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.
Next-Generation Apple TV Renamed 'iTV', Utilizes Apps, Lacks 1080p?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO, 720p is far superior to 1080i.
The 'i' is for 'icky'. Or 'interlaced'. I forget which, but it's definitely one of those.
Really, though, I can't stand interlaced video. It just doesn't look good. And I say this as one who grew up on interlaced video from my TV straight through the first computer I had when I went to college. Interlaced sucks.
And yet, here you are posting
I'm a member of this site too, I can express my opinions on others opinions.
For gaming, especially the orientation toward gaming for kids as compared to XBox and PS3, HD isn't a big deal. But the Wii has zero capability to stream HD movies and programs too, and therefore it is not selling as a media center the way XBox and PS3 are, even though it has Netflix. But its video performance, due to compression from streaming , is actually worse than traditional DVD's. So it is a very successful game console, but it certainly is not as a home media center and server.
I already do that on my Roku. Had it for a while now. $99 and one of the best purchases I have made. They have more stuff now besides Netflix, but it streams netflix very well.
I don't know. I watch a lot of tv, and I don't see anything comparable to most of it on the web. Name some of this high octane web content that has got you so engaged. If it is targeted at Teenagers, I might not be into it, but I will give anything a shot.
I think we are actually in a gold era of tv right now. Some of the best tv ever made has been going on. What is getting outdated are the distribution methods, not the content itself.
Unlikely for either. The planned future is for pretty much everything to be streamed from central locations. Having each house have its own storage is just not going to be the final model. It is much more expensive and has all sorts of related issues. Personally I want the day to come where every tv show episode past and present is available on demand to stream when I want to see it. That is where I suspect we will ultimately end up.
Local storage and OTA are probably not going to be part of a $99 Apple television device.
I don't know. I have a nice big 65" tv and I enjoy my $99 roku box a lot.
I have never bought a movie or tv show from iTunes so nothing here really screams at me as a potential customer, but I will be curious to see what they can come up with...
I do think the future is going to be consumers having a set top box to manage all these different content providers, and you are not going to see widespread adoption of built in tv solutions like some of the Google TV stuff that we have seen.
1st off, this is only a rumor and I feel some of this is very doubtful.
I agree that without ANY 1080p this is a deal breaker. 720p is already outdated on televisions, and is reserved for the "cheap", less capable, "bargain" sets. If only purchased content streamed over the net was 720p I would not mind. However, if I could not stream my computer content (large size downloads, and home videos) in 1080p, that would be a disappointment.
I agree that without ANY 1080p this is a deal breaker. 720p is already outdated on televisions, and is reserved for the "cheap", less capable, "bargain" sets. If only purchased content streamed over the net was 720p I would not mind. However, if I could not stream my computer content (large size downloads, and home videos) in 1080p, that would be a disappointment.
True there are some differences... but in the end the result will be very similar. Apple can build in dual HDMI, Blu-Ray, 1080p and make the thing a nerd's wet dream, but that's going to drive up the price and also make the device more complicated.
The target audience for this device is going to be people who turn it on, click a poster of the movie they want to watch, and it starts playing. They won't be checking bitrates or codecs, and they won't know if it's in 720p, 1080i or 1080p. They'll make popcorn and watch the movie. Get some simple games they can download from the App Store and you have a legitimate contender for the money people spend on Xbox Live Arcade or PSN. Throw in Hulu+, Netflix and the like and like I said earlier, as long as the interface is done right, they'll kill.
Apple is making this box for the general public, and they'll eat it up. For the hardcore geek crowd there are alternatives, albeit far less friendly and easy to use.
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (S60; SymbOS; Opera Mobi/499; U; en-US) Presto/2.4.18 Version/10.00)
ITV can certainly block the name iTV via the courts for the UK market . There is enough similarities between the iTV and ITV to cause confusion that could result in Apple infringing on the ITV trademark. ITV outputs TV programmes, as will iTV - that is enough similarity on its own. One poster even suggested its OK due to the differing casing - not enough I'm afraid!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution
Maybe there is an agreement between Apple and ITV to use the product name, but Apple have been known to do otherwise in the past and sort out the problem afterwards.
I doubt Apple will buy ITV - comes with a lot of baggage and they haven't been doing particularly well in the last few years.
Back when 'iTV' was announced, Apple were never going to call it 'iTV' that was purely a project name, IRC.
marksman said:Morod said:
Some people might consider that a disqualification.
ctdonath said:
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.
ITV can certainly block the name iTV via the courts for the UK market . There is enough similarities between the iTV and ITV to cause confusion that could result in Apple infringing on the ITV trademark. ITV outputs TV programmes, as will iTV - that is enough similarity on its own. One poster even suggested its OK due to the differing casing - not enough I'm afraid!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution
Maybe there is an agreement between Apple and ITV to use the product name, but Apple have been known to do otherwise in the past and sort out the problem afterwards.
I doubt Apple will buy ITV - comes with a lot of baggage and they haven't been doing particularly well in the last few years.
Back when 'iTV' was announced, Apple were never going to call it 'iTV' that was purely a project name, IRC.
So I guess you don't watch youtube videos.
Or for that matter 99.99% of online videos.
Or for that matter 100% of HDTV, which broadcast occasionally at 1080i (NOT 1080p) and mostly at 720p.
Better stick to your expensive blu-ray library.
By the way, for someone with perfect vision to get the full benefit of 1080p watching a 50" screen you have to be sitting closer than 6.5 feet from the screen. That means there's no room for a coffee table between your seat and the screen.
At 9.8 feet 1080p and 720p look identical*. For people with perfect vision.
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
(* ignoring individual tv resolutions of course).
eyeTV vs iTV
Yea, Elgato is going to love this. They may have to "take a number" at the courthouse to sue Apple.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Here's what Apple should do with the iTV:
Add more ram and put Snow Leopard on it. People have already hacked Tiger (10.4) on it. If Apple gave it more system resorces, it would be awsome.
Or just take the Mac Mini, take away the CD drive and USB, keep the bluetooth, and ship it with a magic trackpad and on-screen keyboard (button click to activate). That would be cooler.
I personally prefer the 2nd one.
Here's what Apple should do with the iTV:
Add more ram and put Snow Leopard on it. People have already hacked Tiger (10.4) on it. If Apple gave it more system resorces, it would be awsome.
Or just take the Mac Mini, take away the CD drive and USB, keep the bluetooth, and ship it with a magic trackpad and on-screen keyboard (button click to activate). That would be cooler.
I personally prefer the 2nd one.
Please quote the part of my post where I implied otherwise?
My post is only pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who is expressing frustration with people for being "pissed at a business" and that we should instead "get mad at one that is actively hurting people", and that you would close; "I wonder about these boards sometimes.
"As if we should be complaining about more productive issues. Yet, here you are, complaining about those posters, which, IMO, is no more productive than the posts you complain about.
Therefore I found it somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps I am alone in my opinion, but like you, felt it was alright to comment on your post, as you did on the posts of others.
But in no way did I question your membership or your right to make a post.
One of the problems with HD cable TV is that many of the cablecos appear to still be using MPEG-2 encoding for their HD signals and there are a lot of compression artifacts, most annoying is the herky jerky motion.
I have watched some 720p and quite frankly, it is pretty good, but any hardware today should be able to handle 1080p in my opinion. The chip sets are prepared for it. If Apple chooses something else it will be yet another one of their screwball buying old, out of date stuff for no good reason. I think they frequently pay as much or more for the out-of-date stuff as the "good stuff" costs.
Please quote the part of my post where I implied otherwise?
My post is only pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who is expressing frustration with people for being "pissed at a business" and that we should instead "get mad at one that is actively hurting people", and that you would close; "I wonder about these boards sometimes.
As if we should be complaining about more productive issues. Yet, here you are, complaining about those posters, which, IMO, is no more productive than the posts you complain about.
Therefore I found it somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps I am alone in my opinion, but like you, felt it was alright to comment on your post, as you did on the posts of others.
But in no way did I question your membership or your right to make a post.
I spend the majority of my time in PRSI. Try it out sometime for some productive topics, we definitely need some new blood there.
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
True, but I guess we are all looking for something simpler and cheaper. AppleTV could do that and I am not sure that would make the device that much more expensive. Heck they could even create an AppleTV Pro model and charge more for it and keep a more mainstream model for $99.
Being tied to 720p content in 2010 is akin to Apple selling us 128k songs back in 2003.
Most people won't notice, but some people will really notice. And for those some people, the lack of hi-fidelity playback will drive them up a wall.
I happen to be in the 1080/BluRay/Lossless camp - so the lack of 1080p seems like a crime against humanity. However, looking at the complexion of the digital video market, where digital streaming is at and where price sensitivities are - It's very, very easy to see why Apple would opt to make the vast majority of [troglodyte] consumers happy with a solution that gets them in the door at the right price point.
Like the iPad and the iPhone - the first generation of hardware will be crippled by the absence of a key feature - but the compromise will be made so that the platform will hit critical mass before key competitors gain too much market share.
For $99 I'm in - Although I already have Netflix streaming on my BluRay settop box, so maybe not?
Most people won't notice, but some people will really notice. And for those some people, the lack of hi-fidelity playback will drive them up a wall.
I happen to be in the 1080/BluRay/Lossless camp - so the lack of 1080p seems like a crime against humanity. However, looking at the complexion of the digital video market, where digital streaming is at and where price sensitivities are - It's very, very easy to see why Apple would opt to make the vast majority of [troglodyte] consumers happy with a solution that gets them in the door at the right price point.
Like the iPad and the iPhone - the first generation of hardware will be crippled by the absence of a key feature - but the compromise will be made so that the platform will hit critical mass before key competitors gain too much market share.
For $99 I'm in - Although I already have Netflix streaming on my BluRay settop box, so maybe not?
You know, you keep calling people things. You should probably stop. Perhaps you are not noticing that most, maybe all, 1080p TV being sent out is 24Hz? Without showing the math, that is less data information than standard broadcast 1080i. The cameras are indeed often 1080p60 these days, some still film (even higher rez), some higher rez digital like 4K. But the bluray/broadcast/cable/sat actually sent is not. So what people are getting on their TVs is not this magical world you keep discussing. Once that changes, I'll be saying different things on internet forums.
Also, the interlacing artifacts and problems you discussed do not reduce resolution. Maybe you are refering solely to perception and quality of viewing experience, and I would certainly agree that progressive is much better than interlaced. But, since the topic is resolution, you are incorrect, 1080 is 1080. (unless the source is lower, and the transmission doesn't matter) Keep in mind there are still people with 1080i TVs, also, on which the deinterlacing does not exist.
Yes, resolution has nothing to do with physical screen size. Mine is 90", 720p.
Well good thing for u that all modern flat panel TVs do this thing called deinterlacing which takes a 1080i and turns it into 1080p.
1080p > 720p
I don't see what the complaints are.
Early on, people complained that the new iPod Classic with video could only support 320x240 resolution. Well, one software update later, it played 640x480.
Apple will limit it to 720p and then it'll play 1080 when the iTunes store starts to offer content in that format - if ever...
My concern is - will it have Component Out? My system is wired for Component, not HDMI...
I like your way of thinking...
I produce music and like to think I have an ear for detail, so I personally have a high quality sound system. I don't recommend it for everyone else because they don't need it.
Your "crime against humanity" comment also got me thinking... People who don't have enough food don't want gourmet meals, just the right amount of nutrition. To provide the world's hungry with gourmet meals is expensive and stoopid.
Apple isn't solving world hunger here, but it's aiming to meet a need... in this case some would say it's "providing easier and cost effective access to high quality video content". In that sense the rumoured device looks like it meets that need.
For those video gourmets who, let's face it, will always pay more than average so they can have the best gear... they can buy a more expensive product (eg bluray discs and player) that will meet their gourmet needs.