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'd say 3-4 times too expensive for that role. The gap between the 2 is way, way too large.
-Dan
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Thanks. I appreciate the name calling, etc. I could sling a few back at you but that accomplishes nothing.
Yes, I have talked to Joe Sixpack. I'm a marketing consultant. I actually do the research work to back up claims like "90% of the people" and similar, unlike many who sling such stuff around here (and who have typically surveyed a total of as little as 1 person- themself).
Sure, it's easy to sling "if you don't like it, don't buy it", but I want to buy it. I like the
TVs I have now... I just wished they had a little more horsepower in the chip set. They represent the weakest link in the Apple chain (iMovie, Quicktime, iTunes, TV) as the link that can't pass the (1080i or 1080p) video created and stored in Apple-delivered software. I'm certain in 2010 that the chip sets are cheap enough now to finally arrive at a 1080p next-gen TV. And I'd love to see it because that would mean ONE little set-top box could hit all of my own personal desires. So this particular rumor is a bummer if it turns out to be true.Unfortunately, such personal wishing is met by guys like you who apparently are satisfied with the limitations of the "as is" enough that you don't just bite your lip... but instead choose to call someone an "idiot" for wanting just a bit more out of Apple than what they delivered way back in 2007.
It's $99 - if you believe the rumor. Next to the Shuffle, that makes it the cheapest standalone product without a contract. I suspect people will not be too wound up about lifespan. Plus, it entry ramps them to Apple products.
Couldn't agree more.
I'm after a cheap device that will play my 1080p library, not at all fussed about iTunes or apps etc.
The hardware has been about for ages. We've got cheap, low power ion devices that's easy and open to code for, and a company like apple could easily build their system on something propriatory that's even smaller and cheaper - their interfaces are ok, but their tendency to have stupidly limited codec support and 100% reliance on iTunes would massively limit the device for me.
I'm going to stick with xbmc, that really works for me and wows visitors. New, open hardware platforms is all I'm really interested in I guess.
Then you should take a look at WD TV Live.
Not too shabby interface but of course nothing Apple-like.
Plays 1080p from external USB 2.0 drives or streams over ethernet from your network/PC/Mac. Via optional wireless stick streaming over WiFi also possible.
File Formats Supported:
Video - AVI (Xvid, AVC, MPEG1/2/4), MPG/MPEG, VOB, MKV (h.264, x.264, AVC, MPEG1/2/4, VC-1), TS/TP/M2T (MPEG1/2/4, AVC, VC-1), MP4/MOV (MPEG4, h.264), M2TS, WMV9 NO DRM iTunes stuff!
Photo - JPEG, GIF, TIF/TIFF, BMP, PNG
Audio - MP3, WAV/PCM/LPCM, WMA, AAC, FLAC, MKA, AIF/AIFF, OGG, Dolby Digital, DTS. DRM-free iTunes music works!
Has HDMI, component and digital audio out
see this link about streaming the HD through wd live:
http://wdtvhd.com/index.php?showtopic=8637
again, the key here is not whether its 1080p capable, but the sustained bit rates the device can do - looks like the wd tv live can display blu-ray level bit rates (not a surprise) - but getting that thru-put over wireless - well thats not going to happen. The wd forums seem to suggest the source material be connected via usb or Gigabit ethernet to keep the imagery from stuttering.
Ideally, we need an
TV that can handle at least 20Mbps (roughly ATSC) - current TV rates are 5Mbps [max: not sustained @ 720p]. So TV has quite aways to go as far as video quality and the fuss over 1080p capability is really a very very tiny part of the problem. j
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
But that WD TV live is proof that a 1080p chipset with high bit rate can be made available at a profit for under (retail) $100. So, while I agree that there are problems to overcome vs. the current incarnation of the TV, it is abundantly obvious that should Apple choose to deliver 1080p + high bit rates for something south of the current TV pricing, they certainly can do so.
For a couple of years now, it seems it's only been matters of (Apple) focus and will. I hope they choose to get it even more right this time, by killing this big(gest?) shortcoming in the next revision.
TV, it is abundantly obvious that should Apple choose to deliver 1080p + high bit rates for something south of the current TV pricing, they certainly can do so. For a couple of years now, it seems it's only been matters of (Apple) focus and will. I hope they choose to get it even more right this time, by killing this big(gest?) shortcoming in the next revision.
it is abundantly obvious that should Apple choose to deliver 1080p + high bit rates for something south of the current
Care to explain the underlined part?
People have been saying for almost 30 years what apple SHOULD be doing, and look at where they are doing what THEY want to do.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
NT, I don't understand the confusion. The underlined sentence is about looking around a lots of competitor products priced at below TV and including a 1080p chip set. There's plenty of TV-like devices and plenty of BD players (which also have the cost of the laser and the mechanical drive).
I was replying to some comments that seemed to imply that there would be a lot of cost to build in a 1080p chip set, but I don't buy it. I even speculate that it would probably be cheaper for Apple to choose a 1080p chip set than to choose a 720p chip set, as I would bet the economies of scale have a lot more 1080p chip sets being produced (for everyone) than 720p chip sets.
Hopefully that clarifies things. Most simply, the point is that it should be easy for Apple to build a next-genTV with a 1080p chip set. They could make all the people that argue "720p (and/or "as is") is good enough", because a chip set beyond the limits of 720p can always render a lower resolution format. And, they can win buyers in the "I'm not buying if it doesn't output 1080p" camp too.
Going with this rumor, it seems that they would miss a chunk of ready buyers- for seemingly no good reason- if they roll out a next-genTV that is still stuck at just 720p max "HD" resolution. Put in a 1080p chip set, and Apple will sell more. Don't and some people ready to buy- including me- will wait for version 2 (or is that 3?). I already have the version made in 2007. My money is ready for a new version that can play video beyond that handicapped 720p delivered over 3 years ago. All the other parts (iMovie, Quicktime, and iTunes) from Apple can deal with 1080p; we just need the last link in the (Apple) chain to pass that video from our iTunes library to our 1080p HDTVs.
TV and including a 1080p chip set. There's plenty of TV-like devices and plenty of BD players (which also have the cost of the laser and the mechanical drive). I was replying to some comments that seemed to imply that there would be a lot of cost to build in a 1080p chip set, but I don't buy it. I even speculate that it would probably be cheaper for Apple to choose a 1080p chip set than to choose a 720p chip set, as I would bet the economies of scale have a lot more 1080p chip sets being produced (for everyone) than 720p chip sets.
Hopefully that clarifies things. Most simply, the point is that it should be easy for Apple to build a next-gen
TV with a 1080p chip set. They could make all the people that argue "720p (and/or "as is") is good enough", because a chip set beyond the limits of 720p can always render a lower resolution format. And, they can win buyers in the "I'm not buying if it doesn't output 1080p" camp too. Going with this rumor, it seems that they would miss a chunk of ready buyers- for seemingly no good reason- if they roll out a next-gen
TV that is still stuck at just 720p max "HD" resolution. Put in a 1080p chip set, and Apple will sell more. Don't and some people ready to buy- including me- will wait for version 2 (or is that 3?). I already have the version made in 2007. My money is ready for a new version that can play video beyond that handicapped 720p delivered over 3 years ago. All the other parts (iMovie, Quicktime, and iTunes) from Apple can deal with 1080p; we just need the last link in the (Apple) chain to pass that video from our iTunes library to our 1080p HDTVs.
The shift away from cable/broadcast to the net
Wow, really very interesting. I just hope the "will it do 1080p" nonsense doesn't drown out the importance of the shift of tv watching from traditional broadcast to a more palatable net-based format. This could be an important shift for everyone.
Most of the drivel on TV doesn't deserve to be in high bit-rate (notice I didn't say 1080p) format anyway. I do empathize with folks who have high bit-rate home videos and/or in-the-home ripped-blu-ray servers. I really want anTV that can handle high quality video.
j
Wow, really very interesting. I just hope the "will it do 1080p" nonsense doesn't drown out the importance of the shift of tv watching from traditional broadcast to a more palatable net-based format. This could be an important shift for everyone.
Most of the drivel on TV doesn't deserve to be in high bit-rate (notice I didn't say 1080p) format anyway. I do empathize with folks who have high bit-rate home videos and/or in-the-home ripped-blu-ray servers. I really want an
TV that can handle high quality video.j
Wow, really very interesting. I just hope the "will it do 1080p" nonsense doesn't drown out the importance of the shift of tv watching from traditional broadcast to a more palatable net-based format. This could be an important shift for everyone.
Most of the drivel on TV doesn't deserve to be in high bit-rate (notice I didn't say 1080p) format anyway. I do empathize with folks who have high bit-rate home videos and/or in-the-home ripped-blu-ray servers. I really want an
j
And I think TV content is going to be in the broadcast standard of 720p or 1080i at best.
I think DISH, and DirecTV has some 1080p content, but I believe it's pay-per-view movie channels.
So ya, there is plenty of content that will be fine at 720p, and when I convert it to fit on my iPhone, do I really care to take 4x longer to download it in 1080p anyway? Not really.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
stop it with the 1080p already....
the DISH and DirecTV "1080P" content is bit rate limited (it is approximately DVD quality - see links below) - while you maybe getting video that has sync lines at 1080P speeds - the information content of the video will be at or even below dvd quality.
resolution means nothing. saying that 1080p takes longer than 720p is non-sensical. saying that 20Mbps bit rate material takes longer than 10Mbps material- well now we are being accurate.
j
links
http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/heres-what-fake-hd-video-looks-like/962
the DISH and DirecTV "1080P" content is bit rate limited (it is approximately DVD quality - see links below) - while you maybe getting video that has sync lines at 1080P speeds - the information content of the video will be at or even below dvd quality.
resolution means nothing. saying that 1080p takes longer than 720p is non-sensical. saying that 20Mbps bit rate material takes longer than 10Mbps material- well now we are being accurate.
j
links
http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/heres-what-fake-hd-video-looks-like/962
The last time I heard Fanboys working themselves up to a frenzy shouting "EPIC FAIL APPLE" it was about the iPad and we know how that turned out. Considering the price point that this is rumored to be at and Apple's attention to actual consumer needs I predict it will be a very popular and profitable product for Apple. Yes 1080p would be nice but 720p is good enough to work with the content and bandwidth limits we currently have.
This allows Apple to get into the market and later sell new units with higher power when it makes sense to them. It's how they do it.
If you want to wait for the more powerfull device in the future go sit over there with the "I'll wait for the iPad second gen" people and stop making noise.
And again, this thing will have apps, and games. Competitors in this space offer 1080p. There is no bitrate limit on locally stored gamefiles and textures.
If this thing wants to succeed, it needs to have futureproof features like the current full HD resolution.
The iTV will be as grand fail as TV.
And weirdest part is the reason,which one is content.
Or more specifially,the total lack of it.
It has been,what,few years since iTunes movies launched,and THERE IS NO MOVIES AVIABLE OUTSIDE US!
* Well,ok just being a bit drama queen here,there is couple in german and uk stores,rest of europe...nothing...and the situation is equally grim around the world.
So basically,apple launcedTV,promised content to it and even to date, there is nothing to watch!
And the situation wont get better either when the iTV comes out,because what has changed? Nothing.
TV.And weirdest part is the reason,which one is content.
Or more specifially,the total lack of it.
It has been,what,few years since iTunes movies launched,and THERE IS NO MOVIES AVIABLE OUTSIDE US!
* Well,ok just being a bit drama queen here,there is couple in german and uk stores,rest of europe...nothing...and the situation is equally grim around the world.
So basically,apple launced
TV,promised content to it and even to date, there is nothing to watch! And the situation wont get better either when the iTV comes out,because what has changed? Nothing.
Wow, so much is so not true here
First some basis: first of all, there aren't that many native 1080p games - alot of them are upscaled (Gasp) from 720p or even lower. Why?
let's do the math: 1080lines * 1920 pixels*24 bits = 49.7Mbits per frame.
120fps=5.97Gbps (some gamers think they need this)
60fps=2.99Gbps
24pfs=1.19Gbps
moving all of those bits with such little RAM (256MB in a ps3) into video memory takes time - game play suffers - some compression must be done. So I could make a few very beautiful slow moving cinematic scenes in 1080p - but fast motion is going to suffer - the AI engine is going to suffer - in short - its tough. Just ask nintendo if HD for gaming is the best idea. I could be wrong - maybe some of the gamers can chime in and let me know what it takes to do 1080p @60fps - from what I understand - not many platforms can do this and still offer quality gameplay.
2nd: There is lots of image compression and motion compensation in those games - we are really computationally limited here - so 1080p @60fps could be considered overkill for most gaming scenarios. - of course when dealing with gamers there is no such thing as overkill.
Competitors in this space offering 1080p are attempting to fool all of us.
Nintendo was honest: you don't need HD for gaming fun. Apple/DirecTV/Dish Comcast all lie to us when they say they are providing HD content - they are not - and you shouldn't believe them.
OTA (over the air) HD and blu ray are your best quality (bit-rate) sources out there - outside of shooting your own video.
sorry, one day we will all have to accept the fact that 1080p!=High Def.
j
Have you ever done any game programming ? No ? then please shush. You don't draw the frame in some kind of netherspace and then move it to system or video memory. You don't also update every single pixel in the image for every frame. You draw directly to the frame buffer in video memory and then you update what needs updating. You also have texture buffers that will store textures directly in video memory so you don't require to retransfer them on each use, only when first loading it for the scene. Your bandwidth requirements are absurd, even though the PS3 can handle them just fine (with a 22 GB/sec capable bus to its GDDR3 RAM).
This isn't video. The simple fact is, you can try to argue that it isn't necessary, but anyone with 2 eyeballs can see the difference between 720p and 1080p and will tell you that to omit 1080p just for the sake of it is plain dumb. You can still stream and output 720p on 1080p hardware, the reverse isn't true.
i bought a PS3 last week and was shocked that it upscales netflix streaming to HD. who cares if the games aren't in HD?
from the rumors so far it seems the PS3 is a lot more versatile than the iTV and better value. the reason games cost more is that they take longer to make since the quality is so much better. there is less piracy on the PS3. if the iTV gets jailbroken as easily as the iphone then don't expect quality games. they will be too easy to pirate and idevices will keep on being the home of 80's arcade and recoded flash game rejects
True,
not a game designer - just a video hardware guy - didn't mean to insinuate the netherspace scenario - thanks for the clarification - wasn't sure MR forums could handle an architectural video discussion.
You are right, the ultimate judge of video quality is your human eyeball - not bitrate - not resolution. The fact that some 1080p looks better than 720p doesn't mean its because of the resolution - which is my main thesis here. That same thinking has directv/dish/apple selling us "HD" which isn't HD - its heavily compressed video output at 720p or 1080i/p. It turns out, however, even with many psycho-visual tricks, and advanced compression tech that bitrate is still a good indicator (many would argue the best) of image quality - until someone comes up with something better. Perhaps there is a spec for video games that you game designers use - IDK - not my forte'.
cheers
j
That's the thing about games, with all the techniques out there to save memory bandwidth/space, resolution becomes a very big factor in quality. Anti-aliasing and Texture Mip maps are years old concepts that can be abused easily on today's hardware that as long as your frame rate is acceptable, more resolution will always show an improvement in graphics.
Remember, all this stuff used to run on graphics hardware with barely 4 MB of memory. All our choice APIs in use today have the proper methods built-in to ensure the best experience on limited hardware, which isn't so limited today. Screen resolutions haven't gone up much, and 1920x1080 is not so high that the hardware out there can't push it.
Hence why forgoing 1080p on this thing makes no sense. Let's hope this rumor is false.