I want something simple, like this.
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 Plans to Debut New Apple TV in September With Touch-Based Remote, Full App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a remote control - designed for your fingers to be able to "see" by instinct, not a Mondrian painting.
"Ugly"? That's a subjective opinion. What do you want - "ugly" and works flawlessly with good ergonomics and a headphone jack IN THE REMOTE... or "Beautiful", thin poncey aluminium nonsense with ZERO ergonomics and is fiddly... or a pointless "sledgehammer to crack a nut" solution - aka touchscreen remote?
Roku nailed it, "ugly" or not, they have nailed it.
Hate to say it but they could actually learn a thing from *GASP* Samsung (even if it looks like a mini trackpad clone) I have this remote for my tv and the trackpad like touch control works great.
The only thing any company can hope to learn from Samsung, is how NOT to do anything the way Samsung does it. This is a VERY ugly mess, the design of which is akin to "One for all" RC units from around 2001.
Obvious benefit: You don't have to pay a monthly fee for crappy boxes on each TV. You can pay once and have your pick of equipment assuming the devices support the services you want.
I no longer watch "channels." That's so 20th century. I watch content. I don't care about AMC other than the select few shows I watch. I do not want AMC, I want the shows. It would be great if they let me choose 25 shows I like to watch, and then give me all that content. Why would I want to AMC as a regular channel when 75% of the time I won't watch it?
I'd much rather pay $20/mo. to choose 20 shows. They can keep the networks. My father has Sling TV, which is pretty good for what it does, but it's still a bundle. All these services are still bundles when it comes down to it. Apple, with all their money, could actually throw money at the problem, and kill the bundle once and for all. But they don't seem to want to give back to us. Apple could lose money on a TV service for a couple years, and that would be enough time to do real harm to the cable bundle.
But this is going to be a watered down, feeble attempt at cord cutters. I'm just going from one (cable) cord to another (ethernet) cord, with a bundle. Let me choose first my channels. Then someday, let me choose the shows I want to watch, they can keep everything else.
If true, and Apple doesn't limit it, this is much bigger news than a silly watch.
Agreed. I have Netflix, HBO Now and a Mohu Leaf antenna. Could not be happier to spend $23 a month and have more content than I will be able to watch before I retire.
Have been looking forward to new ATV. Have been satisfied with the last version, but the IU is in need of an upgrade. Cut cable two years ago. At $125 per month, was able to buy new Mac Mini, 27" Display and new iPad. To me, I really don't have time to tie myself down anymore to series TV. I enjoy having the ability to stream movies and from time to time, some sports programming. Otherwise, TV is not the media I need any more. From time to time, I enjoy some of the original programming from Hulu.
I do respect other people's need for their own form of entertainment. To each their own.
I do respect other people's need for their own form of entertainment. To each their own.
This..Years ago, it was almost loyalty to watch NBC, ABC or CBS. Those days are gone and the industry need to realize this. Content almost, at this point, needs to be ala carte. Probably won't happen, but..ya know.
And if you want everyone to be able to use it, you have to write for two platforms.
I think its real this time because Apple did not release a Apple TV beta this time around with iOS 9.
I would pay $129 USD for an A9 chip instead of an A8. Assuming some guesses about the next chipset. (Tri-core CPU with PowerVR 7XT) With this, Apple could really have a pretty good console. A new App Store platform is going to be defined by this generation's minimum specs and contrary to some people's ignorance the games industry is huge. This console could be hugely disruptive if they want to target the market.
If Apple delayed this release from a WWDC due to a service that won't launch with the hardware anyways, at least beef up the specs for making us wait. Realistically, knowing Apple and their lack of desire to spec race (outside of the tablet/phone market) my hope is at least an A8X for $99.
If Apple delayed this release from a WWDC due to a service that won't launch with the hardware anyways, at least beef up the specs for making us wait. Realistically, knowing Apple and their lack of desire to spec race (outside of the tablet/phone market) my hope is at least an A8X for $99.
Apple is planning to introduce its long-awaited next-generation Apple TV in September, reports Buzzfeed's John Paczkowski. According to sources familiar with Apple's plans, the new set-top box will be unveiled in September at the same event where Apple will unveil the next-generation iPhone 6s and 6s Plus.
As has been previously rumored, it is said to include an A8 processor, a touch-pad based remote that's "drastically improved" compared to the current version, a new operating system that supports a full App Store, developer APIs, and Siri voice control, and more on-board storage to accommodate apps. Physically, the Apple TV will take on a new, slimmer look.
Apple will not be introducing its rumored television service at the same time, with sources telling Buzzfeed that the Internet-based streaming service could possibly launch in late 2015, but 2016 is more likely. Current rumors suggest Apple's television offering will bundle approximately 25 channels and cost between $30 to $40 per month.
Apple was widely expected to introduce both its new Apple TV and its upcoming streaming television service in June, at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, but the two products were not ready for launch at that time. Apple postponed its release of the set-top box because it was "not ready for prime time" and held off on the television service because deals were not completed.
Apple has not introduced a revamped version of its Apple TV since 2012, so an updated set-top box with App Store support and other features will be a major change from the platform that we know and use today.
Article Link: Apple Plans to Debut New Apple TV in September With Touch-Based Remote, Full App Store
D'oh!
I paid $39 for 2012 model and it works fine. Unless the new one has USB3 port and support external storage, I stick with mine.
Sheesh, touchy. I'm a video professional and never have to use vlc so I was just wondering why you would need it. Most of my work is in ProRes and H.264. I rarely have to touch those formats you list, with the possible exception of MPEG. The only time I touch .flv is when I'm basically extracting something off YouTube, lol, so I'm sticking with my story. MPEG Streamclip works great for viewing many different file formats and converting them when Quicktime with Perian won't work for you. But if you have your heart set on using VLC, which is mainly a PC thing on an Apple device, have at it. From what I've read recently, VLC comes and goes from the app store so I suspect it's not that well supported.
Apparently, you aren't a Walking Dead fan
Fully agreed. Even more so, touch based remote is going hike up the price without offering anything really useful. After all when you are watching the big screen nothing beats physical keys.
Not thatApple would offer these outside the states anyway. But for me htese tv stations can all go where the dinosaurs went. I would want to watch a few tv shows from maybe 2-3 rights holders that are sadly tv stations. Not interested in packages to buy and finance all their other crap in a bundle. Same ****, different company as cable.
Give me a "touch screen" remote that has hard keys for play/pause, fwd/back, and volume up/down, along with the touch screen for arbitrarily complex input. Even better, add a "Siri" button and a mic, so I can hold the button and say "play the next episode of Orange is the New Black" (without having to say, "Hey Siri", and/or worry about whether my watch, phone, or TV is getting the command). That way, I can do 95% of the most common things (change volume, rewind, pause, queue something up) by feel, without looking at the remote. And if volume is on the remote, once the system/TV is on, I only need the one remote for watching a few shows, and it'd be lovingly designed by Apple to have everything I need and nothing I don't.
For bonus points, have the remote understand (and learn the appropriate codes for) two sets of volume controls, so it knows how to change the volume on both my TV, and my stereo, and can be easily told which set of volume control commands to use/send right now. So the same remote works whether I'm watching a blockbuster movie with surround sound, or in very casual mode, TV only, catching up on some show.
And if the touch screen on the remote can display a mini-player screen for Apple Music, showing what's playing, and giving access to choose a playlist, you could leave the TV off and use the AppleTV box and the stereo system to play music, needing only the remote for display and control (selecting content, pausing, and volume control). That would be awesome.
For bonus points, have the remote understand (and learn the appropriate codes for) two sets of volume controls, so it knows how to change the volume on both my TV, and my stereo, and can be easily told which set of volume control commands to use/send right now. So the same remote works whether I'm watching a blockbuster movie with surround sound, or in very casual mode, TV only, catching up on some show.
And if the touch screen on the remote can display a mini-player screen for Apple Music, showing what's playing, and giving access to choose a playlist, you could leave the TV off and use the AppleTV box and the stereo system to play music, needing only the remote for display and control (selecting content, pausing, and volume control). That would be awesome.