Apple Reportedly Prepping Revamped Apple TV: iPhone OS, Cloud-Based Storage, $99 Price Point?

[gugy]

Interesting,

I just want to connect to a 2tb/4tb drives and have all my media locally or in the next room attached to my Airport Extreme.
I don't want it to be connect to my Mac at all. I really would hate to have to turn my computer on when I want to watch something.
Also easy UI so my wife can use it without bitching on how complicate it is to watch something.

Would that be possible Apple?

 

[huntercr]

people complaining about 16GB

I don't think you get what the 16GB is for... it's not going to store your videos. It's going to be a cache for the first x minutes of all your videos. It will stream from the server ( cloud or otherwise ) but the device will give itself a head start and basically give you "instant on"

 

[AidenShaw]

Interesting,

I just want to connect to a 2tb/4tb drives and have all my media locally or in the next room attached to my Airport Extreme.
I don't want it to be connect to my Mac at all. I really would hate to have to turn my computer on when I want to watch something.
Also easy UI so my wife can use it without bitching on how complicate it is to watch something.

Would that be possible Apple?

It would be faster to upgrade your wife to a more tech-aware model.

 

[gugy]

It would be faster to upgrade your wife to a more tech-aware model.

Sorry bro, I rather have my hottie than a nerdy one.

 

[mentaluproar]

As tempting as this sounds, it's still kind of useless for me.

1. No Hulu support, and there never will be due to Steve's war on flash.
2. no fullscreen CRT support. Some of us still have tube TVs that aren't dead yet.

I can see Hulu becoming another marketplace for Apple if they would just agree on a codec, ANY codec. Imagine watching glee, for example, then at the end of the episode, at the bottom of the screen, you see "buy this episode now at the itunes store!" A simple click and they now own the episode.

That will never happen, as the device would be FAR too useful, but I can hope.

It will be interesting to see how Steve plans on rescuing the Apple TV.

 

[fpnc]

They MUST add a DVR, or it will still be a non-starter.

Except for when rented from the cable/satellite providers, DVRs are going bye-bye. Streaming is the future of home delivery and gives you the ability to watch anything at anytime (thus no need for a DVR). In another tens years or so people with think of DVRs just as they think of portable CD players today, last decade's technology.

 

[Peace]

Except for when rented from the cable/satellite providers, DVRs are going bye-bye. Streaming is the future of home delivery and gives you the ability to watch anything at anytime (thus no need for a DVR). In another tens years or so people with think of DVRs just as they think of portable CD players today, last decade's technology.

As long as there's a bandwidth problem in the USA there will be a DVR.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Give it a HDMI port and the ability to connect to any external hard drive (be it through Wi-Fi or directly through FireWire/USB) and I'm in!

Otherwise, hellooo Google TV

You do realize that the current one has those capabilities, right?

 

[iphones4evry1]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to just plug my iPhone into my television?

 

[DoFoT9]

i can see why apple wants to use ARM CPU etc - what i cant understand is why they STILL only have 720p playback coming from the current TV. the TV is already capable of 1080p playback - apple is just being lame.

interesting though, at that entry point i mightnt be able to resist!

 

[fpnc]

If this new Apple TV is going to have 16GB of flash storage it won't sell for $99. That part of this rumor is pure fantasy. I've even seen posts that have tried to justify the $99 cost by noting the recent drop in the iPhone 3GS price at Walmart. However, that's a completely naive suggestion that ignores the price subsidy provided by AT&T, show me a unlocked (unsubsidized) iPhone 3GS at $99 and then we'll have something to talk about.

The other part of this rumor that doesn't make much sense is the suggestion that you'd use (or need) a Time Capsule for local storage of media. So, that means at best you'd need $99 for the base Apple TV (not going to happen at that price, but let's just play along with the rumor) and then something like $299 for the Time Capsule. Thus, to duplicate the current Apple TV experience at $229 you'd have to invest $398 ($99 + $299).

In any case, Apple should definitely produce a standalone iTunes server in a Time Capsule-like format, but if they really want to get serious about this market they need to support direct-connect external storage on this new Apple TV. Thus, given the option for external storage, the price points would start somewhere between $100 and $200 for the base Apple TV (with the user then adding whatever addition storage that they need). Then they could offer a standalone iTunes server (something like a Time Capsule with similar capacities and cost) that could provide streaming media to Macs/PCs, Apple TVs, iPhones, iPads, iPods, etc. over a WiFi network.

The problem with external storage is that I don't think that the media companies will allow Apple to store iTunes HD movie rentals on just any external drive (that's why I think the USB port on the current Apple TV has gone unused). The media companies are still afraid that someone will provide a simple method to break Apple's DRM/security. If the rentals were stored on a completely generic external drive then someone could disconnect the drive after renting a movie, connect it to a Mac/PC, and then break the DRM. Thus, any external storage will have to include some additional method of copy protection (perhaps an Apple-branded drive that would only work when connected to the Apple TV). This is also the reason why there are so few iTunes HD movie rentals on the Mac/PC (the media companies are worried about illegal copying once these files are on a Mac/PC).

 

[fpnc]

As long as there's a bandwidth problem in the USA there will be a DVR.

Except that the DVR market is already owned by the cable and satellite TV providers. Apple can't really compete in that marketplace, so why should they even try when they know that DVRs are also a soon to be dead-end technology.

 

[fpnc]

i can see why apple wants to use ARM CPU etc - what i cant understand is why they STILL only have 720p playback coming from the current TV. the TV is already capable of 1080p playback - apple is just being lame...

I don't think the Apple TV can do 1080p decode and playback. It's been shown to do 720p30 which is better than its current iTunes-limited 720p24, but I'm pretty certain that 1080p is well beyond its capabilities.

By the way, the current iPad can do 1080p, I've done so by transferring 1080p movies to the iPad using Good Reader/Air Sharing.

 

[fpnc]

Give it a HDMI port and the ability to connect to any external hard drive (be it through Wi-Fi or directly through FireWire/USB) and I'm in!...

You do realize that the current one has those capabilities, right?

But an external drive is only enabled if you hack the Apple TV, which really isn't an option for the vast majority of users.

 

[DoFoT9]

I don't think the Apple TV can do 1080p decode and playback. It's been shown to do 720p30 which is better than its current iTunes-limited 720p24, but I'm pretty certain that 1080p is well beyond its capabilities.

alas, im afraid you are mistaken. the 7300Go GPU in there is capable of decoding full 1080p (40mbit) streams - if apple were to correctly code their applications it would work without problems (known as Nvidias PureVideo). yes, it would need GPGPU coding - but it is possible. QuickTime can do it, why cant the TV?

By the way, the current iPad can do 1080p, I've done so by transferring 1080p movies to the iPad using Good Reader/Air Sharing.

are you referring to just playing back 1920x1080 at lower bitrates? or are you saying that i can transfer a FULL 40mbit/s 1080p movie over (in h264 of course) and play it back?

 

[Bonte]

I don't get it, if it's practically the same hardware then why not build that functionality into the iPhone and iPad?

 

[locust76]

Without Netflix or Hulu, it will stay a hobby. Very few people buy downloadable movies. Torrent crowd does not care about user experience that much, so they would rather go with WDTV or a laptop hooked to TV.

Food for thought:

Neither Netflix nor Hulu work outside of the United States. iTunes does.

 

[fpnc]

alas, im afraid you are mistaken. the 7300Go GPU in there [Apple TV] is capable of decoding full 1080p (40mbit) streams - if apple were to correctly code their applications it would work without problems (known as Nvidias PureVideo). yes, it would need GPGPU coding - but it is possible. QuickTime can do it, why cant the TV?...

It would be nice to think that the current hardware could do quality 1080p30 decoding but I've seen no proof that the Apple TV system can handle 1080p streaming. Heck, some claim that it can't even do quality 720p in its current form. Besides that, we don't know what kind of thermal load 1080p decode would place on the Apple TV. It wouldn't make much sense to enable 1080p decode and then have 100% of the units fail after only a few hours of use. In any case, if you'd be willing to implement 1080p decoding for the Apple TV via a software hack then I'm sure everyone would be thankful. It seems like you are claiming that it should be pretty easy to do.

...are you referring to just playing back 1920x1080 at lower bitrates? or are you saying that i can transfer a FULL 40mbit/s 1080p movie over (in h264 of course) and play it back?

I've played 10Mbps 1080p30 QuickTime movies on the iPad. However, it's not really practical since you can't view the results at full HD resolutions (even the component video out is limited to 480p). In any case, I doubt that Apple will ever sanction 1080p media on the current iPad, so its just an observation of potential capabilities at this time.

 

[fpnc]

Without Netflix or Hulu, it will stay a hobby. Very few people buy downloadable movies. Torrent crowd does not care about user experience that much, so they would rather go with WDTV or a laptop hooked to TV.

Most people don't want to hook their laptop or computer to their TV and the WDTV doesn't offer any for-pay or premium digital content. Also, Hulu is very well know for blocking most attempts at outputting their content to a TV. The fact that you can attach a computer to your TV and use Hulu is just a consequence of them having no go way to prevent you from doing that. It's probably worth nothing that services like Hulu were brought up after the Google TV introduction and Google said that those services would have the option of blocking content if they so desired.

As for the "Torrent crowd," the hardware manufacturers and media companies could care less about those people, except that they'd probably like to find some way to prosecute them. I mean, why would they want to serve a group of people who have little interest in paying for their media content?

 

[fpnc]

I don't get it, if it's practically the same hardware then why not build that functionality into the iPhone and iPad?

Because it would be a lot cheaper to buy an Apple TV-like product. Besides that, would a family really want their Friday night movies interrupted by phone calls?

 

[DoFoT9]

It would be nice to think that the current hardware could do quality 1080p30 decoding but I've seen no proof that the Apple TV system can handle 1080p streaming. Heck, some claim that it can't even do quality 720p in its current form. Besides that, we don't know what kind of thermal load 1080p decode would place on the Apple TV.

streaming and decoding aren't the same thing - let's just keep it to a singular debate (btw, the TV would be able to stream full 1080p on both 802.11n and 100mbit ethernet).

anyway - my point -- the current TV hardware IS capable of decoding full 1080p. as i said before, Nvidia's PureVideo is capable of decoding full 1080p30@40mbit. the 7 series (in the TV) is the lowest supported model and therefore doesnt support advanced features (VDPAU etc) but can still do the basic decoding of mpeg/vc-1 video.

It wouldn't make much sense to enable 1080p decode and then have 100% of the units fail after only a few hours of use.

that true, ive no idea of the thermal limits of the TV. if they are anything similar to the design of the TimeCapsule, it wont be much

In any case, if you'd be willing to implement 1080p decoding for the Apple TV via a software hack then I'm sure everyone would be thankful. It seems like you are claiming that it should be pretty easy to do.

from a programming perspective it is! if apple had the 7300Go Nvidia card supported on OSX SL, it would be as simple as installing SL onto the TV, and playing your movie via QuickTime!

but alas, apple doesnt support that card. however, i am referring to keeping it a "legit" version of the TV, apple could EASILY add (proper) GPGPU support for decoding of movies, currently most of it would be done via the pesky Pentium4 CPU, which is weak as anything.

I've played 10Mbps 1080p30 QuickTime movies on the iPad. However, it's not really practical since you can't view the results at full HD resolutions (even the component video out is limited to 480p). In any case, I doubt that Apple will ever sanction 1080p media on the current iPad, so its just an observation of potential capabilities at this time.

right, on a screen that size/res i doubt you would notice the differences in most scenes anyway (between 10mb/s & 40mb/s). it will playback @1920x1080? thanks for the feed back though

 

[fpnc]

...anyway - my point -- the current TV hardware IS capable of decoding full 1080p. as i said before, Nvidia's PureVideo is capable of decoding full 1080p30@40mbit. the 7 series (in the TV) is the lowest supported model and therefore doesnt support advanced features (VDPAU etc) but can still do the basic decoding of mpeg/vc-1 video..

I looked at the link you provided and I see some potential issues with your original claims. For example, note this statement from the Wikipedia article (the Apple TV GPU is an early VP1-era product):

For H.264/AVC content, VP1 offers markedly inferior acceleration compared to newer VP2, VP3 and VP4 GPUs, placing a much greater burden on the host CPU.

And then there is this from the Wikipedia:

In 2006, PureVideo HD was formally introduced with the launch of the GeForce 7900, which had the first generation PureVideo HD. In 2007, when the second generation PureVideo HD (VP2) hardware launched with the Geforce 8500 GT/8600 GT/8600 GTS, NVIDIA expanded Purevideo HD to include both the first generation (retroactively called "PureVideo HD 1" or VP1) GPUs (Geforce 7900/8800 GTX) and newer VP2 GPUs. This led to a confusing product portfolio containing GPUs from two distinctly different generational capabilities: the newer VP2 based cores (Geforce 8500 GT/8600 GT/8600 GTS/8800 GT) and other older PureVideo HD 1 based cores (Geforce 7900/G80).

This last statement leads me to believe that PureVideo HD is only available on the GeForce 7900 and later. In any case, can you point to any system that uses a GeForce 7300 Go that can decode 1080p30 H.264 video? I'm not talking by interpretation of specs, I mean as a hands-on example or documented report.

 

[VoR]

^ - Which is why you need to swap out the wifi card with a crystalHD (and switch OS) if you want the apple TV to decode HD media properly.

 

[kiranmk2]

I think the claim of 1080p@40 Mbps claim has arisen as this is probably possible for MPEG2 encoded material - remember the first BluRays came with MPEG2 encodes with huge bitrates (as MPEG2 is pretty inefficient) . As MPEG2 is over 15 years old, GPUs since the old ATi Rage128 have had hardware decode support. H264 and VC-1 however are much more efficient codecs which require much more power and GPU support for 1080p didn't come until much more recently.

Around the time of H264 GPU support the first generation of supported card (of which the GeForce 7 series was one), the very low end cards/integrated only supported 480p/576p, lower end cards only supported 720p and the higher end cards went up to 1080p. These are all for H264.

 

[DoFoT9]

this issue is VERY un-documented formally. but i will try my best to show you

I looked at the link you provided and I see some potential issues with your original claims. For example, note this statement from the Wikipedia article (the Apple TV GPU is an early VP1-era product):

time to point out a few more things.
1. VP1 cannot playback BR spec (VDPAU) - which doesnt matter, as the files will already be in a digital format.
2. we assume that the files are in h264 format (not WMV, or VC-1 etc)
3. the movies are on the hard drive.

from a practical sense of things, this user states that it seems to play fine (no specifics unfortunately). thus far i have been unable to find any reviews comparing a singular file i shall keep searching.

more: this guy states that the 7300 significantly reduces the load on the CPU. this article here backs up those claims (look at the "H.264 1080p Decoding" image) - CPU usage of 80.8% is reduced to 22.1% using the 7300.

This last statement leads me to believe that PureVideo HD is only available on the GeForce 7900 and later. In any case, can you point to any system that uses a GeForce 7300 Go that can decode 1080p30 H.264 video? I'm not talking by interpretation of specs, I mean as a hands-on example or documented report.

wikipedia isnt a very credible site Nvidias very own website states that the GeForce Go 7300 is part of the PureVideo HD "specification". now, VP1 doesn't completely offload all computations to the GPU, but it can reduce the CPU utilisation by 40% (link), this post here backs that up with a real world comparison - though the CPU is roughly 30% more powerful (keep in mind that the 7600 only has a faster clock then the 7300 (same architecture), that post uses the desktop version though of course).

^ - Which is why you need to swap out the wifi card with a crystalHD (and switch OS) if you want the apple TV to decode HD media properly.

yeh that card will most definitely give you 100% GPGPU acceleration. seems good, but not viable for 90% of users. its $25, so pretty darn cheap!


oh and for the record: the TV maxes out at about 44°C, well below the TjMax of the CPU (i cant speak for other components though).