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 With A12 Chip or Later Uncovered in tvOS 13.4 Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I tried LG’s remote at my father in law’s house. It’s easier to hold but very hard to use. Kinda like trying to move the on screen cursor with a wii remote. Plus when you click the button on the LG remote you invariably move the pointer. I much prefer swiping on the Apple TV remote — just wish it had a “find my” alert sound and was easier to hold and not lose in couch cushions. We are literally looking for the Apple TV remote 6 times per week.
I really like my Apple TV 4K. Only thing that keeps me from using 100% of the time is lack of audio passthrough for streaming local media off my NAS. Shield TV takes care of that with Kodi, but like the Apple interface better. Of course I'm pretty invested in the Apple ecosystem for over 10 years now, so if the new one has proper audio passthrough, I'll get it and retire the Shield TV to another room.
The graphics performance is about the same, if I am correct. However it just says, that the A12 is the lowest possible option, as the information identify the architecture as of A12 or A13(X). Hope the new iPad Pros will have the A13x and the TV as well, just like the initial 4K TV and the iPad Pro released at that time both had the a10x. Hope they actually get game developers on board, I don’t need the best graphic! Fortnite looks all right on iPad. Still far away from consoles but with a newer processor it might get closer.
Hopefully able to make use of the new VVC when released (if?) and HDMI 2.1 hardware.
Regarding games, I tried Arcade but they are dull for my tastes, maybe they can ramp them up a tad.
However, if my TV cannot see an improvement then I stay on the existing 4k one.
Regarding games, I tried Arcade but they are dull for my tastes, maybe they can ramp them up a tad.
However, if my TV cannot see an improvement then I stay on the existing 4k one.
Your comment about the remote seems to be upvoted a lot, meaning a lot of people are anticipating re-designed remote. Can someone explain, what is it missing on the current remote? I use Apple TV quite often, when I need to write things, remote pups up on my phone to make it easier, the rest is done really pretty simple on the physical remote. But again, different people may be into gaming, wonder if that is the case here?
I'm curious whether Apple might be able to connect its HomePods more intelligently in order to gain something from Atmos. With my 4 HomePods, even the current AppleTV sometimes creates an interesting networking effect...
What I would REALLY like Apple to do is upgrade the Apple TV remote with the ability to point and click at specific areas on then TV screen. Duck Hunt had this ability in 1984. Games like Time Crisis, Resident Evil, Call of Duty all have the ability to use a form of remote and click or fire at your TV screen. I would like to see the Apple TV remote revamped with this ability.
It's now 2020 and Apple's TV still doesn't have this technical ability that Duck Hunt had in 1984 nor the Nintendo Wii has right now... There are 2 kinds of remotes: Radio Frequency and Infrared. What Apple is using now is antiquated technology in their Apple TV Remote.
There needs to be the ability to point at a specific area on screen like a terrorist. Point, aim and fire to destroy enemy targets. You need to be able to click very quickly aiming at various areas on the TV screen all the while, while you are moving your TV remote the cross-hair is moving with you on screen.
You could fire a machine gun at a terrorist, aim at various direction on a TV screen and also reload off screen. There needs to be no delay at aiming and changing directions.
It's now 2020 and Apple's TV still doesn't have this technical ability that Duck Hunt had in 1984 nor the Nintendo Wii has right now... There are 2 kinds of remotes: Radio Frequency and Infrared. What Apple is using now is antiquated technology in their Apple TV Remote.
There needs to be the ability to point at a specific area on screen like a terrorist. Point, aim and fire to destroy enemy targets. You need to be able to click very quickly aiming at various areas on the TV screen all the while, while you are moving your TV remote the cross-hair is moving with you on screen.
You could fire a machine gun at a terrorist, aim at various direction on a TV screen and also reload off screen. There needs to be no delay at aiming and changing directions.
Yah, why not 16K
to be ready for 32K media on your 64K/60"-double-retina^3-display...
Last edited:
In a perfect word, I would like to be able to visit my friends with my in tvOS preloaded film library on my Apple TV. I would then simply connect my HomePods at their place via P2P (similar to iOS). As of now this is not possible.
Last edited:
I was planning to update my two Apple TVs (2nd gen, 3rd gen) to take advantage of Infuse Pro. Currently airplaying from iOS devices... looks like I should wait a little while longer.
Bluetooth is antiquated?
[automerge]1581077182[/automerge]
What if the A12 replaces the Apple TV HD model which has an A8 chip?
And an A13X model could replace the 4K A10X model - another process node, more processors, more efficient and let's not forget the new CPU governor that lets the chip use all processors at once.
Likely skipping this one as I am happy with my two 4K's. I really don't need anything for gaming, but I am interested to see what they come up with. I think a Hey Siri option would be a nice addition to the living room.
I will probably get this, but Apple needs to make the actual TV sleek and slim as can be.
I don't mind the remote, with a case it's actually fine.
I don't mind the remote, with a case it's actually fine.
I do wish there was a nub or something so you know which way is up when you pick it up in the dark. Like the J or K on a keyboard.
Oh please, this is the exact opposite of the actual problem.
When the MPEG-4 group got together on a successor to MPEG-2, there were two objectives....the technical ones and the legal ones. For the legal ones, everyone knew all of the patent holders. They were pretty much the same entities since MPEG-2. But most companies just don't cede their IP for free so they had to come up with a patent pool system that would reward IP holders depending on the relevance of their work in the final standard. All this took years to negotiate just to get MPEG-4 done.
Meanwhile Google had purchased the company behind VP8 which claimed to have a competing standard that was "patent unemcumbered". The problem is just because you claim that doesn't mean it's true. And by the time that VP8 was a thing, MPEG-4 was already in place in phones, computer graphics chips, professional workflow applications, satellites, you name it.
So when it was time for to replace MPEG-4 with what became HEVC, the standards body took a similar approach to what had been done with MPEG-4. All of the IP holders get together for a patent pool approach which means that IP holders would get paid from professional entities. And it would make it much less likely for member companies to get sued by trolls. This is especially important to a company like Apple. Patent trolls and trial lawyers see their $250m war chest as money for the taking. I'd be curious as to what Apple's yearly budget numbers are for expected patent trolls they end up buying off, regardless of the merits of the case.
But Google decided to keep going on the VP strategy, this time introducing VP9 and saying again that it was patent unemcumbered. And again, it's not claims that have been widely tested in court. And yes, Youtube would be one of the world's largest payees into the Mpeg-4/HEVC patent pool. It's how it's supposed to work. But from where I sit, I think Google is continued with VP9 for two reasons. First, that it might be cheaper to do VP9 at Youtube and just quietly buy off IP holders if they ever got challenged. And second, a power struggle between Apple and themselves for supremacy on a ubiquitous technology everyone uses everyday.
So now we have AV1 and again, we have the same arguments about being unemcumbered by patents. The difference here is that Apple seems to be a part of this consortium now. It's unclear why but there could be multiple reasons. First, it may be that Apple likes Google's strategy, regardless of the potential legal exposure. It could be that the Apple TV strategy of expanding outside of Apple hardware means that Apple may have to participate in the AV1 sandbox to be a player (especially on devices running Android). Or it might be that in order to limit Google's influence on a key technology that Apple sees being in the room as the better strategy.
Last edited:
I think HLG support is there now. Not sure how robust it is. It's not something Apple advertises.