If you have an Apple Airport and an iOS device, might I recommend Apple's Remote app?
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 AppleTV References Found in iOS 5, But When?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you have an Apple Airport and an iOS device, might I recommend Apple's Remote app?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If an A5 is required for Siri, there's no either-or decision to make here. If they update it to include Siri, it should have 1080p too.
That's what I suspect will occur. A quiet, no fuss update to an A5 and 1080p and an update to the software.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
But what I really want is a Mac Mini with a built-in BluRay drive sitting next to my TV....
If Apple would normalize that USB port and open an
TV store, I strongly bet that Elgato or similar would create a hardware+app option to cover this objective.----------
But upscaling a lower resolution video is far from the same as watching a full scale video. If you don't care about higher resolution video, you don't need to buy an HDTV. For example, if DVD resolution is "good enough", it will be much cheaper to buy a big screen SD television and show DVD resolution at it's native resolution (no upscaling).
The same is true with 720p video. If "720p is good enough", there's no need buying a 1080p TV. Just buy a 720p and skip the upscaling.
As soon as one commits to a 1080p HDTV though, they are illustrating a willingness to pay up for high resolution video. Upscaling low(er) resolution video is not feeding that TV the best of what it can display.
If you're happy with upscaling quality, the above is not meant to change your mind... just something for others who read the post and get confused that maybe upscaling is as good as native.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's probably been said before, but I'll say it anyways: the appletv3,1 might be an Apple-branded TV, maybe under a different name than AppleTV.
It's probably been said before, but I'll say it anyways: the appletv3,1 might be an Apple-branded TV, maybe under a different name than AppleTV.
This is exactly what Apple needs to do. Consumers have wanted a la carte TV programming since the inception of cable TV.
In a sense we can almost have it now by purchasing the shows we actually watch from iTunes as a season pass, but you have to do some math to figure out that that actually does amount to a cost savings--which the average consumer isn't likely to do.
It would also be a very Jobsian move. Right now, most of us receive our TV programming through cable providers. These cable providers pay affiliate fees to each network based on negotiation and the value of their content. Content is determined not by what the end user (the consumer) wants to watch, but instead by what is ideal for the networks and cable providers.
For example, AMC is getting itself into trouble right now because of the number of hit shows it produces. Sure, it's awesome that there are so many great programs on AMC, but the bigger the show becomes, the more expensive it is to produce. Affiliate fees max out around $2.00 or so, meaning the network would receive $2.00 per subscriber for including their content through a cable provider. Networks can get to that high level by simply producing one or two hit shows, they don't need to produce six of them.
As a result, networks don't have an incentive to produce large volumes of high quality content. Instead, they are incentivized to produce one or two pieces of good quality programming and fill the rest of their time with low cost reality TV garbage.
An IP delivered a la carte and on-demand TV solution would kill the old model.
Networks would have an incentive to provide high quality content all year long. While consumers won't cancel their entire cable package just because this season of Burn Notice has ended, they wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug on USA for a few months if it's the only show they watch on the network.
Additionally, consumers could be given a choice between watching commercials or not. A lower priced network subscription could be offered to have the content delivered with commercials, while a higher price could be offered to have none.
Despite the popular battle cry of "I won't pay to watch commercials", consumers have proven over and over again that we will. We prove it every month when we pay our cable bill.
Lastly, (and if you've read this far, I commend you, this wasn't intended to be a long post originally) consumers want flexibility. In the age of the iPad and iPhone, we want to get access to our favorite TV programs everywhere. Apple is, at least for now, the only company that can readily provide that. Now someone there just needs to convince the content providers that it is in their long-term interest to get with the program.
Yup, that's what I was thinking too. The one way that Apple could create a TV that no one else can copy is to make it voice-enabled and to eliminate the need for a remote control. This would be awesome for me to not have to explain to my parents how to operate my TV/Stereo system for the 1000th time (no exaggeration). Imagine...Apple TV with Siri ?
.
"Play some jazz music"
"Make a slideshow of photos from my trip to China"
"Turn on NPR"
"I want to play a video game"
"What are the most recently release movies?"
"I want to watch the next Yankees game"
Siri: "Sorry, there are no Yankees games in the next 6 months..."
Ok i just got an idea, how cool would it be if the apps that are designed for apple tv, require a controller (AKA iPhone/iPad) and it can use the A5 in the controller along with the A5 in the ATV to render very high quality games that look great and are fast.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I hope not. I hope the
TV technology doesn't go there. Why? I think it would be the same problem presented by the first two cracks at this: Apple making decisions for customers that should be left to the customers. For example, what size Apple-branded television should they make? Is something in the 30" range the right size? 40"? 50"? 60"? Sure they could roll out more than one size but it will still not be THE right size for everyone (and I just don't imagine a whole bunch of Apple-branded sizes).
Which technology should they use? LCD? LED? Plasma? Etc. Again, do you want them making these decisions for consumers?
Lastly, I think we all know they won't actually make a new set. Instead, it would be someone else's screen inserted into an Apple branded shell. If it's priced the Apple way, there will be a painful comparison we've all seen in so much of Apple's other stuff. However, that comparison is amped up for a television because you don't look to upgrade those ever year or two (nor is there much reason to do so).
I'd especially hate to see such a move mean the end of a separate little (cheap) box called
TV. Yet if Apple wouldn't kill the set-top box, then the "lastly" point is made much messier (because someone could buy the exact same video screen with someone else's logo on it and an TV to get the exact same interface). This last issue is not replicated in the other stuff offered by Apple. For example, I can't buy a cheaper smart phone and run iOS on it and get the exact same features & functionality I get from an iPhone.I really hope the television rumor is just a rumor. But whether yes or no, I hope the launch of an Apple-branded television doesn't mark the death of a little set-top box called
TV. I'd much rather have all the choices I'd like to make when picking a TV rather than having Apple make a bunch of those choices and then make that the only way to have the TV UI.
And without 1080p content to go with it it's useless. Just people watching stuff they recorded with their iPhone 4S won't cut it.
Interesting thought, but I don't think Bluetooth (or even Wi-Fi) is a very good solution for load sharing CPU processing power. Besides, a single A5 is plenty powerful by itself for games. I'm sure the A6 will be even better. The nice thing is that Apple doesn't have to worry about power restrictions if they're putting it some future Apple TV.
Also, I don't think I'd want the iPhone or iPad as a controller. Touchscreen controllers will never be as good to use as stick controllers because of the lack of tactile feedback. I could see it being used as an individual screen though. Like say for a game of Scrabble, poker, etc, which I believe you can already do with a few games on the iPad.
If there is sufficient processing power, I could see a future Apple TV device presenting some competition to the consoles. And they already have an army of developers who will be chomping at the bit to create games for the big screen. Everyone's got the same game plan; they just have different approaches. MS just announced deals with TV providers for the XBox. I don't think I read anything about exclusivity. I'm sure those same companies will try to squeeze a similar deal out of Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Google, and Apple.
Last edited:
get a REFURB Apple TV for $85!
Better yet, $85 for a refurb at http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC572?mco=MTY5MDY4MzI. I just picked up my second Apple TV at yugster for $75 shipped. It includes a remote that Apple sells for $19 separately (I use my Logitech Harmony, and iPad for typing... so I could sell the remote and lower the price even more!)
With apps like Real Racing 2 and Party Play, it's gonna be the next console.
http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/2458/i-ordered-iphone-4s-and-heres-why
Better yet, $85 for a refurb at http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC572?mco=MTY5MDY4MzI. I just picked up my second Apple TV at yugster for $75 shipped. It includes a remote that Apple sells for $19 separately (I use my Logitech Harmony, and iPad for typing... so I could sell the remote and lower the price even more!)
With apps like Real Racing 2 and Party Play, it's gonna be the next console.
http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/2458/i-ordered-iphone-4s-and-heres-why
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A334)
Siri on ATV = well awesome...
Have to admit first thought was back to the future 2. "Siri, please give me channels 101, 13, MTV, and please play the 2007 wwdc keynote..."
flux73 said:Yup, that's what I was thinking too. The one way that Apple could create a TV that no one else can copy is to make it voice-enabled and to eliminate the need for a remote control. This would be awesome for me to not have to explain to my parents how to operate my TV/Stereo system for the 1000th time (no exaggeration). Imagine...Apple TV with Siri ?
.
"Play some jazz music"
"Make a slideshow of photos from my trip to China"
"Turn on NPR"
"I want to play a video game"
"What are the most recently release movies?"
"I want to watch the next Yankees game"
Siri: "Sorry, there are no Yankees games in the next 6 months..."
Siri on ATV = well awesome...
Have to admit first thought was back to the future 2. "Siri, please give me channels 101, 13, MTV, and please play the 2007 wwdc keynote..."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Mak47, you make a bunch of good points about al-a-carte. I'd just add that for many, the concept of al-a-carte is dreamed to involve some kind of big cost savings. I think the math is worked something like this:
-I get 200 channels for $100 right now
-We only watch about 10 channels
-With al-a-carte, I just subscribe to those 10 channels and my bill should fall to about $5
$100 divided by 200 channels equals 50 cents per channel.
10 (desirable) channels times 50 cents = $5 per month in the dreamed al-a-carte model.
Boy that seems so great!!! But then you got to flip it and think about the people on the other end of the chain. They don't want their revenues to be cut by 95%... or 80%... or 50%... or 25%. Like all businesses, they want to make more money next year than they made this year.
So, an al-a-carte model would have to be forced upon them. And it if was, the more desirable programming and channels would be priced accordingly. In other words, it's a popular perception that ESPN currently costs about $2-$3 of our bill for that ONE channel. In turn, a number of other channels are forced into the mix of our 200 channels in exchange for being able to serve up ESPN for that $2-$3. If we switched to an al-la-carte model, I would expect very popular channels like ESPN to go to something like $10-$20 per month.
Thus, our favorite 10 channels might end up still costing the $100 or more. Why? Because the content creators on the other end don't want massive pay & budget cuts to deliver the same work for much less revenues. We see this very concern in play now by looking at how individual episodes are priced in stores like iTunes.
There is no interest in those that serve up content to viewers to take massive cuts to the model in place. For a new model to take hold, it would have to include some way for them to make at least as much as they make now. In an al-a-carte replacement model, that revenue would have to be replaced by much higher costs per (desirable) channel. I suspect that such a change would just kill a lot of the "junk" channels, consolidate more desirable programming to fewer channels, but then have those fewer channels priced high enough to maintain and/or grow the revenues for the content producers.
I don't see any (legal) scenario where viewers will continue to get the quality, breadth & depth of programming on their favorite channels while reducing their out-of-pocket cost by 30% or more.
And I don't see Apple spearheading some super-savings model either. Look at what's available now by subscription via iTunes. Did magazine subscription rates drop by 30%, 50%, 80% when delivered printing & paper-free via iTunes?
-I get 200 channels for $100 right now
-We only watch about 10 channels
-With al-a-carte, I just subscribe to those 10 channels and my bill should fall to about $5
$100 divided by 200 channels equals 50 cents per channel.
10 (desirable) channels times 50 cents = $5 per month in the dreamed al-a-carte model.
Boy that seems so great!!! But then you got to flip it and think about the people on the other end of the chain. They don't want their revenues to be cut by 95%... or 80%... or 50%... or 25%. Like all businesses, they want to make more money next year than they made this year.
So, an al-a-carte model would have to be forced upon them. And it if was, the more desirable programming and channels would be priced accordingly. In other words, it's a popular perception that ESPN currently costs about $2-$3 of our bill for that ONE channel. In turn, a number of other channels are forced into the mix of our 200 channels in exchange for being able to serve up ESPN for that $2-$3. If we switched to an al-la-carte model, I would expect very popular channels like ESPN to go to something like $10-$20 per month.
Thus, our favorite 10 channels might end up still costing the $100 or more. Why? Because the content creators on the other end don't want massive pay & budget cuts to deliver the same work for much less revenues. We see this very concern in play now by looking at how individual episodes are priced in stores like iTunes.
There is no interest in those that serve up content to viewers to take massive cuts to the model in place. For a new model to take hold, it would have to include some way for them to make at least as much as they make now. In an al-a-carte replacement model, that revenue would have to be replaced by much higher costs per (desirable) channel. I suspect that such a change would just kill a lot of the "junk" channels, consolidate more desirable programming to fewer channels, but then have those fewer channels priced high enough to maintain and/or grow the revenues for the content producers.
I don't see any (legal) scenario where viewers will continue to get the quality, breadth & depth of programming on their favorite channels while reducing their out-of-pocket cost by 30% or more.
And I don't see Apple spearheading some super-savings model either. Look at what's available now by subscription via iTunes. Did magazine subscription rates drop by 30%, 50%, 80% when delivered printing & paper-free via iTunes?
Last edited:
Siri and Apple TV. It would have to differentiate between the person controlling it and some stray commands that may come from someone speaking on the TV.
What I would really like to see Siri integrated into the
With the current hand controller in netflix you have to spell out the movie or actor you are searching for. With a microphone in the controller I could say "Show me available Clint Eastwood Movies" and all the streaming Clint movies would show up.
Other things you could say
"play slide show from last summers vacation"
"play the Beatles White Album"
If I want to see a movie in the theaters
"Play Moneyball trailer"
then
"What are the showtimes for Moneyball"
Even if they just use limited Siri for voice control of the
Speak to Siri on your iPhone 4S, find your content, play it over Airplay.
That's obvious, right. It's already there.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not useless (for everyone).
People shoot 1080 camcorder & camera 1080 video. I've done this for many years now. iMovie edits & renders in 1080. iTunes stores and plays it in 1080. Just can't (easily) get it from there to the 1080 HDTV I've had for years (while maintaining the 1080).
A 1080p
TV will still play 720p and SD quality rentals from iTunes just as good as the current model (much like my quad core Mac plays software written for single core Macs just as good as a lesser-hardware Mac).But more importantly, until there is 1080p hardware in homes, there's NO reason for Studios to put 1080p video for
TVs in the iTunes store. If there are no players, there is no way to make money on 1080p content. It would be like stocking stores with DVDs or BD without their being any players capable of playing them. You can't sell 1080p content without 1080p content players. The hardware must come first or, at least, at the same time. Apple really only has control of hardware development. So they can forge ahead with 1080p
TV hardware, get lots of units into homes and then let the (growing) opportunity of so many potential buyers/renters tempt the Studios to test the iTunes store with some 1080p content. It makes no sense the other way.I hope I don't get that song stuck in my head now....
"I'm turning Japanese. I think I'm turning Japanese. I really think so!"
There....much better......
I get that, but that's like 7 people total. By the way Apple TV 2 plays 1080p just fine, maybe Apple software does the downscale/upscale thing i don't know, but if you have PLex or XBMC installed any 1080p video encoded with using normal H.264 profile up to 4.1 level will play just fine.
I will get an APTV once I can play slideshows in 1080p. Thats what I am waiting for all these years. I guess I have to wait a little longer.
great potential
I have loved my Apple TV 1 & 2. It is a great concept and eventually someday people will 'get it'.
1080p would be fine and would bring more people on board. I have been fine with 720p streaming myself but to each his own.
This is one market Steve Jobs could not crack. I would love to see Apple step up and make this vision a reality.
I have loved my Apple TV 1 & 2. It is a great concept and eventually someday people will 'get it'.
1080p would be fine and would bring more people on board. I have been fine with 720p streaming myself but to each his own.
This is one market Steve Jobs could not crack. I would love to see Apple step up and make this vision a reality.
Wish it will be available in more countries. Talking about bang for the buck, this has to be the best product.