Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Btw, I get 25Mbps through Comcast. More than enough to stream or download HD video.

That's about half the bitrate needed for BD movies - so it may have just as many pixels as a BD, it won't be the same quality for the video and audio.

Common BD drives can read in the range of 288 Mbps to 360 Mbps, and write at 72 Mbps or more - so greatly increased bitrates can be used when needed.
 
The POINT is that "should be" is just a wish. The content and distribution are tied up with the cable companies. News Corp owns Fox and DirecTV, and lots of other media. Comcast owns NBC and many "cable" networks. And then there are the distribution contracts. Breaking through that would be huge.

I have no idea what you are talking about with cell providers. Apple just made a phone. Unless you mean iMessage, but I hope not.

The current system is a mess with no choice for customers. Content and distribution have been combined and the consumer has suffered. Why can't we buy a la carte programming? Why do i have to pay for HSN or so many channels I don't want? We used to be forced to buy albums for $15 even though we only wanted 2 songs. Apple changed that.

What Apple did for cell phones is to take the carrier out of the equation for branding and ongoing support. All iPhones have access to the same content (OS, apps, music, etc.) and same payment system no matter the carrier. Before Apple, the carriers dictated that and fragmentation ruled.

It may never happen for TV but separating content from distribution would benefit the end customer.
 
That's about half the bitrate needed for BD movies - so it may have just as many pixels as a BD, it won't be the same quality for the video and audio.

Common BD drives can read in the range of 288 Mbps to 360 Mbps, and write at 72 Mbps or more - so greatly increased bitrates can be used when needed.

What's the bit rate of the MP4 stream? Isn't it more a peak of 45-50Mbps? Full 1080p?
 
What's the bit rate of the MP4 stream? Isn't it more a peak of 45-50Mbps? Full 1080p?

The spec says 40 Mbps for the video (MPEG-2, VC-1 or AVC), although there are reports that is a sustained rate, and bursts of up to 50 have been seen in commercial discs (handled by buffering).

Wikipedia says:

For users recording digital television programming, the recordable Blu-ray Disc standard's initial data rate of 36 Mbit/s is more than adequate to record high-definition broadcasts from any source (IPTV, cable/satellite, or terrestrial). BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbit/s.

and other sources agree.

Note that these are the specs for the A/V container, a typical 8X BD drive reads BD-ROM at up to 288 Mbps.

One source said that "the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future" - presumably for higher resolution content.

Note also that a 1X player can't play most BD movies, 54 Mbps is 1.5X. Not really an issue, since all but the very earliest BD players are at least 2X.
 
Last edited:
Only for Apple. Everyone else seems to have managed to make it work. Apple is either incompetent or has an ulterior motive.

----------



Why do you believe you'll be happier with Apple's control freak complex than the networks'? I'm not.

I for one would love to see Apple become an international cable TV provider. Don't like it, go elsewhere.
 
It's so obvious how they will do this, that I'm rather amazed that so many seem to be missing it altogether.

Display manufacturing has a razor thin profit margin? Irrelevant.

Content providers / ISPs will never support it because it will hurt their own bottom line? Nonsense.

Look at how they launched the iPhone for their already proven market strategy.



- A strong joint venture with a company like AT&T, Verizon or TimeWarner providing both internet and cable services, making their first Apple TV exclusive to that data/content provider.

- Just like the original iPhone, a high-spec device is delivered to the consumer but tied to a required monthly service contract dramatically off-setting the up front cost.

- The content/internet provider has a vested interest in handing over a share of profits to Apple since it virtually guarantees a flood of new customers provided the device is "magical" enough to create huge consumer demand. (AT&T did exactly that with the iPhone paying Apple a portion of it's monthly service fees)

- Apple ALREADY has JV relationships with two of the biggest Internet / Digital TV providers in the US to build upon.



They've already got a proven business map of how to enter a content/distribution channel profitably and subsidize the consumer cost of a VERY high ticket device successfully.

Before the iPhone if you had asked "can Apple successfully market a $600 phone to the masses in an already crowded cellular marketplace" everyone would have doubled over laughing.

With the right product there is no more an obstacle to them succeeding with cable/internet than they faced with cellular/data plans and it all comes down to subsidization and recurring service partnerships.
 
This is a community design for a Samsung TV. So, I think Apple has to come-up with a design which is not rectangular. or am I reading the law wrong?

Yeah. It sure as hell can't be:

a) rectangular
b) thin
c) thin-bezeled

if so OMGOMGOMGOM COPY!

(and damn them if they have a clear glass coating either...)

----------

The POINT is that "should be" is just a wish. The content and distribution are tied up with the cable companies. News Corp owns Fox and DirecTV, and lots of other media. Comcast owns NBC and many "cable" networks. And then there are the distribution contracts. Breaking through that would be huge.

I have no idea what you are talking about with cell providers. Apple just made a phone. Unless you mean iMessage, but I hope not.

a phone that would increase the use of data, adding a "new" stream of revenue for the carriers... (ok, they got it coming now with Skype etc. but i doubt they really thought about those consequences initially...)

----------

That's about half the bitrate needed for BD movies - so it may have just as many pixels as a BD, it won't be the same quality for the video and audio.

Common BD drives can read in the range of 288 Mbps to 360 Mbps, and write at 72 Mbps or more - so greatly increased bitrates can be used when needed.

and, the tech. is improving. i mean, in every thread bout Apple TV there are talks about 4k. Now, good luck pushing that through your old wires.

----------

The current system is a mess with no choice for customers. Content and distribution have been combined and the consumer has suffered. Why can't we buy a la carte programming? Why do i have to pay for HSN or so many channels I don't want? We used to be forced to buy albums for $15 even though we only wanted 2 songs. Apple changed that.

What Apple did for cell phones is to take the carrier out of the equation for branding and ongoing support. All iPhones have access to the same content (OS, apps, music, etc.) and same payment system no matter the carrier. Before Apple, the carriers dictated that and fragmentation ruled.

It may never happen for TV but separating content from distribution would benefit the end customer.

You do know that Apple stuck with just 1 carrier (in America) for quite some time, and that the rest of the world doesn't work like America?

In short, the situations are anything but analogous. Yes, both scenarios had gate-keepers, but Apple did little to displace them with the iPhone - and displace them is what they'd have to do to make the MR wet-dream of the ATV working.

Also, you're revising history. The current system is what enabled the massive distribution of content(systems) to begin with. Of course, in states other than America, the government could've made the infrastructure happen. But other than that, how the hell do you expect your cables to be dug into the ground? Tight coupling of transport layer and service layer is what made the model work. Its what provided return on investment. Simple as that, really.

TL;DR: Consumers has benefited vastly from coupling of content and distribution.


Addendum:

Just struck me. With the iPhone they sidestepped carriers wish to be the service-providers. Most likely, with the iPhone relying on web-apps, Apple convinced them that they could "make this back in data". Sounds plausible at least. Either way, the iPhone was hardly the first phone to a) offer apps (or even app stores), b) not be screwed over by the carrier (at least not outside of the US and A).

Last, since no carrier ever really succeeded with services*, i guess some of them were realizing that it was just a pipe dream, and that they were better off thinking new (e.g., capitalize on data... something everyone* had pretty much failed doing too)

* exception being NCC DoCoMo and their i-mode, which was successful on a scale that parallels the iPhone - in Japan :- )
 
i mean, in every thread bout Apple TV there are talks about 4k. Now, good luck pushing that through your old wires.
~200mbps for the same pixel quality as blue-ray for 4k. Have fun with that indeed.

And have fun finding a company to sustain such bandwidths for on-demand streaming.
 
~200mbps for the same pixel quality as blue-ray for 4k. Have fun with that indeed.

And have fun finding a company to sustain such bandwidths for on-demand streaming.

Well, where i live 100/100 is quite commonplace, and ISP's are now pushing for 1gbit connections (commercially available for quite a few). But yeah, its not like us Swedes are representative of anything really :- )
 
Well, where i live 100/100 is quite commonplace, and ISP's are now pushing for 1gbit connections (commercially available for quite a few). But yeah, its not like us Swedes are representative of anything really :- )

A graph showing average download speed.

Now, it's average download speed. For this a graph showing median download speed would had been a lot better....
({5,5,10,10,10,100,100} gives you an mean of 34 and a median of 10.)

But it does show the difference in speed between Sweden and the US.
 
iPhone

Wonder if it is based on using Siri too? No more remote with a ton of buttons, optional voice interface? Display anything on your ipod/ipad/iphone, imac, icloud, and do everything a regular tv does with broadcast tv....

There is no remote with ton's of button's now for Apple TV (the box). You just use your iPhone.
 
Btw, I get 25Mbps through Comcast. More than enough to stream or download HD video.

I hate you! I get that with their "speed burst" or whatever it is for the first 20 or so seconds, then I drop promptly back down to 3.5.

My streaming looks sharp, but the color and contrast definitely take a hit. I streamed Tron Legacy on Netflix and then watched it on Blu-Ray. A huge difference.
 
A graph showing average download speed.

Now, it's average download speed. For this a graph showing median download speed would had been a lot better....
({5,5,10,10,10,100,100} gives you an mean of 34 and a median of 10.)

But it does show the difference in speed between Sweden and the US.

Ay, don't forget that access to something and actually having something is two different things though. My post talked about physical access. Safe to say that loads of people opt for the "less than maximum speed". :- )

----------

If it meant my wife could use the TV without my help, I'd buy 5.

Man... i guess i should keep my mouth shut this time. But its hard. :- )
 
I hate you! I get that with their "speed burst" or whatever it is for the first 20 or so seconds, then I drop promptly back down to 3.5.

My streaming looks sharp, but the color and contrast definitely take a hit. I streamed Tron Legacy on Netflix and then watched it on Blu-Ray. A huge difference.

Comcast actually offers 100/20 in my area but for $120 a month. 50/10 is about $90 and 25/5 is about $70.
 
Are Internet connections seriously that expensive in the US? Where I live (the Netherlands) I can get 120/10 via cable (which is quite commonplace) for € 67 a month including phone and TV, and 40/3 via VDSL for € 35 a month (excluding phone and TV). Also we have fair use policies instead of caps.
 
Are Internet connections seriously that expensive in the US? Where I live (the Netherlands) I can get 120/10 via cable (which is quite commonplace) for € 67 a month including phone and TV, and 40/3 via VDSL for € 35 a month (excluding phone and TV). Also we have fair use policies instead of caps.
Where I live in the U.S., I can get an 80/20 fiber connection, but it will cost over $200 per month.
I currently have a 12/5 plan via VDSL2 that costs $30 per month. The nice part is, there are no data caps on the plan.

The issue is infrastructure. The government doesn't own the lines, each company has to run their own cable/fiber.
In a city with a few million people, the costs of providing service to each residence is expensive.
Granted we have several providers to choose from in my neighborhood, so prices are somewhat competitive.
But many cities in the U.S. only have one or two providers to choose from.
 
Well, if you hold your phone far away bla bla bla. Just like the so called retina display allowed us to view a screen at distance x without noticing pixels, so will increasing resolution of the TV allow for a bigger picture in closer proximity. Do you even have a point here?

The point is that, for a phone, the parameters are fixed: your optometrist can probably tell you what the industry standard 'comfortable reading distance' is, which fixes the pixel density of a 'retina' display. If you want that in number of pixels then you'll have to factor in screen size - and that's rapidly approaching the maximum you can get away with in a phone designed to fit in the typical human hand.

For a TV, the parameters are all pieces of string: potentially you can choose the screen size and you can choose the viewing distance: in practice these will be influenced by the geography of your lounge, the depth of your pocket, how much your mother indoctrinated you about sitting too close to the TV, and the tolerance of any Significant Others in your life. So, yeah, calculate the "retina" threshold if you like, but its not nearly such a useful measure for TVs.

Point remains. Its mind-boggling how (for some) pixels do matter when Apple makes a high PPI-screen, and resolution doesn't when it comes to TV.

You're comparing totally different modes of use.

When did VGA come out? 1987? From then on, we've been used to computer displays with far higher resolution than our TVs - and for most of that time, nobody saw it as a problem. As I said before - 1080p is the bees knees for television, but would be regarded as crap for a modern still camera. Motion makes a lot of difference: freeze a frame from a HD video and it looks pretty poor as a still. Why do you think, when HD came out, all the HD TVs in stores were showing Pixar cartoons or demo reels of ferns and lizards? Ans: because on a typical live-action movie you stop noticing the HD after 2 minutes.

You're also missing the trade off: All things being equal, what the hell, forget 1080p, give me 1440p - except it would have to be compressed to buggery to make it over DVB or a broadband link. So until we have really fat broadband connections, I'll take standard def or 720p over 1080p with artefacts or glitches.

I suppose one rabbit Apple could pull is a 1440p display with some sort of cunning predictive cache that could guess what shows you were going to watch tomorrow and download them overnight...
 
The point is that, for a phone, the parameters are fixed: your optometrist can probably tell you what the industry standard 'comfortable reading distance' is, which fixes the pixel density of a 'retina' display. If you want that in number of pixels then you'll have to factor in screen size - and that's rapidly approaching the maximum you can get away with in a phone designed to fit in the typical human hand.

For a TV, the parameters are all pieces of string: potentially you can choose the screen size and you can choose the viewing distance: in practice these will be influenced by the geography of your lounge, the depth of your pocket, how much your mother indoctrinated you about sitting too close to the TV, and the tolerance of any Significant Others in your life. So, yeah, calculate the "retina" threshold if you like, but its not nearly such a useful measure for TVs.

On the contrary, its just as useful. One just have more variables to consider compared to the iPhone 4s offering. After all, the reason to have a big TV is to get a big experience. If you're gonna place the TV 50 feet away, well.. you really don't benefit much from buying a big screen in the first place :- )

My point was simple: If retina matters for a small screen, it matters for a big screen. Since 720 and 1080 has visible differences, that distinction obviously matters.

You're comparing totally different modes of use.
No, I'm comparing watching a big screen at far distance to watching a small screen at a close distance. Whether or not that screen is in a phone or a TV is irrelevant - its the same pixels in the end.

When did VGA come out? 1987? From then on, we've been used to computer displays with far higher resolution than our TVs - and for most of that time, nobody saw it as a problem. As I said before - 1080p is the bees knees for television, but would be regarded as crap for a modern still camera. Motion makes a lot of difference: freeze a frame from a HD video and it looks pretty poor as a still. Why do you think, when HD came out, all the HD TVs in stores were showing Pixar cartoons or demo reels of ferns and lizards? Ans: because on a typical live-action movie you stop noticing the HD after 2 minutes.

Problem or not, quality became notably better once HD came in to our lives. As for CRTs (and later LCDs) having high resolution, whats your point?

As for "stop noticing the difference" i call BS. I watch non-hd every day, and trust me, i do notice. Same goes for playing video games, if that matters.

You're also missing the trade off: All things being equal, what the hell, forget 1080p, give me 1440p - except it would have to be compressed to buggery to make it over DVB or a broadband link. So until we have really fat broadband connections, I'll take standard def or 720p over 1080p with artefacts or glitches.

Actually, i've commented on lack of bandwidth several times. So, tell me, how am i missing the trade-off? I commented on a statement saying that 720 basically is just as good as 1080. It clearly isn't.

(in essence, i agree with you. thing is, nothing you just said runs counter to my initial point).

I suppose one rabbit Apple could pull is a 1440p display with some sort of cunning predictive cache that could guess what shows you were going to watch tomorrow and download them overnight...

I wouldn't want to pay for pixels that i could not use in my daily use, but thats just me. We all have our different priorities.
 
Are Internet connections seriously that expensive in the US? Where I live (the Netherlands) I can get 120/10 via cable (which is quite commonplace) for € 67 a month including phone and TV, and 40/3 via VDSL for € 35 a month (excluding phone and TV). Also we have fair use policies instead of caps.

Not only that expensive, but in many places the higher priced, higher bandwidth plans are not even an option.
 
Erik Huggers, Corporate VP & GM for Intel Media seemingly just took a swipe at Jobs' comment and Apple...

"We have been working for around a year now to setup Intel Media -- it's a new division that includes a lot of people from outside of the company. We've hired people from Apple, Netflix, Google, BBC, etc. We're aiming to develop an internet television platform. My opinion is that not many of those rivals have cracked it -- have truly delivered.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/12/intel-confirms-new-internet-based-television-streaming-product/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.