M$ streams 1080p movies to XBox360. Looks pretty good but kinda pricey. I am happy with netflix HD, esp when 5.1 surround sound is added.
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.
Revamped Apple TV to Offer Netflix Streaming?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My hacked apple tv struggles with MKV files.
It will be because they are all too high a bit rate, not MKV the package itself.
h264 720p is the max really.
the hardware isn't beefy enough, I doubt that support is coming because except blu-ray and predominately illegally downloaded rips of said discs the content isn't there.
Agreed.
I use it at least once a day, since it was hacked its been really useful and really the 'hack' consists of plugging in a usb thumb drive and rebooting. Simples.
I keep thinking about getting a mac mini (esp since the HDMI port was added) but the only advantage is the ability to play higher bitrate videos and I actually like the appletv software.
its better than frontrow and more user friendly (for the missus) than plex.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why does this just recycle over and over? Most people can't use 4G right now, so should work on an iPhone for the next standard wait until most people can fully utilize it? Most people don't come close to maxing out the graphics cards in their Macs, so why bother putting better ones in? Most people are fine with USB, so why bother with USB3 or light peak? Most people can't even get close to maxing out the hardware in their Macs, so should Apple still be building PowerPC G3 or G4 machines? Most people don't access HTML5 websites, so why bother developing that standard? Most people can't make a movie, so why bother with iMovie? Most people can't record a song, so why bother with garageband? Most people can't use all the features of OS X 10.1, so why bother with 10.7? Most people don't use Macs or OS X, so why bother with making more of them? Most people can't max out most everything they own technology-wise, so why bother progressing at all?
Or do these "most people" only apply to the anti-1080p argument?
A 1080p chipset likely won't cost one dime more to build in than one that maxes out at 720p. Until there are lots of little boxes hooked to HDTVs capable of playing 1080p, there is NO enticement whatsoever to test 1080i or 1080p content for
TVs in the iTunes store. The "720p is good enough" crowd loses nothing if a 1080p iTV is rolled out; their 720p content will play to it's fullest potential on hardware capable of 1080p playback. And until broadband pipes are pressured, there is little reason to work on widening them. And until consumer storage demands go way up, there is little reason to work on much bigger & better consumer storage solutions.
Once upon a time "640K is about all the memory we'll ever need". Once upon a time a 65GB hard drive cost more than a Mac Mini and seemed enormous. Once upon a time, a 56K modem was "crazy fast". Etc.
TV needs to move along. You don't defeat BD with lower quality picture and weaker sound, nor locked down distribution hooked to iTunes only, nor hobby paced evolutions. It's time to get something that is a real, valid competitor for BD, one that wins on the head-to-head obvious stuff AND works well with our iTunes-based systems. Give the world something they buy like they've bought iPods & iPhones, and the Studios will beat a path to our door with 1080i and 1080p content rentals.If we have to wait until "most people" can stream 1080p, store 1080p, etc, we won't get there for a very long time... and BD boxes will entrench, while
TVs remain a hobby. Apple needs to lead... not wait on all the other players to completely oil the cogs in every way.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Have you ever seen 1080i and 1080p camcorders? They've been around for at least 4 years. iMovie can read the home movies you shoot, and render them as a 1080i/p file that Quicktime will play, and that can be stored right in iTunes (and played there too).
Have you ever seen 1080i/p YouTube files?
Have you ever seen 1080i/p podcast video?
It can't come unless the hardware is sold on which to play it. Someday, we'll have holographic players, but if the holographic experiences were added to iTunes today, would they sell like crazy? Of course not, until you have the players (hardware) in place, there is no buyers to prove such stuff can be sold profitably.
There's lots of 1080i content, which via Elgato and similar, can easily be captured on a Mac, saved as a 1080i quicktime file, stored in iTunes and played on our HDTVs... if only the last link the chain could pump them from iTunes to those TVs.
You don't like 1080i/p, no sweat. A 1080p iTV will still play your 720p content to it's maximum potential. But a 720p max iTV cannot make it work the other way. The 720p'ers lose nothing if a 1080p iTV is launched. Why you bother trying to shoot down the hope of those that do want it makes no sense to me at all.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It's very likely that we have to buy new
TVs. But the old ones should keep working just as well as they do today. If it does everything you like, no need to buy a new one. If a new one has features you want, buy it for those features and enjoy the old one for whatever it does for you. Or give the old one away to someone as a great gift.
True. I did exactly the same thing. Bought a Sony Bluray player with built in wifi and support for netflix among other services. Bought the Bluray versions of King Kong and Avatar. Sorry to say though, the Sony interface leaves a lot to be desired. It's slow and clunky and feels like it was designed by committee. Even the Bluray app for the iPhone stinks. It all "feels" like it was designed poorly by Windows developers (which I know can design good interfaces if they want to). So IF the new AppleTV does in fact support an iOS app store with netflix streaming and queue management and ordering, connects to my iTunes library, and lets me play games that I can purchase, I'll probably get rid of the bluray player and say good bye forever (or nearly so) to buying physical copies of movies ever again. I'll just stick the two Bluray movies in the same boxes with my Laserdisc and DVD collection (gotta find a way to sell those things. Hate to just throw them away.)
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
dude, it's what you stuck on after the "I doubt it is coming" that casts those hungry for it with either crooks of BD rippers, as if no other sources of 1080i/p are available.
I will grant you though that some of my response is fueled by seeing that same kind of stuff slung over and over again by others. Jobs' reality distortion field seems to really work well on some people.
if it also comes with hulu capabilities the cable tv connection is severed!
Really? How? If I discontinue Comcast Cable here's what happens.
1) My bill goes down by $5 per month
2) They down grade my internet service from 12Mb to 6Mb unless I want to pay a premium which will cost me more than the $5/month I'm not really saving in 1)
Folks, you can not disconnect your cable from your internet if both services are from the same provider without some kind of penalty that makes doing this, well, not worth doing. Comcast wants to deliver Cable TV for long as it possibly can. They do not want to have you watch content over the internet. It F's with their old way of doing business.
Finally, if any Comcast customers actually have just STAND ALONE internet with no other bundled services that cost less than Internet plus Cable TV without a performance penalty, I would personally love to hear how you got that and what it is costing you and who you had to call. Thanks.
I haven't seen much discussion of it, but I'm gonna wildly limb out here and say that it'll be an updated Airport Express. Essentially headless it will be hidden out of the way (not a set top box per se), controlled via any iOS device with a revamped Remote app. At $99 that's on par with the express, which hasn't been updated in a few years. Millions of people have iOS devices and a new device with a small screen will be a gateway remote for those who need one.
why not?
why not?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because if you live with other people, they won't want you to take the "good remote" with you when you leave the house. Does someone really want to dedicate any iDevice as a family remote?
Whatever this thing is, it's got to come with some kind of dedicated remote. Sure, there will be/are apps for iDevices that make them remotes too. But it doesn’t make that much sense- except perhaps to Apple's sales aspirations- for iDevices to be dedicated as family remotes.
Besides, for the many more people in the world that doesn't own Apple iDevices, the proposition would become: buy this iTV for only $99, but the remote to actually do something with it will cost $XXX.
Now, if you're single living alone, that solution could work great for you. But Apple probably wants to sell these to couples & families too. I can imagine something rolling out as a new video-capble Airport Express though.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
And that pretty much sums up why the cable monopolies are in- and dominate- the broadband business. If you ever lived somewhere that had multiple broadband players competing for business, did you notice how quickly they were bought out by the Comcasts, Verizons, Time Warners, AT&T, etc.?
Owning the pipe pretty much means that should something like an Apple TV subscription service threaten the cable revenues, those revenues will be made up with higher broadband fees... or tiered pricing, etc. For some kind of mass streaming thing to work... especially if the service is going to give us all we want and be a lot cheaper than what we pay cable/satt now... Apple would need to find a way to bypass the pipes owned by their (video service) competitors.
I had high hopes a few years ago when the digital TV spectrum auctions were held, because both Apple & Google were rumored to be serious players for that high-bandwidth spectrum. But guess who gobbled up the vast majority of that?
From time to time there is a rumor that Apple might take some of that cash stock pile and buy DISH network. As crazy as it sounds, I can easily imagine replacement (white) dishes on roofs with Apple logos. And it would give Apple a way to flow content from iTunes servers to content consumers quickly... and without touching a Comcast/Verizon/etc. pipe.
That last rumor would also be a way to solve both the live sports and even the local news issues. But it's just a weak rumor that pops from time-to-time.
As long as many people have 1- maybe 2- choices of broadband Internet... and those 1 or 2 choices are also in the video subscription business, I see little chance for alternative solutions like an Apple TV subscription program to ever really take off. Dollars cut from cable bills will just be made up for with broadband price increases.
The guy just made a simple statement, surely he wasn't looking for your seething. What are you contributing that is so much more intelligent than the rest of us? Come on, tell. And even if you had something juicy it's no excuse to be rude.
Which is also why HULU+ won't work. I declined the beta test and sent a letter back to them explaining that as a Comcast subscriber I was already paying for the content they wanted to stream to me from HULU. It feels like I am paying twice for something I'm already getting through Comcast. All Comcast would have to do is offer an app themselves and that would kill HULU.
BTW, I would really, really love it if someone, Apple, Google, even Microsoft (or a combination of all 3) built a nationwide high speed network using wifi at gigabit speeds to just give the old guard ISP's a big middle finger.
And, like you mentioned, since Comcast and the like own the pipes, why in the world would they invest in infrastructure to deliver high quality 1080p video through the internet when they would rather you pay extra for hi-def content through cable?
I think you're largely right; those are all significant hurdles, but not impassable. The trick for me would be making the separate remote $XX rather than $XXX. You wouldn't need to buy it if you already had enough iDevices--the iTV (or whatever it is) would be that much cheaper--more impulse driven. Maybe I hang around the wrong sorts but I am increasingly finding multiple iDevice families, many of whom have no other Apple products. There was a reason I proposed the small device as a gateway one. I think it'd be reasonably priced and people would be more willing to bring other (more expensive and feature-rich) iDevices into their households.
The biggest irk for me in using the remote app is the time of turning on the device, finding/opening the app, waiting for it to connect, then being able to control the remote computer. I think that time would need to be reduced significantly if it's wifi-based while still retaining reasonable battery life.
But still, something's got to be in the future for the Airport Express. Might as well make it interesting.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can appreciate your point of view (and even like the idea of a video-capable Airport Express). I do think it would be a huge psychological hurdle though to sell a set-top box and it's remote separately, especially with the remote priced higher than the box.
Sure, it seems like there are lots of people with iDevices, but there are many, many more without them. Apple's sales have been in the millions, not billions. However, there are lots of people on the planet- many more that don't own anything Apple- who own a TV(s).
Your idea might fly better with a special discounted package sans remote, rather than selling all of them without a remote, and making the remote a "sold separately" (and it costs more than the box).
But either way, I (too) would like to see a video-oriented Airport Express sooner than later.
Sure, it seems like there are lots of people with iDevices, but there are many, many more without them. Apple's sales have been in the millions, not billions. However, there are lots of people on the planet- many more that don't own anything Apple- who own a TV(s).
Your idea might fly better with a special discounted package sans remote, rather than selling all of them without a remote, and making the remote a "sold separately" (and it costs more than the box).
But either way, I (too) would like to see a video-oriented Airport Express sooner than later.
The iPad already encourages access to Netflix, so Apple has little choice.
Many people thought that Apple might release its own television panel with similar functions built in. That would seem to be an unnecessary investment in display technology when there are many competitors out there who already have the supply chains set up for this.
It makes sense that Apple would want to have a device sitting 'panel-side' of the network because if our Plasma/LCD becomes the viewer interface for iTunes, it can happily co-exist with Netflix for it's rightful share of the music and other market, even if it doesn't control video content. If people move away from their Mac to download content via TV, this becomes a problem without such a device.
Just my thoughts on their marketing logic.
I can't see them doing this.. One reason being that they sell the Apple TV internationally, where NetFlix isn't permitted.
My guess: New Apple TV WILL have Netflix. Netflix is on every other set top box, why not Apple TV? Other apps? No. Because it will be an Apple TV upgrade, no iOS.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Thinks Apps. Think Netflix App to make this go.
So the problem is that Netflix isn't "there" (in your country). Who is their equivalent in your country? Who is a Netflix-like entity there? Won't they then make their own Netflix-like app? Problem solved (for your country).
No equivalent in some countries? Put on your entrepreneurs hat and start one. There's a LOT of revenue in the Netflix model. Grow it into something, then sell it to a Netflix when they want to enter your space, then live happily ever after.