the comma connect the part after the comma? The word "but" means he is stating the two are opposed to each other, but from what I can see they have little or nothing to do with each other. And I'm not even sure I agree with the first half of the statement anyway, I see the device primarily for streaming over the internet.

Ok, the second statement... disingenuous how exactly?

Either I'm missing something obvious or his argument is pants.

 

[macaximx]

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.

The Canadian article you quoted is from May. That is Before Apple released the 6S, before Bell and Rogers announced Gigabit delivery, before Rogers announced 2 4K channels and before Bell and others delivered Gigabit service.

We have the pipeline, we can produce our own 4K content, 4K broadcasting is coming to Canada in January. Apple could have included 4K support for minimal cost to support their own iPhone sales and users but chose not to, as others suggested to wait for an update that will come next year. I doubt they will wait 2 years.

If VUDU and Fox can stream in 4K Apple should be able to. If Apple doesn't want 4K in iTunes, then still support it for the millions of 6S and next year's 7 users.

 

[Mascots]

One of the things that a developer is quoted saying in there is that he is afraid of price erosion but wouldn't mind pricing his games at $10-$15.

I, for one and am sure not alone, am willing to pay for high quality content. I think the biggest risk is that you often don't know what's behind that paywall, which prevents people from actually wanting to risk it so many times for such a high price, while $.99 is throwaway.

I wish more developers would take advantage of in-app purchases for buying the full game versions (Like Dash), instead of basing entire games on microtransactions.