I've tried that, but it's very clunky. Lots of wires, and i have to have my laptop open next to the TV, etc... I'd much rather have a dedicated set top box.
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
I've tried that, but it's very clunky. Lots of wires, and i have to have my laptop open next to the TV, etc... I'd much rather have a dedicated set top box.
My current cable box can't give me TWIT, C/NET, and other speciality podcasts, and I have to rely on the broadcasters to show the games they want me to see.
My cable box is useless.
Just depends on what you want.
Maybe for you. But my connection is fast enough that I can stream 1080p movies that start playing about 3 seconds after I hit the play button and don't skip once.
Thank you Microsoft for seeing the light in 2010 and adding 1080p streaming movie rentals to the Xbox Marketplace.
Precisely, people seem to be completely missing the point. Without local content storage, the ability to display in 1080P would be dependent on the ability to stream 1080P.
And frankly, few people have the kind of Internet connection neccessary to safely stream even the extra-compressed 720P that iTunes currently produces.
Personally, I have Comcast Speed+ connection, and find that it's not 100% reliable to stream 720P HD from iTunes on my existing Apple TV. If conditions align, it's good, but on average, if I start watching the moment the Apple TV says "Ready To Watch", I will experience 2-3 stutters lasting 20-90 seconds for rebuffering during an average length movie.
It's not an issue for download then watch, but no one has successful built a business that requires you to wait a couple of hours for a movie to download before you can begin watching it.
It's all but certain that the hardware could push a 1080P display, but where's the content coming from? If it's on your PC or Mac, what you've got a a cut-down AppleTV, and you're back to the download before watching world.
Blaming Apple for lack of 1080P support in a streaming device is blaming them for the speed on the average net connection. If only we all lived in Korea...
You should. That is, when you knew what the bandwidth requirements are to support 1080p50 [instead of 720p50] which is only 15-20% extra. No problem for EU countries.
Note: The current Apple TV supports 720p24 which requires even less bandwidth, because the quality sucks. Sorry, but sometimes living in the US is like living in a third world country.
It's not a standard for refresh rate, it's a standard for resolution. Again, the more you post on this issue, the more you show your lack of understanding of the matter.
Maybe not, but this box says it can do Apps. As in probably Games and the Game Center announced in April. Games use your local storage, they are not streamed. 1080p makes sense there, since all other competitors in this area offer it.
States this, States that. This product will have worldwide distribution. 1080p streaming might make sense elsewhere, why limit what the product can do because of the States ? You do understand that if it supports 1080p, it doesn't force anyone to provide 1080p content or stream 1080p content. Sometimes features are nice to have for futureproofing.
I use Netflix streaming a lot, but I'm still not completely sold on the streaming/cloud model as the "next big thing." On a 12-megabit cable connection, Netflix streaming works very well for me with standard definition streams, but the high definition ones are a little flaky. I think this is largely due to the very small cache (100 MB, I think) in my Netflix streaming DVD player.
Many people do not have internet connections which can sustain 6+ megabits per second for hours on end without a slowdown somewhere in the middle.
Many people do not have internet connections which can sustain 6+ megabits per second for hours on end without a slowdown somewhere in the middle.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Everyone, it's very simple:
It makes NO sense to wait for 1080p content to appear in the iTunes store first, as it is impossible to play 1080p content on a 720p
TV, if the content producers added a bunch of 1080p content today. The hardware must lead, so that some content owner gets enticed into testing whether 1080p versions of their films or shows will be profitable via this new(er) TV platform.
It makes NO sense to blame the lack of bandwidth, or to argue for waiting for bandwidth to catch up to this need. Until the need puts great pressure on the pipes, those who control them feel little reason to do much about expanding bandwidth. Furthermore, the U.S. is not the only market in the world, and there are plenty of countries with much faster average bandwidth.
Contrary to semi-popular belief there are more sources of potential content for a next-gen (1080p)TV than just the iTunes store. For example, I've owned a HD camcorder for more than 3 years now- just no way to pump those 1080HD movies to the TV via TV. On demand "home movies" is one of the best features of the TV "as is", but it's a shame that so many consumers have 1080i and 1080p camcorders with no way to get that content to their 1080i or 1080p HDTVs via a device best suited to make that so easy to do. Apple provides iMovie for free for editing that content. It can export it at 1080p too. Quicktime can play it that way. It will even go right into iTunes just like any other video. But the weak link in the chain is the last one, which moves your movie from your iTunes library to your HDTV screen.
It doesn't add much- if any- cost to make the next-gen a 1080p platform. Those who believe it is overkill can still enjoy their 720p content to the fullest. But those who want more than 720p will have a compelling reason to buy one too.
This is not a "because Apple says 720p is good enough, we have to agree with the Steve" scenario. Instead, it is an opportunity for Apple to make both sides happy without making either side sacrifice their individual opinions about 720p vs. 1080p.
Personally, I'd much rather have Apple deliver the OPTION for 1080p, rather than decide for me that 720p should be good enough. And until the 1080p version is significantly entrenching in homes, there is virtually no motivation for content producers to add 1080pTV content to iTunes to test interest, nor much reason for larger investment in the pipes to accelerate the delivery of such content to us. If we wait for 1080p content in iTunes AND national broadband speeds to be fast enough, we'll all be a LOT OLDER than we are now before we get there.
Apple must lead... and with this particular thing, there is virtually NO reason not to use a 1080p chipset if Apple's goal is to sell as many pieces of hardware as possible. This idea of "sell us a 720p version first, then sell us again next year when they add the 1080p version" is small potatoes thinking. The little market segment that embraces anything Apple- including gimped versions- is not big enough to make this go. They need to build something that buyers beyond the most Apple faithful can get excited about.
Even Joe Sixpack can grasp that little boxes he connects to his 1080p "full HD" TV have to be 1080p-capable devices. He doesn't want to buy a 720p limited device to hook to his 1080p HDTV.
And neither do I.
- The cost to use 1080p chip set cannot be much more than the cost to use a 720p chip. We can easily see this by looking around at lots of other video player boxes that have 1080p chip sets inside, and cost less than $100-$150.
- A 1080p TV platform can completely satisfy everyone who believes 720p is "good enough", "you can't see the difference", "the chart, the chart", etc. It would play your 720p content to the fullest level it can be delivered.
- A 720p TV platform can NOT completely satisfy all those BUYERS who want 1080p playback capabilities. So even as we see over and over in this thread, a lot of Apple fans say they will NOT buy it if it doesn’t come with 1080p capability
- If Apple wants to sell as many units of hardware as possible, the correct choice is to roll it out with 1080p chip set
It makes NO sense to wait for 1080p content to appear in the iTunes store first, as it is impossible to play 1080p content on a 720p
TV, if the content producers added a bunch of 1080p content today. The hardware must lead, so that some content owner gets enticed into testing whether 1080p versions of their films or shows will be profitable via this new(er) TV platform.It makes NO sense to blame the lack of bandwidth, or to argue for waiting for bandwidth to catch up to this need. Until the need puts great pressure on the pipes, those who control them feel little reason to do much about expanding bandwidth. Furthermore, the U.S. is not the only market in the world, and there are plenty of countries with much faster average bandwidth.
Contrary to semi-popular belief there are more sources of potential content for a next-gen (1080p)
TV than just the iTunes store. For example, I've owned a HD camcorder for more than 3 years now- just no way to pump those 1080HD movies to the TV via TV. On demand "home movies" is one of the best features of the TV "as is", but it's a shame that so many consumers have 1080i and 1080p camcorders with no way to get that content to their 1080i or 1080p HDTVs via a device best suited to make that so easy to do. Apple provides iMovie for free for editing that content. It can export it at 1080p too. Quicktime can play it that way. It will even go right into iTunes just like any other video. But the weak link in the chain is the last one, which moves your movie from your iTunes library to your HDTV screen. It doesn't add much- if any- cost to make the next-gen a 1080p platform. Those who believe it is overkill can still enjoy their 720p content to the fullest. But those who want more than 720p will have a compelling reason to buy one too.
This is not a "because Apple says 720p is good enough, we have to agree with the Steve" scenario. Instead, it is an opportunity for Apple to make both sides happy without making either side sacrifice their individual opinions about 720p vs. 1080p.
Personally, I'd much rather have Apple deliver the OPTION for 1080p, rather than decide for me that 720p should be good enough. And until the 1080p version is significantly entrenching in homes, there is virtually no motivation for content producers to add 1080p
TV content to iTunes to test interest, nor much reason for larger investment in the pipes to accelerate the delivery of such content to us. If we wait for 1080p content in iTunes AND national broadband speeds to be fast enough, we'll all be a LOT OLDER than we are now before we get there. Apple must lead... and with this particular thing, there is virtually NO reason not to use a 1080p chipset if Apple's goal is to sell as many pieces of hardware as possible. This idea of "sell us a 720p version first, then sell us again next year when they add the 1080p version" is small potatoes thinking. The little market segment that embraces anything Apple- including gimped versions- is not big enough to make this go. They need to build something that buyers beyond the most Apple faithful can get excited about.
Even Joe Sixpack can grasp that little boxes he connects to his 1080p "full HD" TV have to be 1080p-capable devices. He doesn't want to buy a 720p limited device to hook to his 1080p HDTV.
And neither do I.
You are missing the point. Their existence is not terribly relevant. People act like it is the end of the world and it is not.
Sounds like taking a jigsaw puzzle leaving out a bunch of the pieces, having a computer fill it in and then claiming it will look EXACTLY like the completed jigsaw puzzle would have looked.
How is that possible?
When looking at tvs in a store, people usually view them at a super close distance, IE standing right in front of them.
Nobody is arguing that if you put your nose up to the screen you can't tell the difference. Stand back 8-10 feet though, and Is uspect you would barely notice anything different between the two.
A TV that is 34" or less there really is no big different between 720p and 1080p at viewing distance.
But after that point like 40"+ it becomes very noticeable and is now in range of people normal viewing distance.
I guess i'll keep saying this as no one seems to listen: resolution means nothing: the source material is bitrate limited, both blu-ray and ATSC compress their data, so the limit (perceived quality limit) IS NOT BOUNDED BY THE RESOLUTION.
IF you have a raw 1080p source - then you can say that 1080p is important. I haven't heard of any readily available media at that bitrate (maybe 4k?)
It just may be that the A4 can't handle bitrates (note: i didn't say resolution) that are high - and so why provide a 1080p signal if the bitrate limits you, especially since 720p bitrate limits should be high enough for the content you are providing?
I get that some native-resolution TV's would be better at having a 1080i/1080p signal provided to them (thus no need to upscale a 720p coming from said iDevice) - BUT: the limiting factor is still bitrate - not any loss from upscaling.
Blu-ray (and whatever other format) image quality totally depends on how many blocks (not pixels) are being thrown at the screen - all these complainers need to seek the videophile forums if you are SOOOO concerned about resolution and educate yourself on image quality.
j
(my master's thesis was on image compression - so please excuse my venting)
The majority of Playstation 3 games are in 720p and they look fine to me. 'Full HD' is strictly speaking only noticeable once you go above a 32" TV, and then the closer you are the more difference you'll see. But seriously, is it worth complaining about when the things 'apparently' only going to be $99? Thats pocket money in the scope of Apple products.
You're all just bitching over numbers in the same sad way you do with Mac's.
You're all just bitching over numbers in the same sad way you do with Mac's.
yea, that's why I always use http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM
Denon akdl1 link cables - the arrows really help keep the fidelity there - and I can hear the difference on my bose speakers, know why? Cause, I don't cheap out with "Monster" speaker cables, I use the best : pear anjou cables: http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm
j
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The problem with this though is the implication that the 1080p stream is going to be thoroughly compressed, as if the 720p stream is not... or much less compressed? If we’re going to argue that iTunes adding 1080p video means that we are going to get an overly compressed 1080p file that makes the gains in resolution almost null, that only works if the same reasoning for all that (over)compression is not applied to the 720p video files as well. The reality is that if one is (over) compressed for "faster downloading" etc, the other video resolution is too... for the very same rationale.
Is 720p compressed "as is" in the iTunes store acceptable because Apple has decided that 720p is good enough for everyone, and that the average rate of compression used is a good enough balance of quality vs. video file size? Why does Apple get to decide for me... and you... and everyone else?
Apple wants to sell a lot of hardware. Buyers want a lot of things. If Apple spends about the same cost of components, they can build it with a 1080p chipset or a 720p chipset. The 1080p chipset will completely delight the "720p (and Apple choice of compression) is 'good enough' " crowd, because it will play 720p at the fullest the file delivered by iTunes can deliver. However, the 720p (limited) chipset cannot possibly meet the desires- warranted or not, visible or not, etc- of the "must be 1080p or I don't buy" crowd. Thus, Apple can kill 2 birds with one stone, or one bird with one stone.
There is no arguing Apple's case that 720p is good enough or 1080p is bad because of matters like compression. The 720p that Apple delivers now is pretty thoroughly compressed vs. uncompressed 720p too. All that perceived quality loss due to too much compression of a hypothetical 1080p video stream is going to be lost due to too much compression of the 720p video stream too.
It's not like adding a 1080p option will make the box cost more, nor hurt (IN ANY WAY) all those who believe that "as is" iTunes HD video is good enough. Nor does it automatically mean that a 1080p file is going to be far more compressed than the compression levels Apple has chosen for the 720p they serve now.
When I see these arguments posed as why 720p is good enough, it cracks me up to hop around to other threads on this same site and see some of these same people griping that Apple didn't use the latest graphics card in the new iMac, or that they didn't put in the fastest processors in the new ________. In short, it seems like we are so hung up on wanting more power than most of us need from all other things Apple, yet we’re so quick to make arguments that less than the max standard is "good enough" when it comes to video. Why is that? Because Apple says so?
Until Apple supports mkv, it's a no go for me.
I can live with the 720p resolution, but I'll be damned if I'm going to re-encode my entire library for it.
They should really just take VLC, absorb it into Apple, make that the main branch of Quicktime, give it a new UI, do the cross platform release, and be done with it. We all would be exponentially happier.
Of course in reality they'll do the opposite; we'll see them stick with 720p and insist that .mov and .mpeg are the only formats in existence, and deny knowledge of anything like .ogm, .mkv, or even .avi. Also, can we get all of the nice, HD sound? Please? Running HDMI is nice since it can push all this; as far as I'm aware iTunes content doesn't push 5.1+ when played on a current ATV, let alone any of the advanced sound formats.
I can live with the 720p resolution, but I'll be damned if I'm going to re-encode my entire library for it.
They should really just take VLC, absorb it into Apple, make that the main branch of Quicktime, give it a new UI, do the cross platform release, and be done with it. We all would be exponentially happier.
Of course in reality they'll do the opposite; we'll see them stick with 720p and insist that .mov and .mpeg are the only formats in existence, and deny knowledge of anything like .ogm, .mkv, or even .avi. Also, can we get all of the nice, HD sound? Please? Running HDMI is nice since it can push all this; as far as I'm aware iTunes content doesn't push 5.1+ when played on a current ATV, let alone any of the advanced sound formats.
Whatever. You're sidestepping the point because you can't refute it. Hooray.
Who cares? People not in America, that's who. I think about the rest of the world plenty, but I could give a happy damn what consumer electronic devices are available or not elsewhere. It's just a damn box to let people watch video.
If the best resolution possible was important, I wouldn't be trying to stream the video, as again in most areas broadband sucks in the US. That may not be true elsewhere, but Apple is an American company so I'd expect their products to have American infrastructure limitations in mind. Foreigners can buy something else.
Further: http://scienceblog.com/37469/video-quality-less-important-when-youre-enjoying-what-youre-watching/
VHS didn't beat betamax because it had better resolution - it won because it was good enough.
ah yes,
good post, let me see if I can address this.
You ask why does apple get to decide this for me? Because that is actually their job. You see - I am a design engineer - and my job is to make choices. I hope my choices please the consumer enough that he keeps buying the product, and I hope my choices make the profit margin high enough that it pleases my REAL customer: the marketing guys. You know those guys-they were partying in undergrad while I was pouring over SPICE simulations for my VLSI courses.
Understand this - in design, everything costs something, as small as it may seem - there is a cost to everything. When the marketing folks send me a design for a magical box that washes the car, milks the cows, does the dishes, and a target cost of $9.99. I work my magic and send back options, what I can make, the cost, and the projected revenue. And the marketing people choose the best options for the company that they see fit to offer.
anywho: Somewhere along the line, apple will decide whether they need to appease the technically ignorant folks and give them a 1080p option (which will hurt the bottom line) or if the intended source content warrants just 720p. [it IS a little disingenuous to offer 1080p - see link below]
Remember: 720p content, DVD, ATSC (broadcast HDTV in the states), itunes, and whatever is ALL compressed - if you read the handbrake forums, they will tell you that typically quality can be measured by bitrate- now, we (image compression folks) think that's false, but that's about the best we have right now. (the best is by measuring human opinion: somewhat tricky)
you can check your bit rate very simply: divide the size of the video file by the time length (ok, the audio content should be compensated for, as well as some header/meta stuff, but this is a rough estimate)
here is a good link:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/dont-believe-the-low-bit-rate-hd-lie/959
summary:
non existant "RAW" 1080p at 60 frames/sec = 3Gbps - almost a dvd per second
HD-DVD: 28Mbps (107-1 compression here) - blu ray is similar
DVD's : 5-8Mbps
xbox360-720p 6.8Mbps (xbox 360 "hd" is not real "HD")
xbox360-1080p - I don't have info on it - can someone help me out?
ATSC: 19.8Mbps (somebody double check me on this)
we really should be upset that apple/comcast/xbox send us "HD" content - well, that really isn't HD - but they could fool the majority of folks on the forum by selling them a 1080p box, that basically adds nothing to their visual experience.
The only person who should be really concerned about 1080p capability are the folks serving mkv content from their home servers to their tv (apple tv, wdtv, and some others). all others whine needlessly.
class over
j
it won because of the porn industry - from what I hear.
http://www.mediacollege.com/video/format/compare/betamax-vhs.html
ok, it was the rental industry - betamax was limited to 60 minutes VHS could hold a movie. And vhs was great for recording a few tv shows and movies (a 3 hour tape was available)
sorry to bud in on your raging debate
cheers
j
Yea, that would be nice - but wouldn't that mean that apple is acknowledging (dare i say encouraging) people to rip from bluray/dvd? - that would put them in a precarious situation with the studios they are trying to lure - don't you think?
If only DVD ripping were as accepted as CD ripping (aren't they both illegal?) - then I think you would see the support.
j