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 Developing 'New Technology' for Delivering Video Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
likemyorbs
macrumors 68000
I feel bad for anyone dumb enough to have done that. Anyway, if you bought a whole computer just for front row (stupid choice), then you should have used that computer the way it was when you got it with snow leopard, upgrading to lion is a choice.
People think Apple may release a television, but I just don't see how it aligns well with their goal and track record of producing products that are very high in quality and nearly perfected for what they are. Tv's are a product that are very hard to please many customers, just look at the plasma vs. lcd debate. Plasmas have a tough time looking great in most showroom lighting, but just about all lcd panels are Pos's in black level, viewing angle, and motion, no matter how much they improve them and add gimmicky features such as high refresh rates. How would Apple ever make something that perfects these problems with something that is acceptable to their standards?
Yeah...sure. As 4K TV sets are bound to hit the consumer market in mere months. 🙄
They'd rather get a mini with Blu ready as HTPC. That'd be a nice product.
It would be good when Apple finally release AirPlay SDK for OS X so companies like Spotify can improve their applications.
Yes I do have Airfoil, it's a workaround but not as good as full integration.
Apple's Design team
Did anyone notice how many of the design team from the original iMac (1998), and maybe earlier, are still filing patents with Apple? De Lullis, Andre, Custer, Stringer, Seid, Satzger and possibly more are still working there.
I find it impressive that fourteen years down the line many of the same hands and brains are still designing great tech, still thinking different.
Looks to me like Apple's future is in safe hands.
🙂
Did anyone notice how many of the design team from the original iMac (1998), and maybe earlier, are still filing patents with Apple? De Lullis, Andre, Custer, Stringer, Seid, Satzger and possibly more are still working there.
I find it impressive that fourteen years down the line many of the same hands and brains are still designing great tech, still thinking different.
Looks to me like Apple's future is in safe hands.
🙂
Last edited:
xbjllb
macrumors 65816
There you go again...
Apple, the company that pretends Blu-ray doesn't exist, developing "new technology" for delivering video content?
Let me guess. Black and white, broadcast through the air, and you watch it on these new-fangled things called cathode ray tubes...
...attached to wristwatch bands. And sued by Dick Tracy.
Apple, the company that pretends Blu-ray doesn't exist, developing "new technology" for delivering video content?
Let me guess. Black and white, broadcast through the air, and you watch it on these new-fangled things called cathode ray tubes...
...attached to wristwatch bands. And sued by Dick Tracy.
Who really cares about what they are doing in TV?? Its only the US that will benefit from such a venture. For the rest of the world the Apple TV is pretty wasted. If Apple wants it to appeal to more users then it should maybe negotiate a deal with BBC etc to bring iPlayer and all the other catch up services to its little project. Where the new Mac Pro. Now that Steve is Jobless hopefully Tim Cook will start listening to Apple customers and get his arse into gear releasing credible updates to hardware.
What is sorely missed in the current implementation of video sales on iTunes (movies, TV show or others) is the possibility to chose the audio language or subtitles at the time of download or streaming...
In a lot of countries in europe there are various pages for the same movies only to offer them in different languages, and even then it usually isn't as good as what physical medias offer. Right now it even seems that to watch a movie in another language you need to re-purchase it.
iTunes extra, should have been standard by now and not cost more for the user. It would have been a perfect first step to have a digital distribution equivalent to physical medias (like DVD and BluRay in features).
Its also time for the studios to abandon the distributors monopolies per country and release their movies AND TV Shows globally instead of whining because their margins are eaten by the fact that the entire planet has learned how to use a BitTorrent client.
In a lot of countries in europe there are various pages for the same movies only to offer them in different languages, and even then it usually isn't as good as what physical medias offer. Right now it even seems that to watch a movie in another language you need to re-purchase it.
iTunes extra, should have been standard by now and not cost more for the user. It would have been a perfect first step to have a digital distribution equivalent to physical medias (like DVD and BluRay in features).
Its also time for the studios to abandon the distributors monopolies per country and release their movies AND TV Shows globally instead of whining because their margins are eaten by the fact that the entire planet has learned how to use a BitTorrent client.
I am thinking iCloud for TV
If AppleTV can identify which channels / programs you are authorized to view from you cable company, it could act as a virtual PVR and stream the authorized content from iCloud. No need to actually record, upload the content to iCloud or even view the content - if you could have seen it would be available. This would put Apple in charge of the viewing experience including commercials and the cable company would be turned into an authorization source only. Apples only problem now is quantity of content and this would solve that very quickly.
If AppleTV can identify which channels / programs you are authorized to view from you cable company, it could act as a virtual PVR and stream the authorized content from iCloud. No need to actually record, upload the content to iCloud or even view the content - if you could have seen it would be available. This would put Apple in charge of the viewing experience including commercials and the cable company would be turned into an authorization source only. Apples only problem now is quantity of content and this would solve that very quickly.
frosty001
macrumors regular
I like this idea. A Lot.
I am a bit disappointed that AirPlay hasn't quite caught on as quick as i'd hope considering how many Airplay compatible devices are in circulation. Apple needs to work out a way of getting those costs down to 3rd party device makers. An extra £100 for an AirPlay enabled version of an iPhone dock is not the way forward.
Your point is great and all that, except Apple don't always do what is rational.
I do agree with you whoever, but you should never be surprised at what Apple do.
would not be surprised to see them try and go after netflix streaming 😛 question is rather or not they could actually do a better job of adding content for a subscription price in the same range.
ftaok
macrumors 604
Maybe I'm slow here, but isn't this essentially the same as using the aTV2 to access an iTunes library. Sure, with this method, you're pushing from the Mac to the aTV instead of pulling with the aTV from the Mac.
I fail to see a real point to this other than user preference. Am I missing something?
At the risk of being wrong, I think the desire of that other poster (42streetsdown) was to be able to Airplay from a Mac using any app. Imagine Airplaying a video via Safari, or Airplaying from VLC. I know, it's not gonna happen unless the video source material is an Apple approved codec ...
There's a perfectly fine technology for that, called "Intel Wireless Display".
Ironically, it's actually built-in in every recent Macbook, as it is a part of the Sandy Bridge chipset.
However, Apple does not mention it anywhere and does not enable its use. Go figure. The only thing they would have to do is include drivers for it in OS X, then you could stream any content from your laptop up to 1080p to your TV. Any recent laptop can do it, with a $50 adapter plugged into the TV.
I'm not sure people are really getting this. This is about creating a new video delivery protocol, probably over the web.
The defacto standards are RTMP & RTMPE for Flash, and Silverlight. Apple have tried to kill Flash, but only succeeded for mainstream content on closed devices, because there's no content protection otherwise. HTML5 has no DRM, so it can't do it.
So it seems Apple are going to try and create a closed proprietary encrypted video delivery standard for online streaming. Which unless it's cross platform and works on at least Windows and probably Linux, is completely bloody useless (though it might get some play on iOS rather than http).
Some variant might be used for secure Airplay streaming, given one of the reasons all the networks are blocking it is because it has no content protection whatsoever.
The defacto standards are RTMP & RTMPE for Flash, and Silverlight. Apple have tried to kill Flash, but only succeeded for mainstream content on closed devices, because there's no content protection otherwise. HTML5 has no DRM, so it can't do it.
So it seems Apple are going to try and create a closed proprietary encrypted video delivery standard for online streaming. Which unless it's cross platform and works on at least Windows and probably Linux, is completely bloody useless (though it might get some play on iOS rather than http).
Some variant might be used for secure Airplay streaming, given one of the reasons all the networks are blocking it is because it has no content protection whatsoever.
Porchland
macrumors 65816
It is highly unlikely that Comcast/NBCU or Time Warner would be part of any subscription package for current shows that doesn't require you to be a cable or satellite customer. One of the reasons Comcast bought NBCU was to hedge against something like that happening, and Time Warner's iPad apps (HBOGo and CNN) are already requiring users to show that they have a cable/satellite provider.
A comprehensive subscription would be too expensive to maintain in addition to cable/satellite, and a not-comprehensive subscription won't get much traction at any price.
It makes a lot of sense for Apple to launch a subscription in partnership with the cable providers.
Apple, the company that pretends Blu-ray doesn't exist, developing "new technology" for delivering video content?
Let me guess. Black and white, broadcast through the air, and you watch it on these new-fangled things called cathode ray tubes...
...attached to wristwatch bands. And sued by Dick Tracy.
obviously apple isn't a fan of physical media if you haven't figured that out already. The future isn't blu ray discs...it's streaming and having everything at your finger tips. Not items being shipped to you or picked up at a red box location.
Great post. Thanks for the links. The Dirac codec is very interesting.
H.265 (HEVC) is another possibility. Delivering iTunes 1080P at iTunes 720P bitrates while maintaining similar or better quality is an intriguing concept and not outside the realm of possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
Or RedRay:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-thea...ession-codec-revolutionize-video-playback/731
Last edited:
kind of like how google tv works would be nice too. do the apple interface for everything and have your box plug right into appleTV. that would be awesome.
Cool enough... but as someone who gave up cable, I'm kinda hooked on having that extra money each month. I don't want to replace one monthly fee with another. If Apple's going to offer something like this, it had better give me a lot more content for a lot less money. And by content, I mean stuff I actually want to watch, not 500 channels of reality shows.
Sounds good to me
I'm waiting until IOS5 to purchase a Apple TV. might have to wait a little longer if they are going to push out a new device
I'm waiting until IOS5 to purchase a Apple TV. might have to wait a little longer if they are going to push out a new device