New Apple TV First Impressions: Not a 'Revolution,' But Siri and tvOS Shine

[TallManNY]

I will admit, I like it in general and don't care what it looks like.
However, I was left pretty disappointed as I feel it's pretty underpowered, even for an iOS type device when it comes to the games side of things.
The rather pathetic game demo's they showed, would of looked great 10 to 20 years ago. But in 2015?
Apple showed this, as they must of thought it was THE BEST they could show off, and if THAT was the best, then sorry, for 2015/2016 the BEST isn't good enough.

I was hoping, given it to be mains powered that it would be the most powerful of all the iOS products when it came to that side of things.

Yes, I expected the A8x processor and not just the A8 processor. In fact I was expecting something like an "A8xs". Something slightly bumped up from the iPad Air 2 because of the better thermal control and the always available power. I wonder if this is a compromise to have Siri more readily available at less power consumption.

The game demo on the 6s was exciting and impressive. But it also just reminded me that I've never much fun with action games on my phone or tablet. Touch controls just are too wonky for me.

That said, I will buy this. In fact I may buy two or even three of them. I just may not buy the larger one because I may not need the extra storage space. I do think Apps will be very interesting on the home TV. But usually only games really take up a lot of room on a computer.

 

[postpc]

watchOS, tvOS is there anybody working at Apple with some sort of brand awareness??
The only other explanation for that mess, is that they're moving from 'i' to 'Apple' devices,
and new products seem to suggest just that, Apple Music, Apple Watch, but I doubt
Cook has the balls to relabel it Apple Phone, so what we have is some weired inconsistent POS terminology.
There's aesthetics in categories/terminology as well, too bad Steve's successors don't grasp
that concept.

 

[Jsameds]

That's not true. Almost all filmed movies & television- even stuff shot way back in the mid-20th century could roll out in 4K. Wizard of Oz (1939) was mastered at 8K: http://thefilmstage.com/features/wizard-of-oz-digital-restoration-report/ Film has plenty of resolution beyond 1080p if we want it. I don't know where you got your "Most movies & TV shows are filmed in 2K" but please point us to the source of that fact(?).

Film is a different matter, but even with the best restoration techniques you'd only see a subtle difference between 1080p and 4K for movies recorded on film. Certainly not worth it.

For movies shot with digital cameras - "In the last few years, 2K has been the most common format for digitally acquired major motion pictures however, as new camera systems gain acceptance, 4K is becoming more prominent (as the 1080p format has been before). During 2009 at least two major Hollywood films, Knowing and District 9, were shot in 4K on the RED ONE camera, followed by The Social Network in 2010. The Arri Alexa captures a 2.8k image."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Video_formats

So yeah, most stuff wasn't even shot in 4K anyway. 1080p OLED is still the best choice - for now.

 

[theanimaster]

Yeah, there was definitely something w Eddie Cues' cues when he introduced the nervous chic on stage that indicated that AppleTV wasn't ready. I'm not surprised. For such a seemingly easy thing to get right, Apple has consistently gotten it wrong. It almost as if the people behind the project never watch TV much at all.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Film is a different matter, but even with the best restoration techniques you'd only see a subtle difference between 1080p and 4K for movies recorded on film. Certainly not worth it.

For movies shot with digital cameras - "In the last few years, 2K has been the most common format for digitally acquired major motion pictures however, as new camera systems gain acceptance, 4K is becoming more prominent (as the 1080p format has been before). During 2009 at least two major Hollywood films, Knowing and District 9, were shot in 4K on the RED ONE camera, followed by The Social Network in 2010. The Arri Alexa captures a 2.8k image."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Video_formats

So yeah, most stuff wasn't even shot in 4K anyway. 1080p OLED is still the best choice - for now.

OK, I'll concede that stuff shot with 2K cameras is limited to 2K. But that's very different than saving "Almost all filmed movies & television" as if almost all of it is only shot with 2K cameras. "Last few years" is not representative of all time. And before about 1975 or so, just about everything was filmed (movies & TV shows). There will be stuff like I Love Lucy that will be able to roll out in 4K.

As to "certainly not worth it", that's your opinion. There are people that go to enormous cost & trouble trying to preserve film that may never offer a financial ROI or even be seen by more than a handful of enthusiasts. Why? Because their definition of "worth" probably differs from yours.

Personally, I'm for stepping ahead to 4K myself. 1080p is great but better quality is increasingly accessible to the masses. Even Apple is about to empower tens of millions of us to be able to shoot home movies at this "gimmick" level of quality. While just as subjective as your view of "worth", when I step into Best Buy and look at 4K vs. 1080p sets, I see a big difference... much like us Apple people see when comparing Retina to non-retina screens in Apple hardware. Whether I actually see a difference or I'm just fooled by master "gimmick" marketers doesn't matter if I'm moved to buy what I think is better technology... just like when I'm moved to buy what I perceive to be better Apple technology.

 

[theanimaster]

watchOS, tvOS is there anybody working at Apple with some sort of brand awareness??
The only other explanation of that mess, is that they're moving from 'i' to 'Apple' devices,
and new products seem to suggest just that, Apple Music, Apple Watch, but I doubt
Cook has the balls to relabel it Apple Phone, so what we have is some weired inconsistent POS terminology.
There's aesthetics in categories/terminology as well, too bad Steve's successors don't grasp
that concept.

It's almost as if Microsoft has installed most of its people in Apple already. Even Apple's demo of the iPad Pro and Apple Pencil was lame. They didn't outline anything significant -- of all things no sketch program was utilized to highlight the supposed pressure-sensitive features of the pen. The only sorry attempt came at the end when the medical app person mentioned 'pressure sensitivity' and everyone started clapping.

They weren't clapping because of the app. They were clapping because of the mention of the feature. And yet Apple totally missed that.

This is what happens when they play bleeding heart hero and hire some of the most untalented people nowadays to make up for their quota of the 'oppressed'

 

[prowlmedia]

That's not true. Almost all filmed movies & television- even stuff shot way back in the mid-20th century could roll out in 4K. Wizard of Oz (1939) was mastered at 8K: http://thefilmstage.com/features/wizard-of-oz-digital-restoration-report/ Film has plenty of resolution beyond 1080p if we want it. I don't know where you got your "Most movies & TV shows are filmed in 2K" but please point us to the source of that fact(?).

The OZ Restoration is pretty special and very expensive and involved a lot of post colour correcting, speckle and noise reduction. Film does have a lot of latitude and can easily be scanned at 4k... BUT you are going to get 4K Grain... which is not going to look good on your 75" 4k - Point is not many film classics are going be treated as well.

Plus - The actual file size scanned for that is 22 Terabytes uncompressed. Wowzers!

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...rd_of_Oz_UPDATED_-_Before_and_After_Pics/3397

As for Apple TV perhaps ATV5 will have 4K... but really for the moment it's a little insane and the codec and bandwidth are just not there yet!

 

[samcraig]

I said what many reviewers echoed during the keynote. It's a decent upgrade and the addition of the long-awaited/much needed app store. But Apple hasn't redefined television. What they are offering is just the same/their take on what others have done. And that's OK - but it's not a redefinition of "Television." A great soundbite - but hollow.

 

[prowlmedia]

watchOS, tvOS is there anybody working at Apple with some sort of brand awareness??
The only other explanation for that mess, is that they're moving from 'i' to 'Apple' devices,
and new products seem to suggest just that, Apple Music, Apple Watch, but I doubt
Cook has the balls to relabel it Apple Phone, so what we have is some weired inconsistent POS terminology.
There's aesthetics in categories/terminology as well, too bad Steve's successors don't grasp
that concept.

You mean compared to the mess of windows 10 - that pretends to be one operating system but is actually 5 with different capabilities completely and can't be cross compiled

 

[Piggie]

Lets be honest here, this is typical Apple.

Well folks we've fitted an old spec, slow CPU/GPU even in comparison to this years, or last years mobile devices, so don't expect much from it, but hey, look at the cool new 3D pictures of the films that you can waggle about a bit.

 

[Lictor]

AppleTV --HDMI--> TV --Optical--> Home Cinema

And if my TV doesn't have optical throughout and my receiver doesn't have HDMI, I'm supposed to spend thousand of euros just because Apple couldn't bother to include a $10 component ?
That's pretty insane. You don't change a receiver every years - mine is 15 years old and still working fine. Same with TV.

 

[bbeagle]

You don't change a receiver every years - mine is 15 years old and still working fine. Same with TV.

You never used to change your phone either.

Back in the 1970s and 80s, our household had the same phone for 15-20 years. But things change with time.

 

[kyjaotkb]

Needs 4k. And yes, I have a 4k TV at home.

but there is no 4k content, apart from a few crappy blockbusters and a couple of series on Netflix. Let your TV do the upscale job! Anyway 4K is not an industry-standard television format, as 1080i was and as, apparently, Super-Hi Vision (i.e. 8k) will be.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

if they were to sell a version without the remote for $50 cheaper I'd be right in.
I just care about the apps.
remote will go in the closet anyway, I have a logitech harmony hub that controls all the devices in the house

siri can very likely be used through the iphone. I'm guessing the remote app will be updated for that, so yeah no need of the physical remote

I just hope the Harmony Hub will be able to interface with the Apple TV. I'll be buying one of these either way but I really hope I don't have to go back to having multiple remotes out just for Apple TV. I have zero interest in Siri anyway so I don't mind losing that at all.

 

[sjwr]

Assuming the new ATV sells and users love it, I guess the content providers will scramble to get on board before terms swing further in Apples favor. Only the beginning in terms of apps, functionality and usability.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The OZ Restoration is pretty special and very expensive and involved a lot of post colour correcting, speckle and noise reduction. Film does have a lot of latitude and can easily be scanned at 4k... BUT you are going to get 4K Grain... which is not going to look good on your 75" 4k - Point is not many film classics are going be treated as well.

Plus - The actual file size scanned for that is 22 Terabytes uncompressed. Wowzers!

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...rd_of_Oz_UPDATED_-_Before_and_After_Pics/3397

As for Apple TV perhaps ATV5 will have 4K... but really for the moment it's a little insane and the codec and bandwidth are just not there yet!

OK. If there's profit in it, people will go to the trouble. Some go to the trouble even without a profit motive (just to preserve/restore films before they might be lost). The point of referencing OZ scanned at 8K was to counter a suggestion that all film is shot at 2K. So I went way back in time (1939) to show that even very old film can yield even better than 4K. Stepping forward through time means camera optics get better and better. People thought the 4K scan and reissue of Lawrence of Arabia (1962) was spectacular.

What 22 TBs got to do with anything? No consumer will ever be downloading uncompressed video- whether 4K, 1080p or 720p. That's just a huge number to- I guess- scare a naive reader into thinking 4K file sizes are crazy? What is file sizes scanned at 1080p uncompressed? Maybe not 22TB but it will also be a gigantic file size. So why are we at 1080p? Uncompressed scanning is like working in Apple ProRes- gigantic raw files trying to maximize resolution & quality. Edit it at its best and then render it with compression into a consumable file size that balances goals of quality vs. file size. That will turn even 22TB uncompressed into something that can be packaged and delivered in much smaller sizes.

Codec is there. h.265 is already used by Apple for FaceTime. New iPhones will shoot 4K so apparently Apple has found a way to capture 4K within the hardware bandwidth limitations within a tiny device that runs on a battery. Is Apple insane for embracing 4K?

Not everyone has to love or embrace 4K. But not everyone has to hate or reject it either. It's basically retina for movies & tv shows. It will also show much more detail of the photos we shoot (even those shot years ago at > 1080p resolution). I'm not trying to bring anyone against it around... just offering counterpoint to the anti-4K crowd... and reminding them that Apple embraced 4K yesterday in iPhone and iMovie... just not in this ONE thing (yet). For me this is mostly Deja Vu when many of the very same arguments flew against 1080p while Apple clung to 720p in TV2. Then, Apple rolled out TV3 and all those arguments just ceased. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with higher resolution video after Apple embraces it... only until they do.

 

[harry68]

For me the ATV fits perfect to the apple strategy. Since several years apple produces stuff that is not final, so they are able to bring next year a new version, which will be not final either. So now they brought again a 2k version, even when the new iPhone finally can handle 4k video. And for the photo content, it still have 2 megapixel, while cams produces content of 5 megapixel since 10 years ago.
In IT the memory doubles every 1.5 years. The biggest Macbook of 2012 got 750 GB, so normally the memory has to be doubled 2 times in the last 3 years, which would be a 3 TB Macbook - but now you can get only a 1 TB Macbook.
In 2012 they brought the new iPod Nano, which has touch screen and bluetooth as a new feature, now three years later the new feature is a new color - what a great innovation.
Since Steve died apple is no longer produceing for the customers, they are only doing it for the shareholders.

 

[kyjaotkb]

There's not a single app in the app store to take advantage of the A10 chip for next year's iDevices. So why bother building the A10 after this launch?

There's not a single app coded to fully exploit Skylake's completely unique features, so why bother to develop computers with Skylake?

Etc.

Hardware leads. Roll out advances in hardware and the software and infrastructure plays catch up. It's always been that way.

No people have "force touch" needs but that's coming in the new phone anyway. Pretty much everyone could pay for anything before Apple Pay but Apple Pay was developed anyway. Nobody had or needed touchID but Apple rolled that out anyway. USB3C. Thunderbolt. Lightning. Retina HD or Retina 5K (when retina was apparently the limit of human eyes)

I realize we have to "rally the troops" in support of Apple here but Apple DID EMBRACE 4K today. The iPhone shoots 4K. iMovie will edit 4K shot on the iPhone. Retina 5K iMacs and FCPX also fully support 4K video editing. iTunes will store 4K videos rendered from iMovie or FCPX. There are tons of 4K TVs in the wild from pretty much every manufacturer. What's missing: iPhone shoots 4K, iMovie or FCPX edits 4K, iTunes stores it, Apple TV, 4K TV. Just one crucial link in the chain.

There is little 4K support from the studios and won't be much of it. It cost billions to remaster movies shot on film to digital (2K) and many, many catalogue items are still not available at a format higher than 576i or 480p. It is insanely expensive to remaster everyhing to 4K and it will not be done. Of course, some studios may sell you UHD Blu-ray next year of films in 4K, based on an upscaled 1080p master, but your TV or BD player with upscaling capabilities could do just as well! Within the next few years, 4K is only going to be available for a few big budget crap blockbusters and some series on Netflix and HBO. Then TVs will shoot everything (especially and more importantly: sports) at 8k which is an actual standard in development.

 

[clickgr]

The new Apple TV says it runs apps. Is it possible for example to run applications like Plex and play my movies in .mkv and other formats stored on an external network hard disk?

 

[kyjaotkb]

For me the ATV fits perfect to the apple strategy. Since several years apple produces stuff that is not final, so they are able to bring next year a new version, which will be not final either. So now they brought again a 2k version, even when the new iPhone finally can handle 4k video. And for the photo content, it still have 2 megapixel, while cams produces content of 5 megapixel since 10 years ago.
In IT the memory doubles every 1.5 years. The biggest Macbook of 2012 got 750 GB, so normally the memory has to be doubled 2 times in the last 3 years, which would be a 3 TB Macbook - but now you can get only a 1 TB Macbook.
In 2012 they brought the new iPod Nano, which has touch screen and bluetooth as a new feature, now three years later the new feature is a new color - what a great innovation.
Since Steve died apple is no longer produceing for the customers, they are only doing it for the shareholders.

Absolutely right, there has been zero innovation on the Macbook... processor speed, battery life on the Air, screen quality on the Pro, weight/performance ratio on the new Macbook... none of that is worth 3TB on spinning drives. Need space for those torrents, huh?

And you are right about the Music line, too. The fact that Apple has built a powerful streaming service, and the fact that customers couldn't care less about the iPod, and that small computers are now being worn on the wrist, should not hide the fact that Apple have not updated their flagship product, the Nano, in years...

 

[WannaGoMac]

And if my TV doesn't have optical throughout and my receiver doesn't have HDMI, I'm supposed to spend thousand of euros just because Apple couldn't bother to include a $10 component ?
That's pretty insane. You don't change a receiver every years - mine is 15 years old and still working fine. Same with TV.

For a home theater receiver, 15 years is VERY old. You've more than gotten your money's worth. Your receiver doesn't decode many many of the new home theater formats. Now, high end stereo systems and speakers those last many decades, but a home theater surround sound receiver is too technology dependent to expect 40 years of service.

Just go pick up a $200 home theater receiver which has the new formats and capabilities, your existing TV and speakers will still work fine.

 

[617arg]

An OTA (Over the Air) antenna connection with TiVo like functionality would have made this thing perfect, without needing any sort of agreements from the major networks.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Has it been confirmed that the new Apple TV will never support 4K? The A8 can handle it and HDMI 1.4 can handle it at reduced frame rates. Couldn't a software/firmware update add 4K support? Granted, HDMI 2.0 would have more or less guaranteed it at some point but with the specs of the machine it's possible.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There is little 4K support from the studios and won't be much of it. It cost billions to remaster movies shot on film to digital (2K) and many, many catalogue items are still not available at a format higher than 576i or 480p. It is insanely expensive to remaster everyhing to 4K and it will not be done. Of course, some studios may sell you UHD Blu-ray next year of films in 4K, based on an upscaled 1080p master, but your TV or BD player with upscaling capabilities could do just as well! Within the next few years, 4K is only going to be available for a few big budget crap blockbusters and some series on Netflix and HBO. Then TVs will shoot everything (especially and more importantly: sports) at 8k which is an actual standard in development.

So much of this is not true. To motivate Studios to roll out 4K video is simply a matter of showing them how to profit on it. Put millions of units of 4K hardware in homes and some studio will try to see if they can make a buck. If they do, they'll roll out even more. Profit motivates spending money to make money. That's also how we got 720p versions of SD content and then 1080p versions. Yesterday, we saw several demos of apps that can only run on an TV that not one consumer owns yet. Those studios can't make a dollar on those apps but they went to the time, trouble and cost of coding them anyway. Why? Because they expect to make profit once the box rolls out. Guess what happens with another kind of Studio should the box roll out with 4K playback capabilities?

You're correct that some stuff may never be converted to 4K. But some stuff may never be converted to 1080p too. Does that stop us from enjoying 1080p that is available? No. And if we want to see the stuff that isn't 1080p, we can watch the SD version. Same would apply here.

Most UHD Blu Rays are not going to roll out 1080p upscales. The press would skewer them. Much stuff is mastered in 4K or higher and then rendered down to popular standards like 1080p (and 720p before that). A TVs or BD players upscaling hardware does not compete with real 4K video. That's an algorithm guessing about detail rather than actually showing the detail. Upscalers can look good but there's a difference. If upscaling is good enough, why did we bother with 720p or 1080p; why not just upscale the SD content that was already enormously available?

And yes, 8K will follow 4K. And years after Apple has embraced the "non-standard" of 4K, many of us will be recycling the very same arguments against 8K because then 4K will be "good enough". This is a mirror repeat of when "we" argued "720p is good enough" only until Apple rolled out a 1080p TV... at which pretty much no one called Apple out as stupid or seduced by an industry "gimmick" for going there. Instead, it was "shut up and take my money."

 

[TroyBoy30]

Film is a different matter, but even with the best restoration techniques you'd only see a subtle difference between 1080p and 4K for movies recorded on film. Certainly not worth it.

For movies shot with digital cameras - "In the last few years, 2K has been the most common format for digitally acquired major motion pictures however, as new camera systems gain acceptance, 4K is becoming more prominent (as the 1080p format has been before). During 2009 at least two major Hollywood films, Knowing and District 9, were shot in 4K on the RED ONE camera, followed by The Social Network in 2010. The Arri Alexa captures a 2.8k image."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Video_formats

So yeah, most stuff wasn't even shot in 4K anyway. 1080p OLED is still the best choice - for now.

agreed. 8k is on the way and there is no 4k content