Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yet. And the specific app isn't the point, the point is more pixels = more RAM consumed = less room for application data.

But how much room for application data is needed? The iPad runs into problems specifically because Safari can require a lot. I think it's too early to say that 256 MB of ram is not enough on a platform that is running completely different apps than the iPad.
 
It must function as a LIFO buffer. Last in, first out. Whatever space is leftover after the OS (and presumably future apps) is used to buffer video, not only to avoid drop outs but also so you can scrub back if needed. Then, as you stream the next video, and the next, and the next, the earlier ones in the buffer simply get overwritten.

Which raises a question - with rentals, can you scrub back? How far and for how long? As much as you like within the 24 hour viewing period?
 
Personally, I am surprised that it's that much. It has to have some, but this amount indicates much bigger plans in my opinion. Apps will definitely come to the TV. No doubt about it now.

The iPad/iPhone will act as a great controller for said apps or perhaps the included remote. I didn't order mine early enough so I won't get mine for a couple of weeks.

I think that Apple's got a winner this time around and these will really sell.
 
I don't think where will be loads of apps avail for the AppleTV. Maybe hulu and some video streaming applications... but nothing like the iphone or ipads... The input devices are not there. You know what would make great input devices? iPad/iPhone/iPod's...

I believe eventually you will be able to PUSH games or content from your iPad/iPhone/iPod to your TV.


You can buy a game for your iPad, and play it on your TV.

The only apps that will be avail for the TV will be content consumption apps. And they will mostly get their content from the cloud.
 
That's great news I believe.
Hopefully the folks at Firecore can come up with a solution like ATVFlash for the new ATV.
I just want the option to add an external hard drive to ATV USB port. I want my media locally without my Mac on.
 
5.95 Watts!!

The only power source capable of generating 5.95 watts of electricity is a bolt of static!

Run for it Marty!:D
 
iPad > Apple TV > iPhone > iPod Touch

instead of

iPod Touch = Apple TV = iPad < iPhone

Apple has not Spec'd the RAM to go with the functionality of these devices..... :confused:

The Apple TV won't be doing much multitasking, so > 256 is probably a waste at this point. Not that I'd mind it - but now we're talking about a $99 device... im sure every penny counts in a gadget that "cheap".

There probably won't be regular web browsing, or email constantly downloading new messages, or push notifications, etc... A lot of processes don't need to run on the Apple TV at all and probably never will.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

And it costs less than the 8 GB iPod Nano but can play video................

Weird.

But then you don't have to carry a TV with you all the time. :D
 
8 GB is not much (at all) for apps.

It's a ton of space for apps- most apps for iOS are only a few megabytes, if that. The only thing that takes a ton of space are GPS/Nav apps and large games apps because of the audio and video content they contain. Even then, you could still fit quite a few and even a "whopper" or two with 8 GB.

And of course you could always swap less used apps in and out since the Apple TV is always going to be home anyway and connected to your LAN.
 
8 GB?

That's wierd. Unless...

HELLO APPLE TV APPS!

Well they do need storage to put the OS on...maybe the Apple TV will bring patching to the iOS platform, so no more downloading of the entire OS in iTunes, just upgrade on your device!

I can only dream..:D
 
8 GB Storage

I'm guessing that the 8 GB of storage is probably due to the fact that Apple has huge bulk deals for 8GB chips for the iPods/iPhones/iPads and they've already done the engineering so it's just makes things easier.

Also, they need to have a certain amount of storage to hold the OS and for buffering video so the fact that it has internal storage shouldn't be a surprise at all...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

And it costs less than the 8 GB iPod Nano but can play video................

Weird.


Your analogy is weird.
 
Really? Do you have like 3 Apps or something?

My iPhone has quite a few Apps on it and uses about 10+ GB of the memory.

I have 118 Apps installed on my iPhone. You must be storing files within your apps or counting space consumed by music in that total.
 
It has bluetooth.

I picked up on his as well...

The remote from the iPhone and iPad work over WiFi so why would you need Bluetooth on the device.

Interesting teardown and it's amazing how little components there is to make this device work. We really are making breakthroughs in modern technology.
 
Exactly the responses I was expecting from this thread. Users that are convinced that it needs more RAM, despite the fact that it can do the job just fine....and others that want more storage even though you only currently need to store the OS on the device.

Don't mind me, I'm just bitter that I can't buy the bloody thing in the Netherlands. ;)
 
Hmmmm...very interesting

The average "HD" movie is less than 2 GB. But Apple is streaming most of this.

My guess is apple stores no more than 100MB per movie or TV show on the device to ensure buffering and playback quality. The fact that is it able to play in seconds of hitting the buy/rent button supports this.

Therefore there could be several gigs of app space left over even with as many as 30 movies and videos rented and ready for viewing.
 
Yet. And the specific app isn't the point, the point is more pixels = more RAM consumed = less room for application data.

Word on the street is that Safari on iPad is "fixed" in 4.2, you can do roughly 6-7 tabs of normal (Engadget articles) at a time without issue. Apparently it wasn't a RAM issue as much as a Safari design problem.

So far the A4 is driving displays roughly the same resolution:
iPad:1024x768, 786,432 pixels
iPhone/iPod Touch: 960x640, 614,400 pixels
aTV: 1280x720: 921,600 pixels

Should be plenty of RAM to run TV Apps/Widgets
 
Don't forget that iPad apps are generally larger in size than iPhone / iPod Touch apps.

The larger screen real estate is going to generate some big apps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.