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

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Thank you for the class. I guess I'm one of the whiners (though not a mkv whiner). My desire for 1080p is as simple as this: I shoot (precious to me & mine) home movies with a 1080p camcorder. I've had >720p camcorders for at least 3 years now, and have an awful lot of home movies.

iMovie lets me import the footage at up to full 1080 resolution, process it, polish it, export it at 1080, watch it at 1080 on my Macs via Quicktime, and import it into iTunes. But I can't push it from there through the TV to my 1080 HDTV because Apple decided with the current incarnation that we didn't need 1080 capability.

So, if I want the convenience that comes with the many good things about TV, my choices are HD half resolution or thoroughly compressed 720p at the very best. When I watch the movies in either of those ways, they are noticeably inferior to hooking the camcorder to the HDTV and watching them at 1080. This is true whether I sit close or far, and regardless of what "the chart" interpretations suggest.

Thus, i see a tremendous application for a next-gen TV that has nothing to do with mkv pirating, nor whether iTunes store gets a single 1080 video, nor whether Comcast expands the broadband pipe, etc. To me, it is an application of using one's own content as much as importing one's own CD collection.

Lastly, given your experience in particular, I'd be interested in knowing how much more you think it would cost for Apple to include a 1080p chipset vs. a 720p chipset. My guess is that there is NO cost difference, as I would expect the production economies of 1080p chipsets to be such that their production exceeds 720p chip set production in such volume, pricing has been worn down to a negligible difference. Looking around a competing boxes, I see things being sold at retail with 1080p chip sets and additional hardware beyond TV for that <$100-$150 range, and I know that (other) companies like to make a profit on their products (too).

So, with both in mind, I would suggest that there is no big hit to margin, nor no big cost to pass through at retail should Apple choose to make the next-gen a 1080p vs. a 720p platform. But, even within the postings within this thread, it is very easy to see that Apple would sell more units if they delivered what both camps want, rather than just what one camp wants. A 1080p next-gen TV will completely cover the "720p is good enough" crowd... AND it will also excite and delight the "1080p or bust" crowd. A 720p next-gen TV only feeds one of those groups. With no real cost impact to Apple, nor no jacked up price at retail for buyers, why not build a product that kills both birds with one stone? Apple will sell more if they deliver something that serves the major want of both camps.

 

[RBR2]

I'll add that to my list...

"Apple would never ..."

+1 (!)

 

[jp102235]

Thank you for the class. I guess I'm one of the whiners (though not a mkv whiner). My desire for 1080p is as simple as this: I shoot (precious to me & mine) home movies with a 1080p camcorder. I've had >720p camcorders for at least 3 years now, and have an awful lot of home movies.

yea,
this is a tough problem for all of us. What you really need to check is the bit rate of your video source (file size/time) - your camcorder (assuming H.264) is applying on-the-fly compression. when transcoded in iMovie / edited / and saved - there may be additional compression applied. In theory, when transcoding your camcorder video to 720p - if you can maintain the bit rate, you will minimize the perception in quality difference from 1080p. Don't get me wrong, they will look different, but as to which one is better is totally up to you. I have seen some 1080p movies that were just ugly (too artificial), but looked way better at lower resolutions - this may be because the 1080p allows the eye to see some artifact-ing that 720p doesn't - ok, so psycho visually speaking you may prefer seeing that artifact-ing - interpreting it as "high quality", we see this with audiophiles that prefer vacuumtubes and phonographs, with photographers that prefer film - to each his own. ultimately, you are the judge of what you like, but I just want you to understand that resolution alone does't guarantee a great visual experience.

check the handbrake forums for more indepth discussion on the quailty issue, and I am sure some of the video editor folks on this forum know much more than me on it.

And remember - just because you go from 1080p to 720p doen't mean you have to "thoroughly" compress the movie - just use handbrake (or some other tool) to match the bit rate. iMovie may be changing the bit rate based on the target resolution: thinking that it can get away with a little more compression if the target resolution is lower than the original. Caveat: I am not an iMovie user - so I could be dead wrong on that note.

If possible, download the camcorder (without additional processing from iMovie) movie file and just compare the source material in a quicktime window, right next to a transcoded version - the difference may be quite small and may be a bit more fair than comparing the camcorder sourced into your tv vs. apple tv - just a suggestion.

Lastly, given your experience in particular, I'd be interested in knowing how much more you think it would cost for Apple to include a 1080p chipset vs. a 720p chipset.

Yea,
that is too hard to predict, but what I can tell you: enabling additional functionality means that functionality must be tested during production - adding to the cost of production (a sophisticated 1080p test setup), time to manufacture (lengthens the return on investment for NRE for the product), as well as yield (if a device passes everything else, but fails for 1080p, you have to throw it away).
So that's not even considering the chip cost - and don't forget the software effort as well. Either way - its not a freebie.

j

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Thanks again for the feedback. My experience with TV, Handbrake, etc are this: Handbrake a DVD and I can't tell the difference. Yes, it went through another round of compression to go from the format on the DVD to the .m4v file TV can play.

I've tried every way I can think of to replicate this on going from the 1080HD camcorder to either of the "max" settings TV can handle, including rendering first with minimal compression and then going through Handbrake to see if it could do better than any native outputs direct from iMovie. In every scenario, it's always night & day in terms of original source vs. what can play on TV.

I interpret this to mean several things, but most notably that all these arguments about not being able to see the difference probably involves bad eyes on the part of those making the argument. Or they've chosen to save a few bucks by buying 720p HDTV and want to continue to believe that it is as good as 1080p. Etc. In real-world application, everyone in my household knows the difference between TV HD and the original source on the camcorder. When we want to see maximum picture, we have to go to the trouble of watching raw footage off the camcorder.

The DVDs though are stored in the attic, as no one sees the difference. Again, my interpretation is that the chip set in the existing TV is good enough to match DVD quality, but too weak to match camcorder HD. Thus, I hold the desire for a notch up in the chip set in the next-gen TV to cover this practical (not pirating) need in a way like all the other media is so well done in the iTunes library via TV.

 

[jp102235]

it's always night & day in terms of original source vs. what can play on TV.

yep,
I think you hit the nail on the head - Tv is definately limited in the H.264 features it can implement -AND- the bit rate it can employ. Let's hope for an improvement in that area.

j

 

[AidenShaw]

But that has nothing to do with 1080P vs. 720P and you know it. You are talking about bitrates, when the whining has been about resolution.

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.

So, we all agree that Apple Itunes "HD" videos have low resolution and low bitrates.

However, I think that one should consider resolution and bitrate to be related in this context.

How do you reduce the bitrate of a video stream:

• Compress more and reduce quality
• Reduce the size of the frames
• Reduce the frame rate

Apple seems to be doing all three with Itunes "HD".

Even without significant local storage, one would expect a media server in 2010 to be able to play high quality 1080p content that's on the local network - even if few people had the download bandwidth to stream high quality 1080p from the web.

One problem with all of the "you can't tell 720p from 1080p" anecdotes is the virtual impossibility of running an experiment in one variable (i.e. 720p vs 1080p).

I sit about 2.25m from my 52" XBR, so I'm just inside the "can tell" distance. I definitely can tell that my 1080p BD movies are much better than the 720p OTA broadcasts which are much better than the 720p Comcast cable feeds. So many variables though, is it my Faroudja chip converting 720 to 1080? Is it the difference in bandwidth? Is it the difference in resolution?

Anyway, a media extender in 2010 that doesn't support 1080p from local sources starts with a maximum of a "C-" rating. Let's hope that the rumours are wrong.

 

[jimmy1984]

itv hulu, netflix

is it safe to assume the iTV is going to be able to stream Hulu and Netflix? I cant seem to find anything concrete? Just a waiting game maybe?

 

[6andy6]

Ummm itv is a worldwide brand that also markets it's television programmes overseas under its name so it is very relevant. And I don't think the tv station itv will be in a hurry to change it's name just cos Apple would like it 2.

 

[Dan--]

I'll add that to my list...

"Apple would never kill off Classic completely."
"Apple will never open brick-and-mortar stores. It would be a disaster."
"Apple will never make the eMac available to non-educational buyers."
:
:
"Apple would never call their tablet an 'iPad'."

Nice list!

I'd say you could add a reference to the "Fatty" iPod nano.

-Dan​

 

[Dan--]

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 [...]

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.

I am an apple fan, but it must have these features.

I wouldn't mind a *2* model line-up, with one as spec'd, and the other with a hard drive and can act as a media server to the other devices, and comes with the full complement of cable connections. I guess I don't personally care that much about component cables, but I must have optical audio out.

-Dan​

 

[jfanning]

It's quite amazing how many of these "HD" consoles are running flagship titles at SD resolutions. Call of Duty 4 is in that list.

Well I don't think you can call a three year old game "flagship" any more. And although it is at a sub-HD resolution, at 1024x600 it is higher than SD

 

[CFreymarc]

It has nothing to do with the size of the company. It's about the value of the trademark. What have Cisco lost by making a deal about iOS? Nothing. What would ITV lose by making a deal about iTV? Potentially everything! If Apple's iTV became a huge success with one (or five) in every home, ITV would have completely lost it's brand identity.

It's worth remembering that for until quite recently (from October 2005 to September 2009), Gmail was known as Googlemail in the UK because of trademark dispute, and I would guess that 'Independent International Investment Research' held a little less sway that ITV.

It may not fit with some people's world view, but 'iTV' is not going to happen!

One thing I saw in a demo years ago at a SigGraph was a "poltical view slider." It was a big slider that was at the bottom of a web page. If you slide it to the left, the stories became liberal and if you slid it to the right the more conservative the stories became.

Everyone except those with a "Press" show badge laughed when it was presented.

 

[NightFox]

Just because there's already a UK TV channel called ITV wouldn't necessarily prevent Apple calling this iTV.

There are lots of diverse products with the same product/brand names; it's only when they're the same type of thing that it becomes and issue. For one example off the top of my head, think of how many products and companies there are called 'Colt'. There is admittedly a bit of overlap in this case, but at the end of the day, one is a broadcasting company, the other is a device used to stream movies. I think ITV would have to claim that Apple were stealing confused viewers from them by using such a similar name.

 

[ACDeag]

Looks like ITV is already consulting its lawyers, if this report is true.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...me-of-proposed-new-itv-gadget-86908-22484670/

 

[cheesymogul]

The "average consumer" goes to the big box store and sees the +40" TV showing a Blu-ray demo.

They'll notice that the Apple over-compressed "not really HD" video looks like crap compared to what they saw at the store.

It's also likely that they picked up the "add Blu-ray Disc player and 3 Blu-ray Disc movies for $150 more" special, so that they have a clear A-B comparison to see how bad the Apple downloads really are.

BINGO!!!

 

[shortcrust]

Just because there's already a UK TV channel called ITV wouldn't necessarily prevent Apple calling this iTV.

There are lots of diverse products with the same product/brand names; it's only when they're the same type of thing that it becomes and issue. For one example off the top of my head, think of how many products and companies there are called 'Colt'. There is admittedly a bit of overlap in this case, but at the end of the day, one is a broadcasting company, the other is a device used to stream movies. I think ITV would have to claim that Apple were stealing confused viewers from them by using such a similar name.

There is more that enough overlap for ITV to successfully protect their trademark in the UK! It's not about stealing confused viewers, but about protecting a brand image and identity.

It will not be called iTV in the UK, and probably not anywhere else either.

 

[owen-b]

I have to assume that people arguing that ITV should just roll over or that there's no overlap or that it's just a small national TV channel that aren't important or that Apple will do a deal with them like with Cisco etc - I have to assume all these people don't live in the UK.

There's simply no way this device will be called iTV over here, and I seriously doubt Apple are going to market a device as one thing around the world and something else here. I'm guessing they'll go with iTelevision or something similar.

 

[owen-b]

Seriously.

I don't care how much it costs, if it cannot do 1080p its junk

Is it really.

I don't care about 1080p. I don't even know if my flatscreen HD telly can do 1080p. I don't think it does, but with the exception of Xbox games, not a single thing I watch on my telly is in HD. Not the discs I play, the US shows I 'acquire', the terrestrial telly we receive, nothing. Do I care? Not really. A little bit of extra detail doesn't enhance my enjoyment, it really doesn't. It's nice, sure, but for us it totally isn't "pay a ******** more cash for the privilege" nice, not remotely.

So, if you like it, and if you are sad that the new device won't do 1080, that's your issue, and something you'll clearly not be buying, but it's utter crap to call it junk. That's just the stupid trend of people on the internet assuming their personal opinion is fact.

By the way, the current Apple TV doesn't do 1080p either and I don't see the world ending or the sky falling.

 

[owen-b]

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.

Have you actually asked Joe Sixpack? Here's the thing: you can connect whatever the heck you like to your fancy 1080p television. You don't HAVE to connect anything to it at all, and you certainly don't HAVE to connect only 1080p equipped boxes. And why do you even need to buy this Apple box that isn't even announced yet? If it doesn't scrub up, don't fricking well buy it. It's not the end of the world. It's not like you're forced to buy it and once connected it infects your TV with marginally less detailed pictures (and really, REALLY, if you can tell the difference and it spoils your enjoyment, you're wasting your time watching whatever it is you're watching because it clearly doesn't have your full attention).

Idiocy. But then that's the internet all over, full of opinionated idiots just like you, and me, who think they know EVERYTHING.

 

[owen-b]

450 plus comments - with alot / most seeming to say apple continues to drop the ball on this hobby.

I don't count thread posts enough to know for sure, but this alone seems to be pretty compelling evidence that the whole apple TV thing really tarnishes Apple's reputation.

From a pride standpoint alone, I would think they'd want to do this version right.

LOL

The number of comments on a forum thread isn't compelling evidence of anything WHATSOEVER other than evidence that a bunch of whining technogeeks will get their knickers in a right old mess at the drop of a hat if it had an Apple on it. I mean I love Apple stuff too but generally I don't cry my frickin' eyes out if their new product - which OMG isn't even frickin' ANNOUNCED yet - doesn't have the EXACT technical specifications that I demand - nay, that I have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN.

Compelling evidence, that's hilarious!

 

[rodrigomarrafao]

"Later this year" right next to the white iPhone. iTV, why not call it the iBox?

Should be called IDef. Since Apple never listen to their users expectations and try to pull crap ideas in shinning packages more and more.

This would be a somewhat good product if it could stream from external drivers or network locations. Oh wait where Apple would profit that way? Me Idumb! They want us to buy their DRM appstore apps after all!

Ipads, Ipods, Itvs, Iphones are a serious threat to your personal freedom and most ppl fail to realize it. Now if it would be possible to jailbreak it and run some kind of media server like orb on it... 100 U$ worth it

 

[steviem]

Should be called IDef. Since Apple never listen to their users expectations and try to pull crap ideas in shinning packages more and more.

This would be a somewhat good product if it could stream from external drivers or network locations. Oh wait where Apple would profit that way? Me Idumb! They want us to buy their DRM appstore apps after all!

Ipads, Ipods, Itvs, Iphones are a serious threat to your personal freedom and most ppl fail to realize it. Now if it would be possible to jailbreak it and run some kind of media server like orbs on it... 100 U$ worth it

Do you mean iDef as in Hi Def?

It would probably be able to stream from your iTunes library.

The fact that TV companies like DRM for their content means that if you want to watch Hulu through your iTV, then the an app for it, specifically designed for the platform, makes more sense than something kludged together in Flash.

The fact that these devices exist means a lot for freedom. If you don't like the way Apple deals with DRM, Flash and App Store, then weigh those factors up with what you would like out of it, if your doubts are still more significant, then spend more by building a boxee box, waiting for GoogleTV (although they are showing signs of evil too) or get a WD Live HD.

I like the idea of apps, the potential idea of FaceTime on it, through your TV (that's science fiction finally coming true), the idea of having my TV Shows (most of which I don't get from apple) all nicely presented to me showing which episodes I hadn't viewed yet - across all of my Apple Devices (something DLNA currently can't do).

I couldn't care less about Flash, I would prefer that the internet works without proprietary plugins.

 

[hansende]

Is there a "right way" to hold the iTV? Can I use the death grip?

 

[owen-b]

Ipads, Ipods, Itvs, Iphones are a serious threat to your personal freedom and most ppl fail to realize it.

Stupid thing to say. Yes, I am practically a prisoner in my own home.

 

[CWallace]

I wouldn't mind a *2* model line-up, with one as spec'd, and the other with a hard drive and can act as a media server to the other devices, and comes with the full complement of cable connections.

In many ways, the new Mac Mini appears to fill that role. Yes, it's expensive for what it does, but it does it.