I don't think you understand my post. Yes, ATV has now app store but it does not mean apple will allow any apps on its store. app such as Kodi will be lucky if apple approve it.
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.
Apple Announces New Apple TV With Siri, App Store, New User Interface and Remote
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think you understand my post. Yes, ATV has now app store but it does not mean apple will allow any apps on its store. app such as Kodi will be lucky if apple approve it.
Because it's just a business fact that you don't put every possible feature in a product for a tiny number of people when you could wait until a larger number of people can use that feature and then you can sell a new version based on that feature that now a large number of people are looking for. It's a fantasy to think any company would future-proof a product by including every possible feature a person could want ever. It just doesn't happen with ANY product. Businesses make the version most people want/need NOW, not eliminate the need to ever upgrade in the future by throwing in the kitchen sink. Deal with reality, not fantasy of a $50 box that does everything all possible competitors combined do (and do in a so so way). Besides, remember all the people saying the 1080 TV was crap when in reality those people simply had crappy internet speeds? Until most people have decent internet speeds to support 4k, it would be bad business for Apple to take the rap promising 4k streaming and most people can't actually get it and don't realize it's not Apple's fault. No amount of telling people to get faster internet would prevent people immediately scapegoating Apple because people never admit a problem is their fault.
Most 4K sets are low quality under 65 inch sets, how close do you need to sit to a 50 inch set for the resolution to make sense, around 5-6 feet max. That means you're sofa is about 3 feet away from that TV... I'm telling you, at that distance, you stand more chance of seeing the compression artifacts from your Netflix stream than the "beauty" of 4K. When people can buy high quality 70 inch 4K panels for $1000 in great number, then you'll see Apple and others switching to 4K.
As for 4K footage from your phone... Most of it is not so good in quality. Still a gimmick in most cases.
Some info about streaming 4k content:
High Efficiency Video Coding
It's understandable that many existing devices can't stream 4K. With four times the pixels of Full HD (1080p) content, there's simply a lot more information to transmit over your WiFi network. To accomplish this, providers like Netflix are utilizing a compression method called High Efficiency Video Coding, or HEVC.
Most of your devices aren't compatible with the HEVC codec.
To make it possible to stream 4K without overhauling the entire world's network infrastructure, 4K must be compressed even more aggressively than regular HD programming, but in an efficient way that won't unduly degrade picture quality.
HEVC takes huge 4K video files and shrinks them down to fit existing networks without much loss in quality. That's great, but it means that to stream 4K content, a device—like a smart TV, set top box, console, or streaming stick—needs to be HEVC-compatible. This requires special hardware that most current devices just don't have, aside from current-generation 4K TVs.
In other words, if you've been using Netflix via an Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Roku, Apple TV, or Chromecast, you won't be able to stream 4K content that's been compressed with HEVC. Bummer, huh?
HDCP 2.2 & You
In addition to restrictions imposed by HEVC, copy protection also plays a role in keeping 4K content off of your screen. The new HDCP (hardware-based content protection) 2.2 spec is more than just a safety net to stop piracy—it's a serious impediment to early adopters.
Like HEVC, HDCP 2.2 is hardware-based, requiring that the physical HDMI connections on your device/TV are equipped with a special chip that "asks" the other device if it also has that chip (i.e. is also HDCP 2.2–compliant). It's like having a secret handshake: If one device doesn't know it, it's not getting into the club. Most modern 4K TVs, computer monitors, and AV receivers are now compliant, but some early models weren't. Buyer beware.
On the plus side, unless you have really old HDMI cables, you won't need to buy any new ones—everything from HDMI 1.4 forward is compatible. Again, the easiest option is streaming right from your TV's smart platform.
http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/how-to-stream-4k-video
If you want a 4k set top box, you can get the Nvidia Shield for $199 for 16gig storage or $299.99 for 500 gig. The regular remote is an extra $50 but it comes with a gaming controller you could use instead. It's Android so forget about Airplay. No Amazon instant video, for now at least.
High Efficiency Video Coding
It's understandable that many existing devices can't stream 4K. With four times the pixels of Full HD (1080p) content, there's simply a lot more information to transmit over your WiFi network. To accomplish this, providers like Netflix are utilizing a compression method called High Efficiency Video Coding, or HEVC.
Most of your devices aren't compatible with the HEVC codec.
To make it possible to stream 4K without overhauling the entire world's network infrastructure, 4K must be compressed even more aggressively than regular HD programming, but in an efficient way that won't unduly degrade picture quality.
HEVC takes huge 4K video files and shrinks them down to fit existing networks without much loss in quality. That's great, but it means that to stream 4K content, a device—like a smart TV, set top box, console, or streaming stick—needs to be HEVC-compatible. This requires special hardware that most current devices just don't have, aside from current-generation 4K TVs.
In other words, if you've been using Netflix via an Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Roku, Apple TV, or Chromecast, you won't be able to stream 4K content that's been compressed with HEVC. Bummer, huh?
HDCP 2.2 & You
In addition to restrictions imposed by HEVC, copy protection also plays a role in keeping 4K content off of your screen. The new HDCP (hardware-based content protection) 2.2 spec is more than just a safety net to stop piracy—it's a serious impediment to early adopters.
Like HEVC, HDCP 2.2 is hardware-based, requiring that the physical HDMI connections on your device/TV are equipped with a special chip that "asks" the other device if it also has that chip (i.e. is also HDCP 2.2–compliant). It's like having a secret handshake: If one device doesn't know it, it's not getting into the club. Most modern 4K TVs, computer monitors, and AV receivers are now compliant, but some early models weren't. Buyer beware.
On the plus side, unless you have really old HDMI cables, you won't need to buy any new ones—everything from HDMI 1.4 forward is compatible. Again, the easiest option is streaming right from your TV's smart platform.
http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/how-to-stream-4k-video
If you want a 4k set top box, you can get the Nvidia Shield for $199 for 16gig storage or $299.99 for 500 gig. The regular remote is an extra $50 but it comes with a gaming controller you could use instead. It's Android so forget about Airplay. No Amazon instant video, for now at least.
Except that a bunch of people do want it.
We aren't asking for the device to slice, dice, and make our coffee in the morning. We want one feature: UHD.We want it NOW.
Deal with reality. There are already 9-10 4K content providers, one of which is Netflix. There are 5+ 4K set-top boxes or other options. It exists, just not with the Apple TV.
Bottom line: all of the above misses the mark.
Who said $50? The old box was $100, the new box $150. Based on comparing Apple and Nvidia, I claim Apple could have done 4K with the $150 price tag.
And remember my telling them that with a decently fast DSL connection it word work fine -- like mine?
I have to disagree with this. There are billions of people in the world without fast internet access, but, there are hundreds of millions of people who do have fast internet. (Fast == >= 20 Mbps). You have to assume that people can do the simple arithmetic. Same goes for anything in life. Sure, there are people who will never understand what a checkbook means, but, you can't limit your products to only those usable by people suffering from innumeracy. Speaking of which, why does Netflix say that their 4K needs 15.6 Mbps, but, "require" 25 Mbps? You would think that 20 Mbps would give you enough headroom.
Last edited:
Mind boggling. Me, I would think that if a company produces a high profile, extremely well selling product, capable of shooting and recording in 4K, then it would make sense to sell another product, so you would be able to watch your recorded contend conveniently on a 4K bigger screen.
But no, we have Apple, marketing and offering the iPhone 6s, able to record in 4K, announces a media streaming and playing device, the Apple TV on the same day, which is unfortunately unable to make full use of the movies recorded with the iPhone 6s.
Ok, then. No need to buy an iPhone 6s?!
You can't even get a good 1080p 70" TV for $1000, what you will find is very poor quality crap for that price. I don't think the $1000 mark is the correct value.
You can get a 65" - 75" 4k for about $2000 right now and those prices have dropped a lot since last year. 4k has been coming down in price rather fast compared to how long it took 1080p.
We will see how good the 4k camera is on the iPhone. I suspect it will look down right stunning on a 1080p or 2k set and ok on 4k. Apple has been very good at camera quality, far better than anyone else on the market.
I expect to see results on par with my DJI Inspire 1 drone. Here is some of my recent footage shot from 2 different 4k drones (one was my friends). YouTube compresses the crap out of it, but its a good idea of what you can expect from video uploaded from an iPhone.
Anyway, the point of what I was trying to make is that just because Apple has a 4k iPhone. Doesn't justify the need for a 4k AppleTV. There is just not nearly enough 4k content out there. Even if the TVs were $500 there is just not enough content.
Connection speed is also a major factor. 4k video takes up a LOT of space. My little 3:42 drone video uncompressed is 1.75GB. Most internet connections just won't handle that. It will be a long time before they do.
I know, but that doesn't change what I wrote, with the HDMI connected to the TV it has to be on to listen to audio where previously it was enough to turn on the stereo.
Except that a bunch of people do want it.
We want it NOW.
Deal with reality. There are already 9-10 4K content providers, one of which is Netflix. There are 5+ 4K set-top boxes or other options. It exists, just not with the Apple TV.
Bottom line: all of the above misses the mark.
Who said $50? The old box was $100, the new box $150. Based on comparing Apple and Nvidia, I claim Apple could have done 4K with the $150 price tag.
And remember my telling them that with a decently fast DSL connection it word work fine -- like mine?
I have to disagree with this. There are billions of people in the world without fast internet access, but, there are hundreds of millions of people who do have fast internet. (Fast == >= 20 Mbps). You have to assume that people can do the simple arithmetic. Same goes for anything in life. Sure, there are people who will never understand what a checkbook means, but, you can't limit your products to only those usable by people suffering from innumeracy. Speaking of which, why does Netflix say that their 4K needs 15.6 Mbps, but, "require" 25 Mbps? You would think that 20 Mbps would give you enough headroom.
10 people on a forum doesn't constitute the amount of people necessary to trigger a feature. I challenge your 5+ 4k boxes with 4k. Even the fabled Roku 4k coming out is an entire Roku-based 4k TV, not just a set top box. 4k is still niche. In a couple of years, it'll come.
Here's a list of 4k streaming devices/sources. People are complaining the new TV is $149-$199, lol.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...ts-guide-to-4k-ultra-hd-content-devices/21004
Sony 4K Ultra HD Media Player with Video Unlimited 4K $699
Much of the 4k content is limited to certain models of 4k TVs, mostly because the tv manufacturers need a reason for people to buy their tvs. According to that article from Feb., 4k YouTube and Vimeo (Vimeo is download only, not streaming) is only available via a computer, although some smart TVs may have added an app by now. Xfinity 4k and Direct TV 4k is only on Samsung 4k tvs. Netflix 4k is only available through UHD TVs that support the HEVC decoding. Netflix recommends 25 mbps internet or better for 4k so that's another thing many people need to upgrade to.
Last edited:
If only you is ever going to see that 4k iPhone video and you own a 4k tv, your post would make sense. Most people like to share their videos with friends, family and the world and that would require converting them to 1080 or lower anyway. You'll have the 4k version for the future when it becomes more common.
I find the Channelmaster DVR+ to be simple and effective. Tablo looks decent, but after dealing with the hassle of HD Homerun and EyeTV, I've decided the simplest (and least expensive) solution is the best one for DVR.
Because internet speeds fluctuate constantly and when they say you have 25 Mbps service, it's often much less. Besides, it's not like you can tell Comcast you want 15.6Mbps service. The services come at specific levels and 25 is one common level that's at least 15.6.
So many people RAGING against 4K as an OPTION. It's unreal. Why don't you rage against low gas prices and the right to have an even lower minimum wage while you're at it?
The 200MB limit has been misquoted slightly by some sites; This is not a overall app size limit. The limit refers to the initial bundle the ATV downloads. Devs can create many GB's of additional bundles for their app, which will held on the app store, but the tvOS only keeps that initial 200MB bundle permanently in local storage, the rest is downloaded "on demand" by the app. In reality all that will happen is that the app will download it's resources the first time you play the game, but is highly unlikely to do that again unless the ATV is running out of memory and needs to dump resources. That's why the 64GB version is a no-brainer really, cos the more storage you have the less likely apps are to free up resources.
Have you seen Infuse by Firecore, they have already confirmed they are working on an ATV4 version. It is an excellent stand-alone player that doesn't need a server, can access many sources (NAS, iTunes, Plex and more) and applies artwork etc automatically like Plex, and the interface is really nice. ps. i don't work for them
http://firecore.com/infuse
I use Infuse on my Jailbroken ATV2 to access files on my NAS. It works very well. I'd love to see it on the ATV4 but I'm doubting if Apple will allow it. Remember, they don't like competition for the iTunes Store.Have you seen Infuse by Firecore, they have already confirmed they are working on an ATV4 version. It is an excellent stand-alone player that doesn't need a server, can access many sources (NAS, iTunes, Plex and more) and applies artwork etc automatically like Plex, and the interface is really nice. ps. i don't work for them
http://firecore.com/infuse
Eh... you could make the same argument about the HBO app and the Netflix app and others that they have allowed. It will be interesting to watch.
So many people RAGING against 4K as an OPTION. It's unreal. Why don't you rage against low gas prices and the right to have an even lower minimum wage while you're at it?
I have no inside information about this whatsoever, but, I am 99% sure that not rolling out 4K was an "intellectual property" issue of one kind or another. There are a number of issues, but, this one slipped past me until recently:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-threatens-to-derail-4k-hevc-video-streaming/
I thought, for some reason, that they were arguing over the $0.50 fee per device. Not so. This is a new demand to get a cut of all revenue from use of the codec. Predictably, this is going to kill use of HEVC unless the consortium listens to reason. I can understand Apple, and, content providers like Netflix, backing out. To me, it is also yet another example of how the patent system can be misused-- let everybody think you are going to license the patent package at a reasonable cost (like it says in the U.S. Constitution), and then, after deployment is already starting to roll out, unroll the new program to demand a cut of revenue. Sounds like organized crime to me.
That argument makes a lot more sense. However, it does demonstrate why it would behoove Apple and others to form their own organization to create standardized formats in the future that are at least on an even-keel or better yet open standards so on one company can screw the entire planet on something like a codex. It's why GIFs all but disappeared overnight (they wanted real money, Amigo money and NO ONE felt like paying them when GIFs were total crap compared to newer formats. Thus PNG was born (although the animated GIF remains in use here and there as PNGs don't animate and old formats are slow to die when they are entrenched.
All I can surmise is that it must be insanely difficult to create a codex like HEVC (aka H.265 for those that don't recognize the name), so much so that even Apple with well over $200 BILLION in PETTY CASH can't manage to create their own format to avoid paying for "protection money". Sad, just sad. They say Socialism doesn't work, but Capitalism goes too far in the other direction sometimes. A flat fee is one thing. Collecting a % of profits for every stream is just a bit GREEDY. But then, Apple is USED to doing the same kind of crap to everyone else (patent suing is fun for Apple lawysers!) so they should just start paying. Actually, I'm surprised they just didn't buy the format patents. Anything is for sale with enough money.
I hope that all the companies embedding HEVC in their "hardware" can update the embedded code to support additional formats. Like the old MJPEG2000, and, the new VP9:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...Debate-Googles-VP9-Vs.-HEVC-H.265-103577.aspx
Any time i see a new OS i think "we're in for trouble"
I don;t expect the touchpad to work fully out of the box, ther'd be an update, those siri issues where not everything is supported.
All in all, Apple is just playing catah-up to something Smart-TV's could already do.. What would this mean for Smart-TV's in general ?... Would the decline go down, just because u can use a Apple TV 4 for most of the stuff anyway ?
I don;t expect the touchpad to work fully out of the box, ther'd be an update, those siri issues where not everything is supported.
All in all, Apple is just playing catah-up to something Smart-TV's could already do.. What would this mean for Smart-TV's in general ?... Would the decline go down, just because u can use a Apple TV 4 for most of the stuff anyway ?
I could be wrong, but, I think this is just the same BSD-derived kernel we know and love. The GUI is changed, and, new GUIs are prolific sources of bugs, but, I wouldn't call it a "new OS".
One of the things that bothers me the most is the assumption that I have something with a USB port to charge the controller in my living room. They should have either made the cord USB C to charge on the unit OR made that a real USB port... also to charge on the device. Don't give me a cord and say "Good luck somewhere else bub"
All you have to do is plug the damn thing into a computer once every three months, is it really that difficult?