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
No because its being made redundant by the amount of free, high(er) quality and often ad-less media available on the internet.
When 90% of tv is crap why pay for it? I'd rather pickup the better bits like planet earth, life, etc on Blueray at 1080p and cheaper than a tv license. That and, all the other shows i watch are generally being uploaded to their websites anyway. I personally would feel foolish to pay to view them an hour before they are released on the web or to schedule my life around their program deadlines.
Just a personal preference. I believe its an outdated way to consume media, and obviously big companies agree otherwise things like this would not be being released.
This kind of product has already been on the market for a year or so and it's called WD TV Live HD. It actually has a good user interface, plays all kinds of formats flawlessly (like 1080p MKVs) and gets regular firmware updates. It costs about $99. It lacks internal storage, but you can connect anything you like via USB.
I like my Apple TV but I wouldn't buy it anymore because the competition is better, and I sure as hell wouldn't buy something that is even more crippled than the current iteration. I realise that the WD TV box is not for everyone, but I can at least see some sort of market for it. I fail to see one for a crippled Apple TV.
Am i the only one here concerned, less about the product specifications and more about the fact that an iPhone 3GS can stream 1080p content all day long, but an iPhone 4 therefore cant? 
I assume Apple have just realised that the A4 is not all it was hyped up to be, and in fact by this definition it actually less powerful than the old 3GS processor...
Or did i mis-read the section where it says the A4 cant stream 1080p?
I assume Apple have just realised that the A4 is not all it was hyped up to be, and in fact by this definition it actually less powerful than the old 3GS processor...
Or did i mis-read the section where it says the A4 cant stream 1080p?
It is plausible that the hardware will play 1080p content and the limitation mentioned is the content source, iTunes. In which case, this new iTV hardware may become 1080p 'capable' as soon as there is 1080p content available for it. And of course a small software 'patch' to enable it in existing devices.
Why do I want this?
I have a stronger more powerful computer in my xbox or PS3 or my Mac Mini, or my laptop.
99 dollars is ok as a price point. But almost everyone has something else that fills this niche, and doesn't have to give up anything.
My blu-ray DVD, my TiVo, hell my TV.
I have a stronger more powerful computer in my xbox or PS3 or my Mac Mini, or my laptop.
99 dollars is ok as a price point. But almost everyone has something else that fills this niche, and doesn't have to give up anything.
My blu-ray DVD, my TiVo, hell my TV.
Firstly IOS was the name of cisco's router and switch operating system. To be honest, what would ITV have against apple naming one of their products iTV?
Apple has a bit of a history of encroaching and eclipsing the mindshare of other companies. How many people under the age of 30 do you know that know the beatles' company is called Apple corps? Probably only the Apple geeks...
I'd still love iTV/appleTV to have face time, but if not, I'd be really happy if it's iOS based and can stream from my computer.
Apple has a bit of a history of encroaching and eclipsing the mindshare of other companies. How many people under the age of 30 do you know that know the beatles' company is called Apple corps? Probably only the Apple geeks...
I'd still love iTV/appleTV to have face time, but if not, I'd be really happy if it's iOS based and can stream from my computer.
That's absolutely misinformed, you do not gain resolution by "seeing" both images at the same time (you're essentially seeing line doubling this way). Nor do you gain resolution by deinterlacing, which either only blurs the fields together or, again doubles the lines. But enjoy wasting your money on 1080i devices if you're going to chastise me with your 4chan-esque "cool story bro," I'm not going to argue about it, I'm just trying to help out.
Incorrect as well. 1080i provides 60 lower resolution images per second, 720p provides 30 higher resolution images per second.
Will iTV get the first PA Semi CPU?
Well maybe the next version of iTV will finally get the CPU that the PA Semi team has been working on since 2008. Apple paid $278 million to bring PA Semi's considerable CPU design talent in-house, and so far we've seen no products containing their work. (The A4 is supposedly the product of Apple's $121 million Intrinsity ARM-optimizer firm acquisition.)
There's a chance that PA Semi's real mission is to create a single CPU architecture that would be used in all Apple products. That would explain why it's taking so long. Supposedly it takes 18 months from start to finish when designing an all-new CPU. And it's been more than 2 years since the PA Semi acquisition.
My silly wild-a** guess is that Apple could scale their "pan-Apple CPU" power in different devices by adding more cores for more power. One or two cores in iPod Touch / iPhone / iPad for long battery life, quad cores in iTV, MacBooks and low-end iMacs, 8 or more cores in high-end iMacs, and 8/16/32+ cores in Mac Pros.
This would allow Apple to become independent of Intel and possibly ARM, it would kill off the hackintosh forever, it would help Apple to further differentiate themselves from the rest of the Wintel crowd, and it would allow Apple to optimize their CPUs for Mac OS and/or iOS. (I am not a hardware engineer, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Intel architecture has tons of legacy Windows-centric hacks.)
Of course, there would be a transition period from Intel and ARM to the unified Apple CPU. But Apple has plenty of experience transitioning their own developers, 3rd party developers, and their customer base to different CPU architectures in the past. 68K to RISC, then RISC to Intel.
Well maybe the next version of iTV will finally get the CPU that the PA Semi team has been working on since 2008. Apple paid $278 million to bring PA Semi's considerable CPU design talent in-house, and so far we've seen no products containing their work. (The A4 is supposedly the product of Apple's $121 million Intrinsity ARM-optimizer firm acquisition.)
There's a chance that PA Semi's real mission is to create a single CPU architecture that would be used in all Apple products. That would explain why it's taking so long. Supposedly it takes 18 months from start to finish when designing an all-new CPU. And it's been more than 2 years since the PA Semi acquisition.
My silly wild-a** guess is that Apple could scale their "pan-Apple CPU" power in different devices by adding more cores for more power. One or two cores in iPod Touch / iPhone / iPad for long battery life, quad cores in iTV, MacBooks and low-end iMacs, 8 or more cores in high-end iMacs, and 8/16/32+ cores in Mac Pros.
This would allow Apple to become independent of Intel and possibly ARM, it would kill off the hackintosh forever, it would help Apple to further differentiate themselves from the rest of the Wintel crowd, and it would allow Apple to optimize their CPUs for Mac OS and/or iOS. (I am not a hardware engineer, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Intel architecture has tons of legacy Windows-centric hacks.)
Of course, there would be a transition period from Intel and ARM to the unified Apple CPU. But Apple has plenty of experience transitioning their own developers, 3rd party developers, and their customer base to different CPU architectures in the past. 68K to RISC, then RISC to Intel.
Nope:
QUOTE:" ...is that this has something to do with the A4's inability to crank on higher resolution content..."
Most people can't distinguish iPhone 4's retina display (960x640) from iPhone 3GS (480x360) anyway.
I heard about it that some people love it others hate it.
I would like an Apple solution that plays somewhat like WD TV, not sure if it is happening. Mac Mini could be an option but the price and somewhat steep learning curve to use it (wife/kids) is not an alternative.
I just don't think is asking Apple too much to make an AppleTV that indeed can address these issues. We'll see.
Just like all they did in the 80s was dumbing down computers so users would buy programs instead of write them in BASIC.
Just like all they did in 2001 dumbing down mp3 players into something easy to navigate, sync and use.
But most people don't sit 2' away from a 60" screen. I do 8' with my feet up.
I can distinguish it in seconds, as long as the phone is within reach. I fail to see how anyone can't distinguish it, provided they have good eyesight.
Oh no! MR poster is angry at ridiculous question! Before you burst into Hulk rage mode you should read this: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter. Apparently the difference in quality between 720p and 1080p on a 50" TV does not become noticeable unless you sit closer than 9.8 feet. I know many people who have living rooms that are big enough so that their TV is 10ft away. I guess you like sitting 4ft away from a 50" TV and take THX's ridiculous viewing distances.
The point is that most people who claim "I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p" only can see that difference when they put in a blu-ray and know the material is 1080p. Many people probably sit more than 9.8ft away on a 50" TV. Also the full difference does not become noticeable until you are within 6.5ft.