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 to Start at $149, Feature Universal Search With Siri
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The fake 4K displays? That doesn't even make sense? Have you truly seen a 4K display up close? I'm not talking about walking by one at Best Buy. I am a current owner of an HD website, along with some of the best Plasma's ever made (Pioneer Kuro Elite, Panny VT series, etc.) I never thought I'd ever say this, but those displays cannot even come close to my new Sony 70" 4K. Not even close. And I'm not just talking about 4K content vs. 1080P content. I'm talking about comparing the exact same Blu Ray video played on all displays. The up scaling is incredible. Watching a Blu Ray movie on my Sony is like watching HD for the very first time. And watching a true 4K movie is absolutely beautiful/spectacular. Jaw dropping. Now are the black levels the same? No. But I'll take a small hit on black levels, for the picture quality on a 4K display. 4K displays these days are not that expensive, are getting cheaper by the day, & more and more people are buying them. And just wait till OLED 4K displays get cheaper.
So, though I'm in the minority now when it comes to 4K, I will be EXTREMELY disappointed if the new AppleTV isn't 4K. (which we all know won't be)
Last edited:
Completely agree. I'm not a big fan of Comcast (I personally think they are the spawn of Satan), but I recently moved and had no choice but to get their service. Though there has been a few issues with the X1 system, I'll go on record saying It's pretty damn good. Menu/Search function is awesome & very intuitive. I use the voice function for searching for movies and channels and it works almost perfectly. (Never thought I'd ever use those words when talking about Comcast/Xfinity.)
"Universal search feature will reportedly be a "cornerstone" of the new Apple TV, allowing users to, for example, search for one movie across services like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and iTunes, among others."
Is this for real?
Apple tv is going allow the Amazon Prime Video app!?!
Is this for real?
Apple tv is going allow the Amazon Prime Video app!?!
This has been debated on the 13 previous pages, but in the end nobody knows for certain if this is an Amazon or Apple decision today and if MacRumors made a mistake or if it is really coming.
True for many however, I order seasons, movies, and single episodes that are not on Prime. Paying for a new release a bit of a hassle. My point.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
8-16GB thats itperhaps waiting for version 2 oh the agony
Even an 8GB
TV has potentially unlimited* storage. It's not an iDevice where on-board storage actually matters. It plays one video/show/(and soon) app at a time. It's always tethered to a computer such that it can tap up to unlimited* local storage for videos/shows/apps. In this way, the existing TVs already have many times more storage than even 128GB iDevices.We don't need huge on-board storage. Apple could never guess an ideal amount of storage to build in (see the first generation
TV). What would be ideal IMO would be normalizing the USB port so that those who want bigger local storage with "cord cutting" to the computer running iTunes could simply add whatever amount of storage they want. AND/OR update the software so that it can tap into storage via NAS.Again, this is not like an iDevice. It is NOT mobile. It is stationary and always connected to relatively huge storage somewhere else in the house. It only needs enough local storage to que up what is to be seen next in that video/show/app with enough horsepower to stream more data as needed based on the flow of whatever it is displaying on a TV screen now.
Anyone who was around for the first generation should remember the gripes about the limitations of 40GB and 160GB drives as being "not enough". Why will 64GB or 128GB be any different in the fourth generation? I certainly loved local storage back in the first generation but I think the best way to revive that good feature is to normalize the USB port and/or add NAS support so that those hungry for local storage can add whatever they want.
Only pockets of us will be happy with 16GB to even 128GB of on-board storage.
Even an 8GB
We don't need huge on-board storage. Apple could never guess an ideal amount of storage to build in (see the first generation
Again, this is not like an iDevice. It is NOT mobile. It is stationary and always connected to relatively huge storage somewhere else in the house. It only needs enough local storage to que up what is to be seen next in that video/show/app with enough horsepower to stream more data as needed based on the flow of whatever it is displaying on a TV screen now.
Anyone who was around for the first generation should remember the gripes about the limitations of 40GB and 160GB drives as being "not enough". Why will 64GB or 128GB be any different in the fourth generation? I certainly loved local storage back in the first generation but I think the best way to revive that good feature is to normalize the USB port and/or add NAS support so that those hungry for local storage can add whatever they want.
Only pockets of us will be happy with 16GB to even 128GB of on-board storage.
I suppose that all depends on how well the App Store matures, especially with gaming. There are plenty of games > 1GB in size which makes the 8Gb a questionable purchase. If you are only interested in streaming then the current Apple TV will work for many people although that with a limited app store for native client apps like Plex could be the ideal for many.
You seem to have good knowledge on this subject. My understanding about 4k, does not actually steam like HD does. Requires a good deal of buffer storage, some cases the whole video needs to download before viewing. Thus, more on board storage. Correct or not?Even an 8GB
We don't need huge on-board storage. Apple could never guess an ideal amount of storage to build in (see the first generation
Again, this is not like an iDevice. It is NOT mobile. It is stationary and always connected to relatively huge storage somewhere else in the house. It only needs enough local storage to que up what is to be seen next in that video/show/app with enough horsepower to stream more data as needed based on the flow of whatever it is displaying on a TV screen now.
Anyone who was around for the first generation should remember the gripes about the limitations of 40GB and 160GB drives as being "not enough". Why will 64GB or 128GB be any different in the fourth generation? I certainly loved local storage back in the first generation but I think the best way to revive that good feature is to normalize the USB port and/or add NAS support so that those hungry for local storage can add whatever they want.
Only pockets of us will be happy with 16GB to even 128GB of on-board storage.
Even an 8GB
We don't need huge on-board storage. Apple could never guess an ideal amount of storage to build in (see the first generation
Again, this is not like an iDevice. It is NOT mobile. It is stationary and always connected to relatively huge storage somewhere else in the house. It only needs enough local storage to que up what is to be seen next in that video/show/app with enough horsepower to stream more data as needed based on the flow of whatever it is displaying on a TV screen now.
Anyone who was around for the first generation should remember the gripes about the limitations of 40GB and 160GB drives as being "not enough". Why will 64GB or 128GB be any different in the fourth generation? I certainly loved local storage back in the first generation but I think the best way to revive that good feature is to normalize the USB port and/or add NAS support so that those hungry for local storage can add whatever they want.
Only pockets of us will be happy with 16GB to even 128GB of on-board storage.
what are you ranting about I'm planning/hoping it will have apps in that case it will need storage and not its not always tethered to a computer like the first ATV required
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Last I heard/saw, while there are a number of games > 1GB, there were none > 2GB. But even if that limit was jacked up for 4GB (as, I think, Apple still sells iDevices with only 8GB), if the functional portion of the app would fit in <4GB, we could have apps tapping into huge data stored on the hard drive elsewhere in the house (much like a whole HD movie may not download into local memory, only the chunk to be played now and for the next while. The rest can be called upon to stream over when it's going to be needed).
In game terms, if each level of a very complex game has a lot of unique data, each level could stream over as you get near earning your way to that next level. This way it would seem like a 50GB game is all locally stored when- in fact- most of the data is streaming over shortly before it is needed.
If you think about iOS gaming now, all of the action happens NOT in up to 128GB of local storage but in the up to 2GB RAM. Playing a big iOS game is switching data in and out of that RAM as needed. That big game would run just the same on a 64GB, 32GB, 16GB or even 8GB iDevice too. The above is almost the same concept. The big
TV game makes calls for game data it's going to need and TV streams that over ahead of when it's actually needed... much like its all in local storage but TV's "local storage" is actually in 2 places instead of one. Why? Because TV is not a MOBILE device where it needs big local storage so that the library of apps can actually go out and about with us. Instead, it's always tethered to massive storage. But again, last I heard/saw, the hard cap on app sizes is 2GB. That may not still be the case but someone else can chime in to know for sure. I'll be very surprised if there is ANY iOS app that is >4GB.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I haven't seen or heard that. Conceptually, a video buffer only needs to be big enough so that a device can stream over what is still to be watched fast enough to not "hiccup" (or pause). As such, I'm doubting the suggestion.
BUT, if that was true, then storage would probably have to be several times the current amount. Looking at BD file sizes, some HD movies can be >20GB. 4K versions of the same movies would likely need a pretty good amount of additional space. The desire for 16GB or even 32GB would probably not be enough if that supposition is true.
If I was guessing about what you heard/read, I'd guess that that might be more about RAM instead of local storage. In other words, 4K is probably h.265 instead of h.264 and probably needs more CPU and RAM to be converted smoothly from compressed data to video. That makes great sense to me based on my knowledge of this topic. Upgrading to the rumored A8 may cover the horsepower part. RAM is TBD.
I know some of our desires for unique games >iDevice quality would also likely benefit from more CPU horsepower and RAM. So hopefully we get that for the gamers too.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No it won't. It can "hold" MORE apps than any iDevice now. It's storage is split between working memory (built in) and the hard drives attached to a computer somewhere else in the house. As such,
TV3 can access storage of many TBs of data as it does for those with bigger movie collections. Apps can be stored in the very same way... streamed over on demand to play one at a time in on-board memory (just like movies).We keep thinking of
TV like it's an iDevice... that it needs more local storage to hold a collection of apps. But TV is different than all other iDevices. It is NOT mobile and it shares it's storage between what is on-board and whatever amount of storage is attached to it's host computer. We don't need 64GB or 128GB TV on-board storage because we want it to have apps. We only need enough on-board storage to run any one app we want to run well. The hard drive(s) elsewhere in the home could hold upwards of ALL iOS apps if one wants to have hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of apps available to their TV.Now, your desire for untethered is one that I share. But Apple could not possibly pick a size of internal storage and make everyone happy. How much storage is perfect for you? I guarantee whatever you answer will not match what I would consider perfect. And others interested in the same will have different answers than you or me. That's exactly how it was in the first generation. Apple could not pick a local storage size that fit everyone's wants.
To get what we want (a return to an untethered
TV) is- IMO- best addressed by normalizing the USB port and/or adding in NAS-supporting software. Those of us who want "untethered" can then add whatever amount of storage we want. Those happy with streaming won't be grappling with paying for local storage they don't want.
Last edited:
It all comes down to Apple and their draconian App Store rules and whether or not Kodi would be rejected under those rules. Given it does things like run its own hack version of Airplay and what not, I kind of think they would either have to offer a stripped down version at best. They simply may not want to bother to even try and meet Apple's requirements to be on the App Store.
I don't know who this "some" is. Do you live in some 3rd world country? Everyone I know has had at least one HDTV for 8-10 years now. I had my first HDTV in 1999 (16 years ago). In other words, just because you are living in the stone age and think 480p or 720p is good enough and that 1080p is absolutely AMAZING, that doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees. Besides, Apple already has a 1080p model. An App Store alone is not really enough to justify higher prices. They could have offered an App Store for the current model. And while you seem to think that the chips in this thing aren't that great, I think some iPhone owners would disagree.
More to the point, the chips in question already are capable of 4K video playback (even on the iPhone if there were a use for it there), so NOT supporting it would be little more than Apple trying to sell you something else in a couple of years. Worse yet, it signals once again that Apple has become a follower rather than a leader. It plays catch up with others rather than be first with the new technology. It signals that Apple is no longer an innovator but merely an overpriced status item like in the days before Steve Jobs returned to bring VALUE back to the brand name. Apple in the 90s was a status item and that's it. That nearly ran Apple into the ground. Given the recent stock plunge, I think there are some others out there wondering if Apple's best days are now behind it. Without innovation and leadership, Apple might as well just be Rolex, only without the best quality parts.
Since when has Apple been about the LOW-END in the past 15 years?
Actually, Crysis (as in the original) would be simple to run on it and that's because Crysis came out EIGHT FLIPPING YEARS AGO DUDE!!!
Besides, as I was saying before, the type of controller is important regardless of whether you're running Pinball Arcade (that would run just fine on it, thank you very much) or some third person shooter. A remote control simply won't cut it. PERIOD
I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't recall suggesting it ever would be, only that a remote control is no substitute for a good joystick or controller.
I don't know about others (I haven't read the entire thread, but I talked about playing 4K VIDEO (i.e. Movies and/or Videos) not 4K games. First and foremost, AppleTV is supposed to be about VIDEO (Movies, TV Shows, etc.) and the fact there is already 4K streaming out there (Netflix) means that Apple either needs to jump out there as the BEST or they might as well hang it up because there are plenty of imitators out there selling 1080p for less (even Apple's own previous model). If Apple wants to control this market, they need to be the BEST and that means staying ahead of the curve, not dropping behind it.
Don't be absurd. There's nothing wrong with reasonable amounts of compression. Only the snobbiest of the snobs think they need to have "uncompressed" HDTV for it to be viewable. UltraHD is NO DIFFERENT. Don't lie to yourself, Blu-Ray is NOT UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO.
It all comes down to Apple and their draconian App Store rules and whether or not Kodi would be rejected under those rules. Given it does things like run its own hack version of Airplay and what not, I kind of think they would either have to offer a stripped down version at best. They simply may not want to bother to even try and meet Apple's requirements to be on the App Store.
I don't know who this "some" is. Do you live in some 3rd world country? Everyone I know has had at least one HDTV for 8-10 years now. I had my first HDTV in 1999 (16 years ago). In other words, just because you are living in the stone age and think 480p or 720p is good enough and that 1080p is absolutely AMAZING, that doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees. Besides, Apple already has a 1080p model. An App Store alone is not really enough to justify higher prices. They could have offered an App Store for the current model. And while you seem to think that the chips in this thing aren't that great, I think some iPhone owners would disagree.
More to the point, the chips in question already are capable of 4K video playback (even on the iPhone if there were a use for it there), so NOT supporting it would be little more than Apple trying to sell you something else in a couple of years. Worse yet, it signals once again that Apple has become a follower rather than a leader. It plays catch up with others rather than be first with the new technology. It signals that Apple is no longer an innovator but merely an overpriced status item like in the days before Steve Jobs returned to bring VALUE back to the brand name. Apple in the 90s was a status item and that's it. That nearly ran Apple into the ground. Given the recent stock plunge, I think there are some others out there wondering if Apple's best days are now behind it. Without innovation and leadership, Apple might as well just be Rolex, only without the best quality parts.
Since when has Apple been about the LOW-END in the past 15 years?
Actually, Crysis (as in the original) would be simple to run on it and that's because Crysis came out EIGHT FLIPPING YEARS AGO DUDE!!!
Besides, as I was saying before, the type of controller is important regardless of whether you're running Pinball Arcade (that would run just fine on it, thank you very much) or some third person shooter. A remote control simply won't cut it. PERIOD
I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't recall suggesting it ever would be, only that a remote control is no substitute for a good joystick or controller.
I don't know about others (I haven't read the entire thread, but I talked about playing 4K VIDEO (i.e. Movies and/or Videos) not 4K games. First and foremost, AppleTV is supposed to be about VIDEO (Movies, TV Shows, etc.) and the fact there is already 4K streaming out there (Netflix) means that Apple either needs to jump out there as the BEST or they might as well hang it up because there are plenty of imitators out there selling 1080p for less (even Apple's own previous model). If Apple wants to control this market, they need to be the BEST and that means staying ahead of the curve, not dropping behind it.
Don't you think Kodi will have a hard time because it's open source and especially with add ons, there's very little control over how something might break the functionality of the TV? No one is accountable for Kodi. There's almost no quality control testing other than the general public complaints. Someone could easily create an add-on that could infect everything on someone's TV. At least Plex has a developer in charge and that's probably why it has been allowed on Roku and Firestick.
WHO is this "WE" ? Don't pretend to speak for others as if you know what everyone thinks.
If apple continue to follow everyone else rather than lead with the newest tech, they will eventually be out of business. It's the difference between 1990s Apple and 2000s Apple with Steve Jobs the innovator. Apple charges premium prices and so they should offer premium products. They already have a 1080p "cheap" model. This one should be a leader, not a follower.
That has to be the most absurd thing I've read on here all day long. Don't kid yourself. 4K on Netflix is absolutely better than 1080p on Netflix on a 4K set/projector. I think some of you have been smoking something when it comes to this DELUSION that compression somehow makes higher resolutions into lower resolutions. It doesn't work that way. Higher resolution still has denser pixels. The only question is when too high of compression create artifacts that are subjectively "worse" than a lower resolution with less artifacts. The thing about MP4 compression is that the higher the compression, the less sharp it becomes (rather than pixelated). Thus, there is NO downside to going to a higher resolution within reasonable constraints. Still scenes will be ultra-sharp and massive movement scenes will be a little blurrier and probably not as noticeable due to all the things going on anyway.
More to the point, 4K Blu-Ray is not without compression either and there is no technical reason they couldn't sell lower compression movies for these devices if there was enough demand for it. You simply couldn't view it in real time without a higher bandwidth connection (fortunately, between Google Fiber and others that bandwidth is becoming easier to find). In other words, Apple should be one of the first to sell 4K movies, not one of the last to do so.
And WTF is "true 4K" ??? Again, Blu-Ray will not be uncompressed 4K. At what ratio would you call it "true 4K" ??? Or do you work for Sony?
There's nothing "fake" about Netflix 4K. Whether their compression ratio is not good enough for you doesn't make it fake. Frankly, using that word makes you seem less than knowledgeable about the topic.
Open Source has nothing to do with it. Any version submitted to the App Store will need to meet Apple's guidelines. What do you mean "no one is accountable for Kodi" ? That's absurd. There are official releases of it released by the developers in charge. Yes, there are modified versions floating around out there, but the idea they couldn't make an App Store version that fits Apple's guidelines is just not true. The question is whether they will want to bother. I'm sure someone else will at least have a basic player for things like AVI files and the like (VLC?), but I've always believed that should never have been necessary. Apple should support other formats or at least plugins to support other formats than their own. My older Canon digital camera outputs AVI files. Converting them decreases the quality and wastes my time to boot. I shouldn't have to convert the files. AppleTV and iTunes should be able to play them. As much bloat as iTunes has, it sure couldn't be that reason.
Everyone else is?
Roku has announced (Jan 2015) that they will support 4k streaming at some point in the future. No dates nor devices have been announced, and the plans have not been elaborated on at all. Roku is not streaming 4k.
Amazon streams some 4k content on their Prime / Instant Streaming service, but none of the FireTV boxes support it. Fire TV is not streaming 4k.
So who is this "everyone else" of whom you speak?
On the note about your father being wowed by 4k streaming ... well, I guess some people will be. My experience with A/B comparisons between HD and 4k streaming sources was much less than impressive because to stream that 4k so many horrible compression compromises had been made and the output was chock bull o' macro blocking, murky pixelated darks, and blown highlights. It might be a slight improvement in some situations, but I find that the main ill in streaming video is the compression artifacts and compromises made to enhance compression, and 4k video makes those compromises just all the more apparent.
Once again, anecdotes are not the singular of data. Your story and mine are meaningless compared to the actual market data which does not show rapid uptake of 4k sets. In 2-3 years? Yes, I'd expect 4k to really be taking off and reach something like 5-10% living room penetration. And I'd also expect Apple to be selling a 4k-capable box and backing that with a 4k streaming service. Yes, that means that if you buy an AppleTV this year and buy a 4k TV in late 2016, you'll likely want to replace that AppleTV at that time too. But, that's hardly the end of the world (compared to the premium on the 4k TV over an HD set and the expanded internet cap / bandwidth plan needed to stream the 4k video, another $150 for an AppleTV box to accompany your new screen is not overly significant).
In any case, we'll see what comes out. But, if it is an HD-only box as described, for $149, it's a no-brainer upgrade for my household at least. We just got a new primary TV set a few years ago and don't plan on replacing it within the lifetime of this AppleTV box (3-5 years expected lifetime, which is a little more than what we got out of the previous version), so 4k isn't important to us at all. That said, supporting the services we subscribe to as well as our local content, and making their content more easily accessible is a really big deal.
Kodi is open source. Its life is at the whim of whoever wants to develop it. And the add ons come from who knows where and allows who knows what to be executed via Kodi (e.g. piracy). I really don't see Apple getting involved with enabling that and they have already removed similar apps.
About the XBMC Foundation, Team Kodi, and other developers
Created in 2003 by a group of like minded programmers, Team Kodi is a group of volunteers located around the world.
More than 450 software developers have contributed to Kodi to date, and 100-plus translators have worked to expand its reach, making it available in more than 65 languages.
Created in 2009 to deal with mounting development costs, as well as paperwork and travel to developers conferences and tradeshows, the XBMC Foundation is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to pursuing the development of great software and innovation. Feel free to support our foundation and donate to support us. For more information regarding the XBMC Foundation click here.
So WHAT if it's open source? Do you honestly think "everyone" (ala Wikipedia) has access to the Kodi web site for the official versions? The "team" decides what is and what is not an official feature. As I already said (and was clearly ignored by you), there are OTHER versions out there compiled by other people (as is possible with open source code), but the SAME IS TRUE ABOUT FIREFOX! (i.e. it's source code is available as well). Does that mean there is no official Firefox or that the official version of Firefox is at the whim of just anybody??? My god, I can't believe I even have to explain that....
Kodi has NOTHING to do with piracy. You can download and/or convert a pirated movie and have it play on iTunes (just make sure it's in the right format). In other words, Kodi is a media player (like a CD player or Blu-Ray Player). It does not know or care what you play on it. It just plays it. It's up to YOU to have legal movies and videos. AppleTV will gladly play pirated movies as well as legal ones as well. Having or not having Kodi available has nothing to do with it.
So you are agreeing with me then?Don't be absurd. There's nothing wrong with reasonable amounts of compression. Only the snobbiest of the snobs think they need to have "uncompressed" HDTV for it to be viewable. UltraHD is NO DIFFERENT. Don't lie to yourself, Blu-Ray is NOT UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO.
For me if it does turn out to be a A8(non X version) based 8GB storage 1GB RAM no 4k device for $150 or $200, I'll be back to ponder whether I'm better off buying a Nvidia Shield competitor.
It will probably just push me to wait and see how it plays out. I've been waiting around anyway to see if Nvidia comes through with their idea of offering a codec pack that supports DTS-HDMA and Dolby TrueHD/Atmos. That as much as anything has had me waiting on the shield.
Last edited:
Probably the one difference is the whole extensions/plugins system kodi has. Maybe they will be forced/asked to do a extension free kodi for iOS if they want it there. And certainly thats one advantage Plex has, the extensions they have are on the server side, not the client.