New Apple TV With A12 Chip and 'One More Thing' Teased Ahead of Next Week's Apple Event

[EugW]

No No NO!

You are providing really bad information.

The AVR can support eARC without being HDMI 2.1. There are numerous 2017 and 2018 and 2019 HDMI 2.0 AVRs that have been firmware upgraded to support eARC.

Also, no streaming services currently support HD audio... upgrading to eARC won't magically make your source material HD.

Dolby Atmos from Netflix and Amazon streaming services is NOT HD AUDIO. It is low bit-rate Atmos that is sent over the digital dolby + 640kbps channel. "Real" Atmos is sent over True-HD. If you want the full experience via eARC you would need a game console, BD player, etc., with HD audio content that can be sent over eARC to your eARC capable AVR.

1. While true you don't need an HDMI 2.1 receiver for eARC, I think it would be premature to buy a receiver now without HDMI 2.1. If you already have an HDMI 2.0 receiver, just wait a year or so and get an HDMI 2.1 receiver then. If your receiver can be firmware upgraded to support eARC, then even better, but my two receivers can't be. I'm not complaining though, since they're both HDMI 2.0 models (Marantz and Denon) from 2015, yet both were upgraded in 2018 to support Dolby Vision. That's all I need for the time being.

Dolby Vision support on receiver + Apple TV 4K for Atmos = Happiness.

No need for eARC for new equipment, and as mentioned, my TV (2018 LG C8 OLED) doesn't support eARC anyway.

2. Regardless if the Dolby Atmos is compressed, the bottom line is there is no standardized way to transmit even compressed Dolby Atmos over ARC. It can be done, but it's non-spec, and it usually wouldn't work. Therefore, if you really want Dolby Atmos, even the compressed version, you still need eARC... or else something like an Apple TV.

BTW, right now, the HDMI 2.1 endowed 2019 LG C9 OLED has problems with eARC anyway. Various issues are reported with various receivers. I don't know if it's just early adopter growing pains, or if it's because either the LG or the non-HDMI 2.1 but eARC capable receivers aren't 100% up to spec for this. I'm not surprised though, since none of those receivers are officially HDMI 2.1, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of those are out-of-spec.

 

[deconstruct60]

If Apple TV is going to be a success, it needs to be more than a streaming box. Perhaps Apple Arcade can push the Apple TV as a gaming machine, but I'm not sure it can make a dent in the Switch/PS4/XB1 market.

Switch maybe. If Apple gave the AppleTV a A12X then it would be better in a static (at home) context. To seamlessly flip the game to the iPhone ( which possibly carrying anyway ) can ditch the switch because it is yet another thing to carry.

Moving hard core PS4/Xbox folks? Probably not. The A12X is about where the Xbox One S is.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/11/apple-walks-ars-through-the-ipad-pros-a12x-system-on-a-chip/

So no way is it going to track the moves that Playstation and Xbox are about to make int late 2019-2021. AppleTV would have advantage of being "cheaper" than those but that won't move folks who have large amounts of money invested into games locked into those other systems.

It isn't just Apple Arcade though. The money folks have poured into iOS games outside of arcade can have synergies with AppleTV too. That is a bigger inertia at the moment.

AppleTV+ though is a big issue for AppleTV (the hardware, not the app). Apple is through a giant bucket of cash at TV+. AppleTV can make a substantive dent in getting the AppleTV app to televisions that aren't going to get the AppleTV app from the original TV equipment makers ( i.e., the overwhelming vast majority of TVs deployed. ). If people can't watch TV+ on their TV then TV+ can't make money. Which when you have thrown $6B into that hole is an issue. Apple needs to get that back.

It seems likely that Apple will keep the older one around at a new lower price point. (sub $100) and this new one takes the current price points. So part of the "need" here is to move the current one down in price. Apple needs more 'eyeballs' that a more affordable player would provide. So they need a "last year's model" or "one before last year's model" ( instead of a new thing that is designed to be cheaper. ).

A hub for Apple Home would be another place where they probably aren't either doing enough to highlight the value add or add things that are a value add.

 

[MisterSavage]

Been stalling on grabbing a new ATV in case of this. Really hope this one's true.

Same here. Just in time for Disney+.

 

[theadz01]

It uses top quality - pro standard components. No way could it be £99. If you want cheap in every way, buy an Amazon device.
It's truly wrong to expect pro level performance for £99.

Disagree. If Apple want people to buy in to their services (Apple TV+, music, arcade etc.) they need to cut their loses on hardware and suck people into the ecosystem

 

[Seoras]

Please let it be facetime and a wireless webcam or similar.

 

[Classie]

Well it’s fair to expect a new AppleTV along side the new service... and maybe even with a controller to make the game service a lot more interesting...

 

[jmpage2]

1. While true you don't need an HDMI 2.1 receiver for eARC, I think it would be premature to buy a receiver now without HDMI 2.1. If you already have an HDMI 2.0 receiver, just wait a year or so and get an HDMI 2.1 receiver then. If your receiver can be firmware upgraded to support eARC, then even better, but my two receivers can't be. I'm not complaining though, since they're both HDMI 2.0 models (Marantz and Denon) from 2015, yet both were upgraded in 2018 to support Dolby Vision. That's all I need for the time being.

Dolby Vision support on receiver + Apple TV 4K for Atmos = Happiness.

No need for eARC for new equipment, and as mentioned, my TV (2018 LG C8 OLED) doesn't support eARC anyway.

2. Regardless if the Dolby Atmos is compressed, the bottom line is there is no standardized way to transmit even compressed Dolby Atmos over ARC. It can be done, but it's non-spec, and it usually wouldn't work. Therefore, if you really want Dolby Atmos, even the compressed version, you still need eARC... or else something like an Apple TV.

BTW, right now, the HDMI 2.1 endowed 2019 LG C9 OLED has problems with eARC anyway. Various issues are reported with various receivers. I don't know if it's just early adopter growing pains, or if it's because either the LG or the non-HDMI 2.1 but eARC capable receivers aren't 100% up to spec for this. I'm not surprised though, since none of those receivers are officially HDMI 2.1, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of those are out-of-spec.

I own a C9 and eARC is working wonderfully with the exception of 5.1 and 7.1 LPCM which for unfathomable reasons, LG has chosen not to support in their implementation.

Worth pointing out that the HDMI 2.1 chipset in the C9 is actually not being used right now... they are using their HDMI 2.0 chipset... the floated time-frame of when the HDMI 2.1 chipset would be firmware enabled has come and gone.

The eARC capable AVR I am using is a 1+ year old Denon X4500H. I purchased it new for this purpose for a price of about $800. I imagine a similar AVR with HDMI 2.1 capabilities, when it arrives next year will cost a heck of a lot more than $800.

Dolby Atmos over DD5.1+ is standardized and fully supported. It is however a very lossy low-grade audio experience. I have compared 4K Atmos BDs with real soundtracks to the same title on streaming services that offer low bit-rate DD+ based Atmos and the difference is dramatic... not even close.

I hope that eventually streaming services deliver HD audio but it seems to be a pretty low priority, probably because most users listen with the TV speakers or with low rent soundbars.
[doublepost=1567630702][/doublepost]

Please let it be facetime and a wireless webcam or similar.

I agree! It's unfathomable to me that we can't use the giant TVs in our living rooms to do FaceTime with the ATV. We have used Skype with friends who have the service built into their televisions and the experience when chatting with another family is dramatically difference than using a mobile device.

 

[EugW]

Dolby Atmos over DD5.1+ is standardized and fully supported. It is however a very lossy low-grade audio experience. I have compared 4K Atmos BDs with real soundtracks to the same title on streaming services that offer low bit-rate DD+ based Atmos and the difference is dramatic... not even close.

Dolby Atmos over DD5.1 is standardized by Dolby now, but not necessarily in end user equipment through ARC. ie. Buy a TV with Dolby Atmos and buy a receiver with Dolby Atmos and there is good chance it won't work at all through ARC, since ARC wasn't implemented with Dolby Atmos in mind. I can tell you that in my setup, this simply doesn't work.

However, Dolby Atmos works perfectly from Apple TV, both from iTunes and from Netflix. Yes, it's compressed Atmos, but it's not as if I'm going to be buying 4K UHD Blu-ray discs for Netflix Originals streaming 4K content.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

Damn! I always enjoyed your reviews / reports / findings on it!

Oh I still have one. Hence my anger. With this new one apparently coming.

 

[FamVR]

That “one more thing” isn’t going to happen. There’s too much on the horizon. Not just one single thing.

Yup. It’s going to be a very, very expensive year for some folks.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

My guess, a Roku-branded Apple TV.

Roku has ALL the market momentum right now !

Check out their stock price & valuation if you haven't recently.

Specifically, Roku private labels the Apple TV, & sells it just above cost !

GROSS! A Roku with their horrible UI that includes adverts. We are talking Apple TV here with proper Apple OS and monthly updates.
Seriously, mentioning Roku is pretty low.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

I own a C9 and eARC is working wonderfully with the exception of 5.1 and 7.1 LPCM which for unfathomable reasons, LG has chosen not to support in their implementation.

Worth pointing out that the HDMI 2.1 chipset in the C9 is actually not being used right now... they are using their HDMI 2.0 chipset... the floated time-frame of when the HDMI 2.1 chipset would be firmware enabled has come and gone.

The eARC capable AVR I am using is a 1+ year old Denon X4500H. I purchased it new for this purpose for a price of about $800. I imagine a similar AVR with HDMI 2.1 capabilities, when it arrives next year will cost a heck of a lot more than $800.

Dolby Atmos over DD5.1+ is standardized and fully supported. It is however a very lossy low-grade audio experience. I have compared 4K Atmos BDs with real soundtracks to the same title on streaming services that offer low bit-rate DD+ based Atmos and the difference is dramatic... not even close.

I hope that eventually streaming services deliver HD audio but it seems to be a pretty low priority, probably because most users listen with the TV speakers or with low rent soundbars.
[doublepost=1567630702][/doublepost]

I agree! It's unfathomable to me that we can't use the giant TVs in our living rooms to do FaceTime with the ATV. We have used Skype with friends who have the service built into their televisions and the experience when chatting with another family is dramatically difference than using a mobile device.

With regard to DD Atmos
versus BD Atmos....

The bitrates for streaming have recently increased thankfully. I have a modest, Big Box Store type home theater setup. Not audiophile, but also not terrible. Full Atmos 11.2 system. Nice Polk bookshelf’s and two 12” 600w subs. I did not find the difference in audio between Atmos on disc versus Atmos on streaming wildly different. In fact what was more damning was losing Dolby Visions superior image over BDs HDR10. Even on streaming (ATV) DV looks superb. Per scene color balancing makes a huge difference. Color, vibrancy, range of image IS something I find quite noticeable.

 

[Beerstalker]

I hope that eventually streaming services deliver HD audio but it seems to be a pretty low priority, probably because most users listen with the TV speakers or with low rent soundbars.

If I remember correctly Dolby TrueHD and DTS HDMA bitrates can be as high as 18Mbit/s and 25Mbit/s respectively. That is almost as much as Netflix uses to send a 4K Video stream with lossy sound included. I'm not sure we will see those formats used by streaming services for a while until people start getting much faster internet service.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

Oh I still have one. Hence my anger. With this new one apparently coming.

Loved your audio comparison test that you did last summer buddy! Please do an update whenever you have the chance!
[doublepost=1567632562][/doublepost]

With regard to DD Atmos
versus BD Atmos....

The bitrates for streaming have recently increased thankfully. I have a modest, Big Box Store type home theater setup. Not audiophile, but also not terrible. Full Atmos 11.2 system. Nice Polk bookshelf’s and two 12” 600w subs. I did not find the difference in audio between Atmos on disc versus Atmos on streaming wildly different. In fact what was more damning was losing Dolby Visions superior image over BDs HDR10. Even on streaming (ATV) DV looks superb. Per scene color balancing makes a huge difference. Color, vibrancy, range of image IS something I find quite noticeable.

I was hoping that you would step in here!

 

[mi7chy]

What's the point of putting in a faster SoC when Apple limits what you can run like not allowing emulators that would benefit? Seems like a redundant overpriced product when phones can already output to TV via USB-C and with Amazon TV Stick 4K as low as $25 that has a lot more freedom to run emulators, Kodi, etc.

 

[archer75]

If I remember correctly Dolby TrueHD and DTS HDMA bitrates can be as high as 18Mbit/s and 25Mbit/s respectively. That is almost as much as Netflix uses to send a 4K Video stream with lossy sound included. I'm not sure we will see those formats used by streaming services for a while until people start getting much faster internet service.

No, it's not that high. Closer to 5 rather than 25. Nevertheless it still adds a lot to the bandwidth requirement and most people have pretty crappy internet, data caps and lack the necessary equipment to either play HD audio or to even notice a difference.

 

[HVDynamo]

An A/V question, if you all don't mind: the Apple TV 4K is pretty much the only component missing from my Apple ecosystem. Felt redundant with my other devices (XB1X, PS4 Pro, Fire TV 4K, and my built TV apps). The thing is, each of the aforementioned has odd quirks (e.g., similar apps on the different platforms may or may not have support for 4K/HDR/Atmos, etc).

Does the Apple 4K have similar quirks, or is it generally the best box for 4K HDR + Atmos (or least Dolby TrueHD & DTS MA)?

There have been some quirks along the way, originally HDR and Atmos wasn't fully supported, but then support was added as time went on. Having also used my PS4, and LG OLED built in apps, I find the Apple TV to have the best interface. The remote seems to be polarizing to some, but for the most part I haven't had an issue with it and being able to dictate my searches into the remote for things like Youtube and Netflix, etc has been very nice, and whenever you land on a search field it will vibrate your phone and allow you just open a notification and type what you want to search on the phone. One complaint I have had though is sometime when streaming music over air play it has just stopped playing randomly. I can't find any reason why or any consistent cause, but it doesn't happen all the time. I usually have it plugged into Ethernet to avoid any wireless bandwidth issues. Ultimately, I think the UI is far and above the other interfaces, and having good consistent support for HDR and Atmos now makes it worth it in my book. Also TV manufacturers aren't as good at keeping the software up to date on their TV's, so sometimes the smart features that are great when you buy the TV suffer later. With a set top player like this you can upgrade it rather cheaply when needed. I hope this helps.

 

[Juicy Box]

If Apple TV is going to be a success, it needs to be more than a streaming box. Perhaps Apple Arcade can push the Apple TV as a gaming machine,

I agree, but I don't think an A12 is the way to go.

IIRC, the current ATV4K's A10X has better GPU performance than the A12.

If the rumor is true, I am curious why Apple would go with the A12 over the A12X for the next ATV. It might be an A8 situation like the ATV4, under-powered at launch.

 

[HVDynamo]

I buy Apple TVs to extend Airplay 2 to a couple vintage analog stereo systems throughout my home. I use homepods in casual areas, but there’s no way HomePods can compete with QSC K12’s or Marantz 3-way floor speakers.

Since killing off optical audio and 1/8” stereo output jacks on ATV and Airport Express, it’s forced me to rig up cheap amazon hdmi pass thru adapters, which makes the aesthetic of wires and AC adapters a total mess. I’m probably leaving the AirPlay ecosystem if they don’t address this soon. It’s sooooo simple to include analog output.

Yeah, I really wish they had kept the optical output. I never got the Apple TV4 (1080P) because they dropped that and I was still using a receiver that was pre HDMI back then so I needed optical to get any surround sound out. But I did finally upgrade my receiver and got the Apple TV 4K on launch, but would really like a new one with optical output because my old receiver lives on in my bedroom, and it sure would be nice to use the optical audio and an apple TV there.

 

[Abazigal]

What's the point of putting in a faster SoC when Apple limits what you can run like not allowing emulators that would benefit? Seems like a redundant overpriced product when phones can already output to TV via USB-C and with Amazon TV Stick 4K as low as $25 that has a lot more freedom to run emulators, Kodi, etc.

My guess is that the A12 chip might generate less heat overall, which allows for better passive cooling and thus enable the Apple TV to be thinner? An odd choice though, given that it actually has a weaker GPU than the A10x, and that is normally what you would prioritise in a device built around gaming?

It could also simply be a manufacturing efficiency thing, since there are already other products out there using the A12 chip, but not the A10x.

I do agree that currently, the processors seem overkill for what they do. Gaming on the ATV is a barren wasteland. My 2013 ATV handles airplay mirroring just fine, and I don’t need that much horsepower for streaming YouTube and Netflix.

That said, the ATV is what best integrates with my other Apple products, so I guess it’s more a case of “buy or do without”.

What I won’t give for an Apple TV stick that lets me plug into the classroom projector directly for airplay mirroring though. I don’t even need app support for it.

 

[Beerstalker]

I haven't really used the remote with any of my Apple TV4 or AppleTV 4K devices. I'm not big on talking to my remote, and I use my Harmony Remotes for everything else, so no need for the Apple Remote. I do wish the AppleTV allowed more control with universal remotes like my Harmony. I seem to only have 2 speeds for fast forward and rewind, and no ability to skip ahead or back.

I bought an set up an Apple TV4 for my neighbors a couple years ago. They didn't like the Siri remote either, so I just gave them one of my old remotes from the Apple TV3 and they use it instead. For all these people complaining about it, I would recommend just trying that instead.
[doublepost=1567635016][/doublepost]

No, it's not that high. Closer to 5 rather than 25. Nevertheless it still adds a lot to the bandwidth requirement and most people have pretty crappy internet, data caps and lack the necessary equipment to either play HD audio or to even notice a difference.

I believe those are the maximums, but yes they are usually lower.

I was just looking over my Xfinity bill and saw my usage was averaging just under 800Gb a month. I'm sure if I was streaming with Dolby TrueHD/DTS HDMA I would end up going over my 1TB cap every month. Not to mention I'm not convinced my 60Mb/s service would handle it very well.

 

[EugW]

I only have a 5.1.2 system but with higher end speakers (at least in front) Paradigm Studio 60 (mains), Studio CC, Titan (surround), and Atom (height), along with SVS PB13-Ultra sub.

I find for some content, uncompressed Atmos is actually a pretty significant improvement over compressed Atmos.

However, my point was that it’s a moot discussion in many situations. I’m not going to buy the disc for every single Atmos title out there, and furthermore, those discs often don’t even exist for streaming content, so the only two options are DD5.1 and compressed Dolby Atmos. And out of the two, Dolby Atmos is often noticeably better.

Unfortunately, Atmos over ARC doesn’t work in most setups, for various reasons, so Apple TV is a good solution.

 

[alpi123]

"but there's one more thing" - 16" MacBook Pro

There's really one more thing - an October event specifically held for iPads and MacBooks.

 

[Skeptical.me]

A new Apple TV would be great, I'm keen to get a new iPhone if I'm impressed, will definitely be getting the new ATV if it is released.

 

[Act3]

Fire TV stick 4K, got it for $25 bucks on amazon prime day. The apple tv 4k is $180. Sure pay a premium if you want to stay in the Apple ecosystem. I'd rather see them release an Apple TV stick for a fraction of that price to compete.