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 Said to Launch in October for $149 or $199
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wonder if this means anything....
"Netflix says it’s not renewing a distribution deal with cable network Epix, which means its U.S. subscribers will lose access to big Hollywood movies like “Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” “World War Z” and “Transformers: Age of Extinction” at the end of September. The trade-off, says Netflix: It is making its own movies — but subscribers will have to wait a while to see most of them."
Yes I know that HULU is getting EPIX but wondering if MOVIE STREAMING maybe coming to APPLE TV... Everybody's obsessed with the TV bundles when it's possible possible a streaming service is in our future ?
"Netflix says it’s not renewing a distribution deal with cable network Epix, which means its U.S. subscribers will lose access to big Hollywood movies like “Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” “World War Z” and “Transformers: Age of Extinction” at the end of September. The trade-off, says Netflix: It is making its own movies — but subscribers will have to wait a while to see most of them."
Yes I know that HULU is getting EPIX but wondering if MOVIE STREAMING maybe coming to APPLE TV... Everybody's obsessed with the TV bundles when it's possible possible a streaming service is in our future ?
mkv what are those? and where do you get them?
"Is illegal downloading even legal?" -Homer
"I don't know but it sure is easy!" - Bart
Agree, but I wouldn't necessarily guarantee there won't be any web-browser integration. Ya never know.
Agree...does not make sense that cable companies would bundle services. What would be the easiest thing Apple could negotiate is each cable company have an app to their streaming service and they charge monthly what they want. Of course Apple gets a cut like the current Apple Store. Not threatening to the cable companies, they charge what they want. Apple get's a small cut each month on the subscription. Good for all. "if" or when Apple can show that the client base using the apps are MORE than the cable companies normal subscriptions, then Apple can negociate exclusive stuff, eventually making the cable companies working for them or become an exclusive vendor. If Apple plays this right, they could take out the cable companies and make them just Apple vendors if the play this right....we will see...
Agreed, but I'm in a perceived minority. My alternatives are Comcast, Comcast BCI, and CenturyLink (sh**y CS, sh**y CS but no caps, and a 150GB cap, respectfully). For programming, 4 of my 5 locations have trees between my locations and a DISH/DirecTV satellite. One of my locations has CL fiber access, two have CL DSL access, and 4 have Comcast ISP access (either spendy TV or ISP access).
If I had my druthers, I'd opt for satellite TV and either CL fiber or Comcast BCI internet. One of my offices has such crappy ISP service it's quicker to drive or courier larger files there (and I'm the one paying the bills, too). And, a service that provides access to cycling, rugby, and futbol in addition to NCAA/NFL football.
I also have had an ATV 2 for 5 years, and it stuttered horribly the first year or two until Comcast upgraded their internet head end. Hasn't stuttered since.
Well with a satellite dish it's "basically" wirelessly streaming since there's no physical connection between the Dish and the server. When there's very bad weather conditions my DirecTV craps out...albeit momentarily, but still. Wouldn't be much different streaming the same DirecTV channels through the TV. Both ways require a set top box.
You're probably right but the A8 should handle games close to if not on par with most ps3/xbox360 games. If thats true they will be between 5-10 GB each. I would want to have more like 64/128GB options. All that said, it will likely be awhile before we have many console quality games on the ATV app store...
Apple TV at $149/$199 is absurd. Unless they revolutionize this device the price point is crazy.
Roku 3 is often $89.99(Costco had it with HDMI cable for this price). The competition is better IMHO and Apple will need to come to the table with a lot more than they have now. The remote is not worth the extra$$.
As for streaming service if all they offer is 25 channels for $40, I don't see how it replaces cable service.
Roku 3 is often $89.99(Costco had it with HDMI cable for this price). The competition is better IMHO and Apple will need to come to the table with a lot more than they have now. The remote is not worth the extra$$.
As for streaming service if all they offer is 25 channels for $40, I don't see how it replaces cable service.
I do wonder about that. I mean looking over at the ShieldTV which also has a games focus it offers both a large capacity option (500GB) as well as the ability to use external storage. And obviously Apple would not offer the latter. Not the former really either as you'd need a wildly different form factor compared to the ATV2/3 to fit in a large capacity HDD.
Of course if the platform is weaker than other current iOS devices I kind of wonder about the whole gaming aspect. Do we really want to see iOS games that run crappier on the new ATV than they do on the iPad Air2/3 or the iPhone 6/s?
Last edited:
Apps and games? am I the only one that does see how this is a big deal.
My TV is for movies and programming. I do not game on console and would never use my Apple TV for that.
I guess I am lost on this.
I can't see Apple raising the price unless the new TV has capabilities the existing one doesn't. And this rumor says they're keeping the older model around and the older model would most likely get the streaming service. So it seems to me Apple is trying to cater to those who want something more simple and those who want more. Of course I'm sure there will be plenty of debate over whether the "more" is worth $50 or $100 more.
If you have zero interest in games, and have none on your phone, then that may not be a functionality you use. But opening up the communal/living-room/fixed-monitor space to all the potential ingenuity of the whole world of developers out there could be a big deal in ways neither of us can necessarily imagine. That's kind of the point, right? Just like no one could imagine what the app store on iOS could one day become. Now people use it for surgeries and all kinds of craziness. Saying "my TV is for movies and programming not apps" may sound as ridiculous as "my phone is for calling people, not apps and games and music and gps and internet and photography!"
It would work with lower storage IF it could pull data off a local NAS (network attached storage) such as off an Apple Time Capsule or similar device. Streaming sections of a game over a WiFi network (or even better, wired) from a massive home storage system is completely viable. Keep in mind the Blueray drive of the PS3 allowed for games ranging from 20 to 60 GB of data (mostly in textures). While the Internet is getting robust, I'm not convinced its ready for a flood of Digital only "casual" game players pulling down that much information per game. Even with services like Steam, seeing a 60 GB install hurts.
The PS3/X360 get away with it because they use and ship physical media which takes a big load off storage and data transmission.
Now if this new AppleTV comes with a Fusion Drive solution, combined Flash and Hard Disk, I could see that being a good reason to bump up the price 50 or so dollars. Off NewEgg I can find a 2 TB 2.5" HDD for ~ $110. I'm sure Apple can get better deals. Getting a Fusion Drive in the AppleTV would solve many storage issues including 4k and 5k TV/Movies. You could even easily wrap AppleTV hardware around a more traditionally sized 3.5" HDD and get 4 TB for that price.
The reason to move away from HDD is power use, especially in laptops and other batter powered devices. Spinner platter drives just eat more power. However an AppleTV is stationary and plugged into power.
I think the current one has 16GB of storage, although, it is not directly accessed by the consumer.
Not true at all. The Chromecast pulls the content from the Internet. It isn't using anything from the device at all...unless you're casting a Chrome tab.
Ex. You fire up the Netflix app, find the movie you want to watch, hit the cast icon then the Chromecast grabs that content from the Internet. You can close the app on the device, turn it off even if you want, but the content still plays.
Well as far as apps go, I'd mostly just want all the existing iOS media apps that I use on the ATV. Almost all of which do not exist on the current ATV. That and a global search for them. Actually if I'm honest I mostly just want an Apple equivalent to the AndroidTV boxes, just with it fixing what I see as the existing flaws (lack of apps and lack of apps that integrate with the global voice search).
Why spend 90 dollars on a Roku when there's a stream of posters claiming that chromecast is fantastic and that's available for a little over $20 at times?
Other posters pointed out that you can buy box sets of DVDs - no reason for an ATV. Or record over the air broadcasts with a DVR - no reason for an ATV.
Given the direction Apple (and the industry) is taking lately with its focus on streaming, I can't see much hope for any significant amount of storage beyond the minimum required to install a few apps.