Next-Generation Apple TV Renamed 'iTV', Utilizes Apps, Lacks 1080p?

[Reddkryten]

Wouldn't it be great if your iPhone or iPad could become your Apple TV?

Just have it as an App?

But that's the thing, it already exists. I just finished watching a TV show, using my iPod, hooked up to my TV.

About the only advantage I can see the iTV having is a remote control, with the iPod I have to actually get up. Hardly enough to make me buy a new device.

 

[iBunny]

Not to worry. 1080p is already obsolete. Bring on 1440p and 4320p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UHDV.svg

 

[Keebler]

a possible Epic FAIL

I sound like all the 'kids' these days, but wow....if this article is true and the iTV doesn't have 1080P, that would be an epic FAIL.

Even though they may be gearing up to deliver TV content, which I believe is NOT 1080P, but 720P (I could be wrong), they will be missing a huge boat I believe.

Having 1080P would open a strong alternative to blu ray.

Or maybe this means Apple's giving in and add blu ray - although I highly doubt it.

wow.

will be interesting.

I do like the price point, but not without 1080P.

 

[alent1234]

Just bought a tv and next up is probably a ps3 for blu ray and netflix and YouTube. iTunes is too expensive for movies and tv

 

[wreckshop]

Why are some people complaining about lack of 1080i? 1080i has a lower vertical resolution than 720p.

The 'i' means "interlaced," which means one full frame stores two images in alternating fields that are displayed sequentially (first the 'odd' fields then the 'even' fields) for a higher overall framerate. So the vertical resolution of each image you see is half of 1080, which is 540, which is less than 720.

Lack of 1080p, however, is a bit of a disappointment, but not a surprise since I believe iTunes only sells 720p HD. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't buy movies from iTunes.) Apple's only building this to extend its iTunes ecosystem, after all.

No that's wrong. 1080i has the same exact resolution as 1080p, its just stored differently. Flat panel TVs cannot display interlaced video because they are progressive. So when you feed a TV 1080i video what it does is it deinterlaces two 1080i fields into one 1080p frame. No information is being created when displaying 1080i on a 1080p TV, unlike 720p, which needs to be scaled up to 1080p.

That being said, iTV will be a failure not because it doesnt output 1080p (although many people will dismiss it because of that) but because it needs to be built into TVs like google TV will be.

 

[fobfob]

wow i cant believe all the Apple apologists trying to justify a 720p restriction in 2010 (actually 2011 when this is to be launched). This isn't about what "most" sources are like. This is about putting an artificial restriction on the whole Apple ecosystem: optical drives, iTunes store, and TV. My way of thinking is that it is a play by Apple to appease content providers who view their 1080p material as premium product that must extract a high margin to counteract piracy of the ultimate high quality source.

This is like Ford building a car that can only do 90kmh or 55MPH because "most" roads only allow that. Yes I know there are small mopeds and other vehicles that are limited like this, but we're talking about a mass market product (or so Apple hopes).

I'm an Apple fanboy too and have been known to drink the koolaid from time to time, but I also drink coffee, and I think it's time that some others wake up and smell the coffee too.

 

[J Radical]

Although there is a difference between 1080p capable and having 1080p content, I think not having either would be a deal breaker.

Streaming 1080p from the cloud might be a technical challenge, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to purchase 1080p content, store it on a local drive and stream it from there. Indeed, this feature is the absolute minimum apple should be aiming for, if they are serious about providing an alternative to blu-ray.

The other major turn-off for me is the implied lack of wired external storage. This thing MUST have a USB port for users with content saved to a HDD.

If steve insists on shipping a device gimped in either of these two ways, they'll continue to play no role in the living room of non-apple fans.

An additional, Apple-branded TV set, with all this stuff built in could be great, but we all know the pricing would be insane, and failure would be humiliating. I think Apple is afraid of this failure, and so refuses to commit to iTV/AppleTV/the living room seriously.

 

[IbisDoc]

Most people wouldn't care about this 1080p argument, even if we assume that most people had TV's large enough to take advantage of this resolution (which they don't). The bigger issue with the new "iTV" will be the ability to attach external storage and play downloaded HD content locally. Given the state of US broadband, consistent streaming of HD movies would be a fantasy for most people. Not to mention that many people don't have wired internet connections in their entertainment rooms, which means they would be wirelessly streaming this HD content to their TV's. 1080p would be a joke in this scenario.

 

[ipedro]

iTV done right

If Apple puts all its resources behind this and introduces it as the next big thing from Apple, the next iPod, the next Phone, the next iPad... then this could be huge.

Apple has a very large pool of developers for iOS, many of which could adapt their apps to run on iTV. They also have an enormous installed base of iOS users with dozens of Apps in their libraries. If Apple does what they did with iPad and gets a handful of their major developers to update their apps for iTV at launch, then the over 100 million iOS users will see that their apps can run on this new must have Apple device. For $100 bucks, Apple will have trouble stocking their shelves.

 

[gorgeousninja]

I'm an Apple fanboy too and have been known to drink the koolaid from time to time, but I also drink coffee, and I think it's time that some others wake up and smell the coffee too.

Sorry, but WTF are you on about?

 

[gugy]

wow i cant believe all the Apple apologists trying to justify a 720p restriction in 2010 (actually 2011 when this is to be launched). This isn't about what "most" sources are like. This is about putting an artificial restriction on the whole Apple ecosystem: optical drives, iTunes store, and TV. My way of thinking is that it is a play by Apple to appease content providers who view their 1080p material as premium product that must extract a high margin to counteract piracy of the ultimate high quality source.

This is like Ford building a car that can only do 90kmh or 55MPH because "most" roads only allow that. Yes I know there are small mopeds and other vehicles that are limited like this, but we're talking about a mass market product (or so Apple hopes).

I'm an Apple fanboy too and have been known to drink the koolaid from time to time, but I also drink coffee, and I think it's time that some others wake up and smell the coffee too.

I agreed!

 

[gugy]

your chocie to limit your experiences.
I love the way Xbox interfaces with the rest of my network.

Maybe so, but I really do not want to mess with Windows at all.
Not sure what I am asking is a huge ordeal for Apple to make, if it is then I might just build a HTPC out of the MacMini or look into WD TV.
I just rather have a simple and cheaper solution than go that route.

 

[zweigand]

First, whoever claimed Rokus have 1080p res are wrong. I have 2 and they top out at 720p.

Second, 1080p isn't necessary on this box. From everything we've been hearing this thing is going to be built for streaming. (just like the Roku …very little if any local storage) you will only benefit from 1080p if your bit rate also goes up. Cramming more pixels into the same 3-4 Mbps stream isn't going to give you a better picture. Yes, you can get around this by caching video, but who wants to have to wait for crap to download every time they want to watch a movie? Not me. Netflix and Amazon VOD (the services I use on the Roku) stream 720p video that starts playing about 10 seconds after you click the button …and it looks better than most HD cable channels.

720p haters can go play in the sandbox with the audiophiles who refuse to listen to aac/mp3s. The rest of us will be thrilled with the product—especially if it's $99.

 

[YsoSerious]

Fail!!!

 

[marksman]

No support for 3D TV, Steve?

Did you not see freaking Avatar? You are losing it old man!

 

[gugy]

First, whoever claimed Rokus have 1080p res are wrong. I have 2 and they top out at 720p.

Second, 1080p isn't necessary on this box. From everything we've been hearing this thing is going to be built for streaming. (just like the Roku …very little if any local storage) you will only benefit from 1080p if your bit rate also goes up. Cramming more pixels into the same 3-4 Mbps stream isn't going to give you a better picture. Yes, you can get around this by caching video, but who wants to have to wait for crap to download every time they want to watch a movie? Not me. Netflix and Amazon VOD (the services I use on the Roku) stream 720p video that starts playing about 10 seconds after you click the button …and it looks better than most HD cable channels.

720p haters can go play in the sandbox with the audiophiles who refuse to listen to aac/mp3s. The rest of us will be thrilled with the product—especially if it's $99.

While I agreed with you in the downloading end of it, I think most people who wants 1080p are the ones that have their local libraries full of content in that format and do not want anything less. At least that's how I see it myself.

 

[paduck]

If you can't do 1080p in 2010, you blew it.

Just about every Apple product appears to be missing an "essential" feature. Yet they end up being successful despite this terrible flaw. I think 1080p in v1 (or is this v2?) of the iTV can probably get away without 1080p. Besides, most people's broadband can't sustain that. Apple can add it as a "new" feature in v2. Like MMS.

 

[iPadPublisher]

Apple TV needs to kick TiVO's ass to interest me

I've been with TiVo since day one (my first unit was a press eval box, serial number was double digits). Anything from Apple needs to kick my TiVo in the nuts in order to get my interest. Another box attached to my tv is so blah. Or at least make it controllable via TiVO. Something.

 

[beltzak]

Another hobby ****ing experiment

I regret more and more buying the the bloody Apple TV. Just because Apple did nothing for it. It gathered a bunch of hardware pieces together and run some "experiment" software on it.

They did a really bad job and charged 300$ for it. Now they trash it and come with their "magical" ********.

Thanks apple for this scam. I thought you could do better like the iphone software you know.

Compare iphone 1.0 with 4.0

Now compare Apple tv 1.0 with 3.0. Real ****.

 

[marksman]

I work in the engineering department of a broadcast television station. Trust me on this one.

Some people might consider that a disqualification.

Apple has tens of billions of $$$ in the bank.
If they want to call it iTV, they can buy the UK TV channel.

It is funny how many people think the name of a tv station on a tiny little island is going to have an impact on what Apple names the device.

Apple may just name it "Great Britain" if they feel like.

 

[notabadname]

No that's wrong. 1080i has the same exact resolution as 1080p, its just stored differently. Flat panel TVs cannot display interlaced video because they are progressive. So when you feed a TV 1080i video what it does is it deinterlaces two 1080i fields into one 1080p frame. No information is being created when displaying 1080i on a 1080p TV, unlike 720p, which needs to be scaled up to 1080p.

That being said, iTV will be a failure not because it doesnt output 1080p (although many people will dismiss it because of that) but because it needs to be built into TVs like google TV will be.

And you too are wrong. It is incorrect to say 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p. Resolution in a video system is also related to amount of picture data or pixels during a reference of time. If you were creating a single frame image, to display for a long period over your fireplace, than whether it took 1/60th a second or 1/30th a second to create the image would be irrelevant as long as they ultimately produced the same 1920 x 1080 image. But for moving images, you have to put the time factor in there. Your 1080i image will have just finished its first image (which has to be processed and "stitched together) by your TV or the output device, while the 1080p image will have finished its second frame without any compositing of two fields. In video, resolution is directly tied to frames and refresh rates. In fact, higher-end US broadcast shows are now being captured at 60 hz, and it is expected to be the standard very quickly. So if you were watching one of those programs converted to 1080i, it could only use every other frame of the source since it takes a 30 hz cycle to complete one frame. So it would be half the resolution of the original signal. Motion would be more blurred in any action, and detail will always be lost with any camera tracking due to the skipped frames. And 60 hz is also referred to as the "flicker fusion" point, where the eye starts to not be able to see the flicker of an image, and it smooth into a continuous image feed, instead of individually flashed frames. 1080p has exactly twice the image information of a 1080i image. Twice the resolution. Fact. To say otherwise, frankly, is ignorance of the technology.

 

[jettredmont]

Here's hoping Apple lets me trade in my $400 Apple TV that they half-assed for three years for one of these new doodads that might actually be worth my time.

When did you spend $400 on an AppleTV? They came out new for $300; I don't think they ever went above that.

Besides which, if you didn't think it was worth $400 when you bought it at 33% markup, you shouldn't have bought it.

I believe I got mine a few years back for $230 at Costco, the 160GB version. Well worth the money we spent on it, even if they started giving them away free tomorrow. We've well more than gotten our money's worth out of it!

Personally, if a new atv comes out for $99, it's likely going to be under the tree come December (if not sooner). Then the venerable old 160GB will move upstairs to that TV and the downstairs main TV will get the new device. Or maybe vice-versa, depending.

 

[mox358]

The "iTV" doesn't need 1080p at all. It needs to be easy to setup, work well, and provide a great UI.

I remember when the Wii was doomed because it wasn't HD... the PS3 had 1080p and Blu-Ray. We saw how that turned out. The PS3 is the far better console in terms of technology, but most people the Wii buying it didn't know what 720p or 1080p meant - they bought it because it was easy, fun and cheap. If Apple can recreate that formula, tie in the App store to get people staying with the platform, and get some decent content deals worked out they won't be able to make these fast enough.

This is another case of a product that isn't designed with you or me in mind, but for the non-geek crowd.

 

[jettredmont]

It makes more sense, really, than the current product.

No 1080i/p is not as big a deal as it sounds. Most streamed stuff, channels, etc. is 720p or lower. I would love to dump my cable for something like this, but it's not going to happen until the content selection gets bigger. E.g., my wife will not live without channel 6 CT news (no idea why).

Local news is an easy fix. Just get an EyeTV and hook that up to any of your Macs (or the Windows equivalent if that's the way you swing). Much clearer signal than what you'll get from your cable subscription, easily DVR'd, and easily watched in any room of the house (or streamed to your AppleTV).

Alternatively, maybe your local news puts its shows online. But, it seems like that's oddly rare. I'm not sure why, because if more local news shows would put the entire show online instead of just the fluff pieces I fast-forward through anyway, I for one would tend to watch them more. Making an appointment to watch news at 11:00 is so 1990s.

 

[zweigand]

While I agreed with you in the downloading end of it, I think most people who wants 1080p are the ones that have their local libraries full of content in that format and do not want anything less. At least that's how I see it myself.

I understand that, and there are solutions to that problem. Hooking a PC up to your TV, streaming content from your PC to your PS3, etc.

The thing is, you guys are the exception to the rule. Most people want a way to browse content and hit play. Streaming straight from the cloud is the best thing since DVD. No library to maintain, backup, or find storage space for …and you don't even have to get up and put a disc in.

Not to mention there really isn't much legal downloadable HD content out there anyway. (how many times can you watch Big Buck Bunny Apple isn't building a box to cater to the torrent crowd. (not pulling the moral card, just stating a fact.)