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 Offers 8 GB of Internal Storage, 256 MB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They will at the appropriate time.
Apple will go through the roof (again, only larger) once Airplay systems(s) become intuitive/transparent. They are merely assembling the final pieces at this point.
The long-sought holy grail of living room takeover is before us ... they haven't invested what they have for this to remain a 'hobby'; they are going for a kill.
okay so what is the real visuall tour de force reason for playing a scaled up 720p to 1080P that makes it meaningful at all?
I agree there is a slight improvement of a 1080p screen view from a 1080p SOURCE (read bluray) but even then the source has to be really good (I have seen a lot of bad bluray that does not benefit from 1080p at all).
But i have no idea why a lower resolution source artificially scaled up would really result in an improved VISUAL experience. Makes no sense to me.
There are two types of people here, those that insist on arguing with numbers, and those that say, 'It's about the seeing stupid'
but for those that really think scaling up from 720 to 1080p is going to result in a OMG mind blowing experience, then you probably already have an AV receiver that does that for you automatically. I know I do. Doesn't matter what my input, it scales out to 1080p. Don't you have your ATV hooked into your surround sound system after all?
It's about what I see that matters. Not some advertising gimmick.
Absolutely. I walked into the store yesterday and got one and it wasn't much longer that I had it hooked into my AV system, connected to my itunes with sharing on, and using the remote app on my iPad to scroll through all my movies, music, and photos and stream it all to my TV from the comfort of my couch. It was amazingly simple, quick and effective and darn right elegant. That is what Apple is going for. They aren't trying to be all things to all people. They aren't trying to play nice with every format out there.
You buy into their ecosystem or don't. If you do, you get the slickest set up out there. If you don't, you get complete control. But I would stack up the apple system against any for sheer ability to just work well.
My guess is we have one more generation of these things to go for all the pieces to be there for everyone, but it's finally at the place that it will be useful for a lot of us.
What do you do for a living?
Manual factory worker?
Refuse collector
Work on a construction site?
I know it's hard for you to grasp, but most people are not tech people.
Most people have other things going on in their lives than what's the latest product out by 1 company.
Tell you what, in my 30 years of working with (over that period) 200 to 300 people. I have never even known 1 person who has ever owned an Apple computer. And I'm always the one person people know is "into" computers and over the years have talked to many people on many topics on the general "tech" subject.
Or course, if you have only known a "tech" environment at home and at work, surrounded by people who are interested in this kind of product then it's hard to grasp that the majority of people are nothing like that.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
He's not saying anything about scaling up at all. So let's try to simplify.
If this
TV had 1080p playback...Everything that is in place now would still be in place, meaning those wanting to use this as a rental device, could still choose the 720p or SD file in the iTunes store to rent. They would be downloading the exact same file size in the exact same bandwidth. Because better hardware can play lessor software to the fullest, the end result is that any 720p30fps you rent would play to it's fullest quality, every bit as good as it will play on an
TV with hardware maxed out at 720p. No changes. No bigger files. No bandwidth issues (if there's no bandwidth issues "as is" now). Etc. In short, the "720p is good enough" crowd would get every bit of the exact same experience, with nothing more forced upon them, much like you're not forced to buy only software that runs on quad-core chips, or you are not forced to use tethering in an iPhone, etc. Can we all grasp that? Slightly better hardware would deliver the exact same experience as it will be with the "as is" hardware now.For those with any 1080p content- which can come from many sources including BD & HD-DVD rips, 1080HD Camcorder home video, Vudu, YouTube, some Vodcasts, Movie Trailers, etc, this hypothetical version would also be able to play this kind of content. So these people could choose to rent 720p or SD content from the iTunes store too, AND they could also play their 1080p content. Apple gives us all the tools for creating and storing 1080p content. For example, my own desire is to take 1080HD Camcorder home movies I've been shooting since 2006 and have them available to play at full 1080 on my 1080HDTV. iMovie will let me edit and render them in 1080- no problem at all. iTunes will database those movies just like they are 720p or SD- no problem at all. They'll play in iTunes just like a 720p or SD movie- no problem at all. How can I push them from there to my 1080HDTV. There's the problem. Here's that chain...
1080HD Camcorder -> iMovie -> iTunes -> __________ -> 1080HDTV
All the links in that chain support keeping the home movies in 1080HD. What can I put in that blank? As is, the choice is to hook my computer to the HDTV, but that's a temp solution at best. A 1080p
TV is the missing link.Bandwidth-fixated people should understand that content already on your home hard drive will play on
TVs too. It doesn't use any Internet bandwidth to pump your home iTunes content to your TV- been doing that for 4 years now, with nary a single iTunes rental. We use our Apple TV like crazy- maybe as often as daily- yet we barely use any bandwidth in doing so. As a matter of fact, if I went outside and cut our Internet cable, it would have almost NO EFFECT on our primary, regular- probably daily- uses for Apple TV. Can the "but the bandwidth..." arguments be addressed any more clearly than that? So very simply, a 1080p version of
TV- would not require your Internet bandwidth to improve at all
- would not require all video content in the iTunes store be available only in 1080p
- would not require you to buy bigger hard drives to store massive files
- would not require those happy with the "720p is good enough" arguments to concede some kind of defeat, nor in any way have their vision of how this thing will serve them be impacted- everything would be exactly the same as it is with this hardware "as is"
- would not be a waste for those that can see the difference- or think they can see the difference (they would still buy something to do what they want it to do)
- would not necessarily cost any more, as evidenced by an abundance of competing boxes WITH 1080p hardware priced <$100. However, I would bet the "1080p or bust" crowd would be willing to pay more for this ONE benefit in some kind of "pro" version anyway, so the affect on the price target psychology is probably not that big of a deal to those seeking MAX HD quality (we probably paid more than the "low price target" when we bought our 1080p sets too).
TV would be an HD player that covers ALL of the HD standards instead of barely covering just a portion of ONE of the HD standards (it needs to include 720p60fps to cover the whole 720p standard). This wouldn't force all content in the iTunes store to become 1080p content, big downloads, massive files, etc. All the content in the iTunes store could still be 720p and SD. Someone with even slower internet connection- where a 720p file might be too big/slow to download- might choose the SD version to fit their situation (bandwidth). Someone else with more bandwidth- or patience- who would want to go for a 1080p download should some Studio decide to test 1080p content in the iTunes store, could still choose the file type best suited for our own situations: SD, 720p or 1080p in that test. Thus, everyone could go with whatever is best for their own needs... which seems much preferable to having Apple- or some of you- arbitrarily decide that one thing is best for all people.
For years, we've had iPods with the hardware to play lossless audio. What has it been, maybe 5+ years? Did that force all music in the iTunes store to only be available as much bigger lossless files? We had tethering built into our iphones long before it could be supported by software. We've got all kinds of hardware & software advances built into new Macs that are not yet fully exploited by available software- even Apple's own mainstream software. This is no different.
What makes no sense is that the "720p is good enough" believers still get every bit of the experience they want in either scenario, but they still want to argue against the idea of others wanting anything more, like it in some way would harm them, damage their experience, etc. It wouldn't. Had this one rolled out with 1080p playback capabilities:
- the 720p files sizes, bandwidth usage, rentals, and consumption experience would have been EXACTLY THE SAME as it will be now
- the "1080p or bust" crowd would have also found what they wanted in this device
- Apple would have sold more units to both camps, instead of just satisfying one camp
All that said, this device "as is" is great. If you've never owned an
TV, it will be a fantastic addition to your AV stack. Any one major benefit it offers is easily worth $99. I've paid much more than that for just a CD jukebox player, to just have pseudo random access to my music collection. This does all that kind of stuff soooo much better. However, I also can appreciate the desire for a video-oriented device to max out current max video standards. For 4 years I've enjoyed my TVs maxed out at 720p24fps. I was soooo hoping the 2010 edition would deliver a little more on the video side than just 6 more frames per second. I still need something to plug into the blank in that 1080 chain up above. As is, it looks like it has to be a Mini. Or I have to accept down conversions to 720p30fps at best.+1 on that. If the NFL came up with a Season Pass app, my cable would be history. No wonder the networks don't want this hockey puck to succeed - they would be doomed! (I think they are anyway...)
Slow down a second there piggie. Where did I even say that ? Again, slowly from the top, you said :
I said : "I am a general ordinary person with a mortgage that knows other general ordinary people with mortgages and kids and we read tech news".
I took exception to your "with mortgages and kids" comments. Now let's turn the tables around :
I know it's hard for you to grasp, but tech people are general ordinary people with mortgages on their homes and busy with the kids and school too.
If you wanted to say this device was known by mostly tech people, you chose the wrong way to describe it, something hard.
Turn the question around, what advantage is there to having a 720p only device ? Uh none. What are the advantages of having a 1080p device ? Uh, playing back 1080p sources at full resolution over the local network through a DAAP server, which this thing supports out of the box.
720p people would get the same device and do the same thing with a 1080p AppleTV. There is no disadvantage at all to these people. Heck, select 720p in the display resolution setting if you're so inclined.
However, people who want 1080p lose out if the device doesn't support it.
Get it ? Slowly from the top :
720p device - limited to 720p crowd
1080p device - 720p crowd is happy anyway, 1080p crowd is happy. Joy all around.
I'm detecting a pattern here. Maybe we should open up a "Reading Comprehension Tutorial" sub-forum.
You should just keep this around, looks like a lot of typing and basically ends the argument, if the "720p is good enough because Steve said so and saying otherwise means great physical pain!" crowd bothers to read it and Steve bothers to explain it to them through his gospel.
You do realize you can insert a receiver between the AppleTV and the TV that would upconvert to 1080p and it would be the same effect?
You are upconverting a 720p signal to a 1080p display.
What does it matter if the AppleTV does it or the receiver does it or the TV does it? Somewhere along the way you're doing upconversion and frankly I would much rather let the Faroujda chip in my Onkyo do it rather than let Apple try to handle it.
There's nothing wrong with a device that outputs 720p only, hell the Wii is only 480p and plenty of people are happy with it this console generation.
Edit: And since I know you're going to try to complain about I'm not addressing the needs of the rest of us that have 1080p content. This isn't about your content, this is a product designed for APPLE'S content. They designed it with you in mind to buy their movies and TV show offering off of THEIR store. Out of the box, 720p signal is fine. Even from an iPhone video camera you only get 720p, Apple doesn't care about your 1080p video camera because they don't make one.
No, it wouldn't. While it would work for streaming from the Internet, it wouldn't work for people who want 1080p :
iTunes -> 1080p -> AppleTV -> 720p -> upconverter -> 1080p -> TV
That's broken right there. And that is what people who want 1080p are looking to get, a full 1080p chain :
iTunes -> 1080p -> AppleTV -> 1080p -> TV
This wouldn't break the Internet rentals from the iTunes store at all and it wouldn't require downscaling of 1080p content to 720p anywhere in the chain.
Man some people are just dense here. AppleTV supports streaming of your local media using DAAP, from iTunes. If your local media is 1080p, you are having to downscale it and not watching it full quality. Yes, I know resolution is only one aspect, bitrate blah blah blah, compression blah blah blah. The fact remains, iTunes can stream 1080p media from your local drive, AppleTV can't display it. And if it could, it would not require everything else streamed to it to be in 1080p.
He's not saying anything about scaling up at all. So let's try to simplify.
If this
Everything that is in place now would still be in place, meaning those wanting to use this as a rental device, could still choose the 720p or SD file in the iTunes store to rent. They would be downloading the exact same file size in the exact same bandwidth. Because better hardware can play lessor software to the fullest, the end result is that any 720p30fps you rent would play to it's fullest quality, every bit as good as it will play on an
For those with any 1080p content- which can come from many sources including BD & HD-DVD rips, 1080HD Camcorder home video, Vudu, YouTube, some Vodcasts, Movie Trailers, etc, this hypothetical version would also be able to play this kind of content. So these people could choose to rent 720p or SD content from the iTunes store too, AND they could also play their 1080p content. Apple gives us all the tools for creating and storing 1080p content. For example, my own desire is to take 1080HD Camcorder home movies I've been shooting since 2006 and have them available to play at full 1080 on my 1080HDTV. iMovie will let me edit and render them in 1080- no problem at all. iTunes will database those movies just like they are 720p or SD- no problem at all. They'll play in iTunes just like a 720p or SD movie- no problem at all. How can I push them from there to my 1080HDTV. There's the problem. Here's that chain...
1080HD Camcorder -> iMovie -> iTunes -> __________ -> 1080HDTV
All the links in that chain support keeping the home movies in 1080HD. What can I put in that blank? As is, the choice is to hook my computer to the HDTV, but that's a temp solution at best. A 1080p
Bandwidth-fixated people should understand that content already on your home hard drive will play on
So very simply, a 1080p version of
In a nutshell, a 1080p
- would not require your Internet bandwidth to improve at all
- would not require all video content in the iTunes store be available only in 1080p
- would not require you to buy bigger hard drives to store massive files
- would not require those happy with the "720p is good enough" arguments to concede some kind of defeat, nor in any way have their vision of how this thing will serve them be impacted- everything would be exactly the same as it is with this hardware "as is"
- would not be a waste for those that can see the difference- or think they can see the difference (they would still buy something to do what they want it to do)
- would not necessarily cost any more, as evidenced by an abundance of competing boxes WITH 1080p hardware priced <$100. However, I would bet the "1080p or bust" crowd would be willing to pay more for this ONE benefit in some kind of "pro" version anyway, so the affect on the price target psychology is probably not that big of a deal to those seeking MAX HD quality (we probably paid more than the "low price target" when we bought our 1080p sets too).
This wouldn't force all content in the iTunes store to become 1080p content, big downloads, massive files, etc. All the content in the iTunes store could still be 720p and SD. Someone with even slower internet connection- where a 720p file might be too big/slow to download- might choose the SD version to fit their situation (bandwidth). Someone else with more bandwidth- or patience- who would want to go for a 1080p download should some Studio decide to test 1080p content in the iTunes store, could still choose the file type best suited for our own situations: SD, 720p or 1080p in that test. Thus, everyone could go with whatever is best for their own needs... which seems much preferable to having Apple- or some of you- arbitrarily decide that one thing is best for all people.
For years, we've had iPods with the hardware to play lossless audio. What has it been, maybe 5+ years? Did that force all music in the iTunes store to only be available as much bigger lossless files? We had tethering built into our iphones long before it could be supported by software. We've got all kinds of hardware & software advances built into new Macs that are not yet fully exploited by available software. This is no different.
What makes no sense is that the "720p is good enough" believers still get every bit of the experience they want in either scenario, but they still want to argue against the idea of others wanting anything more, like it in some way would harm them, damage their experience, etc. It wouldn't. Had this one rolled out with 1080p playback capabilities:
Who loses in this scenario? Who gets hurt? Nobody. It's win:win:win for all 3 parties. Yet, there's this crowd who seems to only see things exactly as Apple chooses to serve them, so anything else- including INDIVIDUAL WANTS- can't possibly make any sense. That's sad.
- the 720p files sizes, bandwidth usage, rentals, and consumption experience would have been EXACTLY THE SAME as it will be now
- the "1080p or bust" crowd would have also found what they wanted in this device
- Apple would have sold more units to both camps, instead of just satisfying one camp
All that said, this device "as is" is great. If you've never owned an
I understand where you are coming from. But there are a couple of things you need to keep in mind.
1) The resolution is fixed on the output once selected. So if your TV is set to 1080p, that works for your HD camcorder rendered movies but could affect the quality of the 720p movies. Those would have to be scaled to the 1080p output. Those other cheap $100 players don't have the best scalers. Thus the quality suffers. A good scaling chip is going to cost something.
2) Your use and reasoning is probably the minority. So again does Apple put a device out to cater to the select few and thus cost more for everyone else to ensure good quality upscaling?
3) Your senario is really the only one, as of today, that can take advantage of any 1080p. The only content that can be played is apple converted video until there is an app store and you can download VLC or other media players, the use is small. I would also say the number of people ripping blueray is also small due to the huge amount of disk space required, not to mention the amount of time it takes to rip and convert.
4) The device's hardware should be capable of playing 1080p. Thus, its possible that this could be added a software update in the future to allow 1080p on the output.
. There is always hope. I think we need to see what direction this is going. App store no app store. etc. I think Apple is awaiting the release of Google TV. After that they will start making announcements of what this device can really do.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's right Knightwrx. He may be confused though about the idea of up-conversion. He may think that a 720p file unconverted to a 1080p file is the same as a 1080p file. I know some people think that an up-converting DVD player is turning their DVD's into 1080p video. So just in case there is confusion there...
A 1080p display with 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels needs to be fed a 1080p source if someone wants the video to actually spec out the specific color of each of those pixels. More simply, a 1080p source video maximizes a 1080p display.
A 720p video with 1280 x 720 pixels can be up-converted for a 1080p display. But how it does that is by inventing the missing pixels. Sure, that can look pretty good too, but obviously that's not as good as letting the video drive the pixel colors.
A DVD or VHS source, or even old 320 x 200 computer video can also be upscaled to a 1080p display. In those cases, even more pixels have to be invented to fill the big display.
The point is that the best scenario for quality-oriented fans is to match source to display. If you have a 1080p HDTV, a 1080p video source is likely to yield the very best quality picture on that HDTV. Anything less has to invent pixels that don't exist in the source.
Sure, other factors like compression comes into play, but just because Apple has chosen a compression level for one file type doesn't automatically mean it would have to be applied to all other types. Those of us who desired a end-to-end 1080p chain very obviously care about the quality of our video. Thus, if we were ripping our BD or HD-DVDs, or working with 1080HD Camcorder footage, we would probably choose very high quality & lower compression settings to preserve as much of the picture quality as possible.
For those that care about this stuff, up-conversion is a poor compromise, much like shooting important digital photos at low resolutions and then scaling them up much bigger than native quality. Is up-conversion better than nothing? Well of course. In my own case, I have old SD home videos in my iTunes- and thusTV library- being upconverted for my HDTV. They don't look that great though because they lack the detail to match the display.
I wish I could go back in time and give myself a modern HD Camcorder to re-shoot all that video. But I can't. For 4 years now, I've been shooting 1080HD video that I'd like to fully display on my HDTV. Apple gives us all the tools to do that in software that comes with every Mac. We just need some piece of hardware to make that final connection from iTunes to our 1080HDTVs. I had hoped that this thing would be it.
A 1080p display with 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels needs to be fed a 1080p source if someone wants the video to actually spec out the specific color of each of those pixels. More simply, a 1080p source video maximizes a 1080p display.
A 720p video with 1280 x 720 pixels can be up-converted for a 1080p display. But how it does that is by inventing the missing pixels. Sure, that can look pretty good too, but obviously that's not as good as letting the video drive the pixel colors.
A DVD or VHS source, or even old 320 x 200 computer video can also be upscaled to a 1080p display. In those cases, even more pixels have to be invented to fill the big display.
The point is that the best scenario for quality-oriented fans is to match source to display. If you have a 1080p HDTV, a 1080p video source is likely to yield the very best quality picture on that HDTV. Anything less has to invent pixels that don't exist in the source.
Sure, other factors like compression comes into play, but just because Apple has chosen a compression level for one file type doesn't automatically mean it would have to be applied to all other types. Those of us who desired a end-to-end 1080p chain very obviously care about the quality of our video. Thus, if we were ripping our BD or HD-DVDs, or working with 1080HD Camcorder footage, we would probably choose very high quality & lower compression settings to preserve as much of the picture quality as possible.
For those that care about this stuff, up-conversion is a poor compromise, much like shooting important digital photos at low resolutions and then scaling them up much bigger than native quality. Is up-conversion better than nothing? Well of course. In my own case, I have old SD home videos in my iTunes- and thus
TV library- being upconverted for my HDTV. They don't look that great though because they lack the detail to match the display. I wish I could go back in time and give myself a modern HD Camcorder to re-shoot all that video. But I can't. For 4 years now, I've been shooting 1080HD video that I'd like to fully display on my HDTV. Apple gives us all the tools to do that in software that comes with every Mac. We just need some piece of hardware to make that final connection from iTunes to our 1080HDTVs. I had hoped that this thing would be it.
New Apple TV Does Handle 1080P
Hey guys, sorry to interrupt your endless back and forth about 720p vs 1080p but yes the Apple TV does appear to handle 1080p content on your computer. I started a new thread about it here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1023131/
Now the Apple haters can argue about why it doesn't handle up to Blu Ray bitrates. lol.
(Not saying anyone wanting 1080p is an Apple hater, but that since it does appear to play 1080p, some who are just Apple haters will start pushing this ridiculous meme now.) Have fun.
Hey guys, sorry to interrupt your endless back and forth about 720p vs 1080p but yes the Apple TV does appear to handle 1080p content on your computer. I started a new thread about it here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1023131/
Now the Apple haters can argue about why it doesn't handle up to Blu Ray bitrates. lol.
(Not saying anyone wanting 1080p is an Apple hater, but that since it does appear to play 1080p, some who are just Apple haters will start pushing this ridiculous meme now.) Have fun.
I agree to a point. As far as content delivery I don't think 720p is a limitation. The problem is user created content (which Apple helps us create!) is moving more and more towards 1080p. Having to have two version of my own videos is pain and waste of space--not to mention Apple doesn't give up a free/reliable way of converting that. Luckily I have compressor so I *can* but again, its a pain. I could see people really, really getting into this editing AVC footage in iMovie and playing back their edits as they go streaming to their Apple TVs--I know I would--but more and more recorders are jumping straight to 1080p.
My other question is will the Apple TV recognize content delivered from an open-source DAAP server?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
As is often argued by the "720p is good enough" crowd, because some broadcast and some cable use 720p instead of 1080i, this "problem" must be dealt with anyway (Apple needs not be involved). Where is it most easily dealt with? In the HDTV, which has the circuitry built in to deal with just about whatever resolution you feed it, including DVD, VHS or less.
Sure, someone could buy an expensive upscaler that might do a better job than the circuits built into the TV. But, I would guess that since EVERYONE with a 1080p HDTV already deals with a mix of SD, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p video feeds, this is not a big deal at all to almost anyone.
That's addressed within my post. There are plenty of competing set-top boxes- some with even more "meat" built in- that cost < $100. It does not have to automatically cost more than $100 for a 1080p chipset. And it would not have to come with upscaling circuitry at all (someone else posted that it doesn't have any in it, but I take that post as unconfirmed).
You can say whatever you want on behalf of the people. That doesn't change anything. I shared lots of legal sources of 1080p content, and yes, my own most desired application may indeed be the best match for now. But that doesn't change anything either. We still don't have lossless audio for sale/rental in the iTunes store. Was Apple stupid for building in lossless playback hardware in iPods all these years? We've only recently got tethering capabilities in iPhones. Was Apple stupid for building that into iPhones? We just got new Quad Core iMacs and 6-core Mac Pros, yet there's hardly any software to fully take advantage of that (better) hardware; was Apple stupid for building in better hardware to capitalize on software that might eventually tax it? Hardly any people have Quads and 6-core Macs, so apparently that was a hardware overkill mistake?
If we go with the "number of people" arguments, since 0% of iPad owners use facetime now, it's obviously a stupid move to build facetime into the next gen version. Since 0% of iPhone owners use LTE for 4G networks now, it's obviously stupid to build such hardware into the next gen version. Etc.
The point is that the hardware ALWAYS leads the software.
TV is the hardware and the video files are the software. It makes no sense to have 1080p video software for TVs in the iTunes store if there are not TVs capable of playing it. But it makes lots of sense- just like pretty much every other hardware advance offered by Apple and everyone else- to advance the hardware so that the software can "catch up". We'll have to have 1080pTVs before we can have 1080p content available for rent/purchase on TVs. It makes no sense the other way.Do you know this for certain, because it's the one thing you've said that I really like... and fully appreciate? I could stand by for a while on reliable hope (that's more than a guess). In the iFixit breakdown, I didn't see the (hoped for) graphics coprocessor capable of 1080p. I took that to mean it would have to be baked into the remaining circuitry if it would be there at all. I've seen lots of people say the A4 can't output 1080 and a few people say that it can. Does anyone know for certain?4) The device's hardware should be capable of playing 1080p. Thus, its possible that this could be added a software update in the future to allow 1080p on the output.
As was mentioned already, supporting 1080p even if the store only sells 720p would be a plus. Makes the devices future proof if the store ever gets upgraded to 1080p. But for me more importantly my home videos are now in 1080p, also photos will look much better on a 1080p tv with a 1080 signal.
No suprise here. If people actually thought that content streaming from an iPad or iPhone was unbuffered, I think they just got a wakeup call. I would be curious to see how streaming from iPad and iPhone work exactly. My assumption is that it is similar to how it works when you start a download from iTunes Music Store, and start playing the video while the download is still occuring in the background.
In that case, you are actually watching the video off of your disk, as the file is continually being added to (in the background). I believe that theTV works the same in this regard, when you stream from an iPad or iPhone. That being, you are actually copying (or pushing) the video file over to the TV, it plays from flash memory, and when you are done (or switch videos) the file is flushed from the system.
In that case, you are actually watching the video off of your disk, as the file is continually being added to (in the background). I believe that the
TV works the same in this regard, when you stream from an iPad or iPhone. That being, you are actually copying (or pushing) the video file over to the TV, it plays from flash memory, and when you are done (or switch videos) the file is flushed from the system.
My PS3, my Blu-ray player, all my TV connected devices, have a selection for screen resolution. These things are not "fixed on the output" once selected.
Another thing this argument ignores is LCD technology. A 1080p television set already needs to upscale because running the LCD at lower than its native resolution will make the quality suffer. Try it with your monitor. So again, big non-issue that doesn't impact the 720p crowd with their 720p TV set.
It's not a $99 thin iOS though, it's closer to a $200-240 thin client once you add the price of the Trackpad and a bluetooth Keyboard.
Would rather just use my iPad. Custom interfaces are great. Of course you could argue that adds another $500 to the cost of the setup, except I use the iPad everywhere else too.
Capability of using my iPhone for it as well is great. I'll buy a dock for the end table in our living room and we'll hang on to my wife's iPod Touch as a remote for it. Hell, I might buy one of those universal remote devices for it as well. Shame too since I just got a harmony remote last year.
No suprise here. If people actually thought that content streaming from an iPad or iPhone was unbuffered, I think they just got a wakeup call. I would be curious to see how streaming from iPad and iPhone work exactly. My assumption is that it is similar to how it works when you start a download from iTunes Music Store, and start playing the video while the download is still occuring in the background.
In that case, you are actually watching the video off of your disk, as the file is continually being added to (in the background). I believe that the
You just described buffering...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In our household, THAT and DVD-rips battle for the bulk of our use of our
TV (neither of which uses a bit of our Internet bandwidth, since it's all already here at our home). We love the quick & easy access to the lots of precious (to us) home movies accumulated over our lifetimes. We've even had old silent 8mm film from the 1970's and older converted, giving us a window to long-gone relatives & other loved ones (and our own younger years all the way into childhoods). It's a total joy to have immediate, on demand access to that kind of stuff- no digging out some 8mm projector or trying to find a working VCR anymore, etc. It's just there, as ready to play as an iTunes song or podcast.Since 2006, everything we shoot is 1080HD. It looks spectacular when we hook the camcorder directly to the 1080HD and play it back in native 1080. It can still look quite good down-converted to 720p or 960 x 540, but very obviously not as good as native.
We long for this last link in the chain to be realized. I had hoped that Apple would fill that hole this time. After all it's been 4 long years since we had a 720p24fps
TV. I was expecting more than just 6 more frames per second in the 2010 version.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
What are you using to push those 1080p videos to your HDTV? I'm looking for the best solution myself.
And I told you, there is ZERO content in Apple's product catalog that is 1080p. If you have 1080p content, you got it somewhere else. They are not interested in YOUR content being displayed, only that this device displays their content without a hiccup. It would require the Apple hardware to do the upscaling when it's much better from Apple's standpoint to allow the external device (receiver or TV) deal with the upscale, and I prefer that.
The "dense" comment could just as easily be applied to you here and is unnecessary in discussion.