huh? they mentioned pressure like 50 times, including an extensive video about the pencil. You are just looking to be disappointed.
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.
New Apple TV First Impressions: Not a 'Revolution,' But Siri and tvOS Shine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
huh? they mentioned pressure like 50 times, including an extensive video about the pencil. You are just looking to be disappointed.
I don't understand why folks are ok with being able to shoot 4k on the 6S/6S+, okay with being able to edit said footage on the 5K iMac & iPad Pro, but are not upset that they will not be able to watch the full resolution video on their TV (assuming 4K tv) via the Apple TV.
Roku Apps are pretty "poor" ... mostly shells to provide an interface for sites like ABC, Disney, etc.
There are only handful of truly powerful apps on the Roku, Plex being one of them.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because most of us just run with whatever Apple rolls out. We'll embrace and gush about iPhones being able to shoot 4K but put down 4K when talking about the new
TV because Apple left it out of that product (for now). It's like we're split personality PR agents.Apple usually makes it easy by taking a full stance one way or another. But sometimes they will embrace and not embrace at the same time in new product announcements. This was one of those. Apple once rolled out a retina iPad and a non-retina iPad Mini in the same presentation. Many of us argued why the retina iPad was a "must have" upgrade AND argued why the mini didn't need retina... until the next year when the next mini went retina. Then, it too was a must-have upgrade.
Same here. 4K in an
TV will be a gimmick, "no one can see the difference", "until the whole internet is upgraded", file sizes, seating distances, and so on will be spun and spun and spun... until Apple rolls out an TV with 4K and then it will be "shut up and take my money". This was exactly how it was when Apple clung to 720p in TV while pretty much everything else had gone 1080p (including iDevices recording resolution).I think this
TV is great. The app store alone makes it a fantastic product. But I wish they would have gone ahead and gone 4K here too... just for those that want 4K now (the rest of us could continue to watch our definition of "good enough" even if we never downloaded a 4K video). If nothing else, shortly there will be tens of millions of new iPhone owners looking for a way to actually play the 4K they shoot on their new phones on a 4K screen.Based on the past, what will happen next is iPads will go 4K (recording) probably next year and either at the same time or soon after Apple will roll out an
TV5. All these people arguing so hard against the merits of 4K won't rant against Apple once Apple goes there. Apparently, it's only a gimmick, stupid, "no one can see the difference" right up until Apple rolls out a product with it. 
And what's the point ? I changed my phone for a smartphone, because it allowed me to do more things. There is no point in changing a receiver. A new one won't be better. Analog audio has not made incredible progress in the last 20 years - actually consumer audio is probably worse due to public taste. So, the analog part of my receiver is as good as the new ones. On the software side, buying a new receiver doesn't get me much. I would get access to audio formats above DTS and Dolby 5.1 - but most content available today does not use them anyway and the improvement is tiny. I would get a network enabled receiver - but then, what's the point of buying an Apple TV, if I have an Apple TV, I don't need Internet radios on my receiver...
Really, the only point right now of changing receiving, is to save Apple a few bucks. I have digital output on the 2€/month 4k box from my ISP running Android, but I can't have it on a $150 product from Apple that already saves money by not supporting 4k ?
Because most of us just run with whatever Apple rolls out. We'll embrace and gush about iPhones being able to shoot 4K but put down 4K when talking about the new
Apple usually makes it easy by taking a full stance one way or another. But sometimes they will embrace and not embrace at the same time in new product announcements. This was one of those. Apple once rolled out a retina iPad and a non-retina iPad Mini in the same presentation. Many of us argued why the retina iPad was a "must have" upgrade AND argued why the mini didn't need retina... until the next year when the next mini went retina. Then, it too was a must-have upgrade.
Same here. 4K in an
I think this
Based on the past, what will happen next is iPads will go 4K (recording) probably next year and either at the same time or soon after Apple will roll out an
I'm sticking with Blu-Ray for movies I want to OWN until streaming can handle greater bitrates. 1080P, 4K - all a virtual "lie" to the consumer since resolution is only part of the story. BTW - it looks like the new Apple TV is now 7.1 at least.
Yes, this may be the marketing and management reason why AppleTV 4K is not here.
It is a shame, however, because most of the displays on newer Apple devices are higher than FHD (although many lower than 4K...)
Right, but the reason Apple's PCs have or support 4k is... They are used by pros who create and edit 4k/high resolution content.
4K content for the masses is still very low. 4K is really being pushed by TV manufactures, not networks or FCC. Remember how 3D TV was the next greatest thing? They just want you to buy TVs
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Me too. The specs also show 60fps for 1080p which won't matter to many but certainly does to me (I shoot a lot of video at 1080p 60fps). I look forward to finally dumping the 30fps copies.
Exactly my thoughts. No 4K support is a really dumb move if Apple wanted to impress
The point is - an old phone could only make and receive phone calls, and new phones can do a lot more. The same with receivers. They used to just pass through inputs and send them to outputs. Now, they have operating systems with apps on them, and the 'inputs' come from the internet instead of a cord. It's a whole new game now.
I had another thought this morning. I believe the apps on the new apple TV may shine an uncomfortable light on one area of the iOS platform shortcoming which has been years stewing. iOS was never meant as a shared platform and most of the apps and interfaces presumes a single "user". There was talk at the demo rooms of purchasing items on Gilt with the credit card information pre-populated. Being able to transition games from phone to TV indicate, to me, that they have not addressed this as a shared device and I'm betting there will be issues.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Actually, it's shrewd. They'll sell millions of units as is and then sell updates as soon as (probably) 12-18 months from now when they go 4K (with or soon after the iPads get the new iPhone's camera). It is likely to be a very profitable decision even if the "4K or bust" crowd sits this one out.
I think Apple is right here... it's the apps that will make the difference. And what other devices have done is very basic and IMHO lame by more or less just supporting apps that are the same as what you use on your phone or tablet. Sure, some would be good on the big screen, but having made for AppleTV apps (especially games) will be awesome and really set AppleTV apart from the other boxes.
All we need to hear now is that Nintendo is going to support AppleTV... I'd love to see Mario Kart and some of the other classic titles. That would be awesome.
But again... I think the difference is that Apple is recognizing the TV is a different expereince and providing a slightly different iOS for TV is a very smart move.
All we need to hear now is that Nintendo is going to support AppleTV... I'd love to see Mario Kart and some of the other classic titles. That would be awesome.
But again... I think the difference is that Apple is recognizing the TV is a different expereince and providing a slightly different iOS for TV is a very smart move.
Then, if your receiver can receive input from the Internet, you really don't need an Apple TV... The point of buying an Apple TV is that you can use a dumb receiver with no operating system, the Apple TV *is* the operating system for your home cinema, no need to have a second one you will never use... If you're buying a new high-end receiver with a full blown operating system, the Apple TV becomes mostly pointless...
Besides, with the Apple TV, the inputs come from a cord, there is no cordless or Internet connexion to a receiver... The only output of the Apple TV is a good old HDMI cable... And the problem is that they forgot to spend a couple bucks on the good old digital audio output all other similar products have...
Apple TV is tied to iTunes Store. iTunes Store has no 4k content. Why then would the Apple TV? For home movies???...really? You want them to fully support a small percentage of a niche market?
That's like when all phone manufactures rushed out "4g" phones when cellular network could barely handle 3G
It isn't tied to the iTunes store, HBO, Netflix, etc could just as easily provide 4K content.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You post this same thing over and over. The hardware must come out first. It makes no sense to put 4K videos for
TV in the store before there are lots of 4KTVs in homes. If everything in the store was made available in 4K for TV today, what would happen? Nothing. Why? Because with no hardware to play it, there's no purpose in it being there.Hardware must lead. 4G phone hardware drove infrastructure to catch up. Look where we are now. However, if 4G phones had to wait until all cellular networks everywhere were upgraded and ready for it, we'd still be waiting on 4G phones.
Technology doesn't go well with a "good enough" mentality. It's advance or be overrun. If you are happy where things are, good for you. Don't buy any new technology. But other people want to move along. There's not a single app in the iOS app store that can take advantage of A10. So I guess Apple shouldn't bother building new iDevices with an A10 next year. Just stop developing any new hardware until all software is updated to take full advantage of something that doesn't exist yet.
Once again, let me remind you that Apple embraced 4K yesterday by launching iPhones that record 4K and touting iMovie to edit 4K. They just left it out of this ONE product.
im pretty sure it search acrooss all service, at least i understand it wrong on the keynote
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
22Tb was for the 8k raw scans not 4k and not trying to make a point other than Wow!
H.265 is not actually that great. There are better ones being developed.
I was just saying of course it's coming and already is for sport and some TV shows - But for a cost effective device it's not needed yet as not many people have a 4K tv.
I am looking forward to it. Hoping to get a 4K Philips in the new year sales.
The big question is if this new amazon Fire TV will support 4K or not. http://liliputing.com/2015/09/next-gen-amazon-fire-tv-or-stick-leaked-by-the-fcc.html
If so I'd probably get that too as I have prime and they tend to do incredible first week sales on them
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think his observation is from the "hands on" sessions which reported that it seemed to be only working with iTunes store content yesterday. However, the demo was clear that it should be working across at least the bigger-name content providers by the time it launches.
And THAT is a GREAT feature, long desired by many of us
TV fansWhat wasn't clear in the demo but is hopefully also there is if local search of our own media is also included in the results. I wish that would have shown in at least one slide. There's no money in our own media so I'm not sure it's a lock that search will incorporate it too. I look forward to in-depth reviews to get many unknowns answered.
It's interesting that many wrote off Apple TV as a hobby project for Apple and now people are expecting for an all-in one, future-proof entertainment solution for their living rooms.
Apple TV was supposed to be announced at WWDC this year, so who knows what was added between just then and now? We could have gotten even less of a project if they rushed it. They just created a huge demand for features that people want now. Once developers get a crack at it, they'll have even more demands / requested features as well, so we can expect a faster refresh rate for the Apple TV.
Apple TV was supposed to be announced at WWDC this year, so who knows what was added between just then and now? We could have gotten even less of a project if they rushed it. They just created a huge demand for features that people want now. Once developers get a crack at it, they'll have even more demands / requested features as well, so we can expect a faster refresh rate for the Apple TV.
Yes. And it would be a stupid move to do that and not offer the same type of content. Apple TV's first priority is iTunes. THEN other services.