Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can't believe Apple didn't spend the extra $5 or $10 it would have cost them to add some more flash storage to the device?

it's a streaming device. Why we would need more than 8GB of storage? Under their compression a movie isn't going to exceed 8GB more than likely.
 
Bought one last night, it works great!

Now I just need the jailbreak to make it useful to me. Wish I could help the Dev Team but I don't know the first thing about coding / hacking.
 
it's a streaming device. Why we would need more than 8GB of storage? Under their compression a movie isn't going to exceed 8GB more than likely.

But that doesn't mean people will always stream less than 8 gigs from their iTunes library.
 
8GB Flash is for OS, preferences and apps... not buffering

The part number for the RAM included in the chip suggests that it is a 512 MB chip from Hynix, a boost from the 256 MB of RAM found in the A4 package on the previous-generation Apple TV.

As for flash storage, the format of the part number stamped on the chip implies that it is an 8 GB part from Toshiba, meaning that the device carries the same storage capacity as found in the previous-generation model. Given that the Apple TV is a streaming-only device, on-board storage is only required to support the operating system and buffering of streaming content.

Gentlemen...

The RAM is what would be used for buffering. That's why it's better to have more, and is first to increase.

Flash memory would not be used for buffering, as the type of inexpensive Flash used in the iPods and Apple TV has a very limited number of write cycles.

There had been some speculation that Apple could boost the on-board storage in order to handle larger 1080p content supported on the updated model, but it appears that Apple still views 8 GB as sufficient ...

The only reason to add more Flash would be to perhaps hold more apps sometime in the future. However, Apple would no doubt rather sell a newer device in that case.

Upshot: RAM = running code and buffering data. Flash = OS, preferences, photos, and possibly apps... i.e. data that isn't constantly being rewritten.
 
Last edited:
Firecore

One word.. Firecore!!!! google it. LOVE IT!!!! can wait till new ATV is jailbroken with season pass.....time to get another one..
 
Nice to see the insides of this thing.

I bought one of Friday and it brought me back into my living room. I've been enjoying available content in 1080p on my 52" LCD. I can't wait until I get my iTunes library streaming to my tv.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

jmshaw said:
MacRumors said:
Given that the Apple TV is a streaming-only device, on-board storage is only required to support the operating system and buffering of streaming content.

The flash memory is also used to store user photos if your photo library is selected as a screensaver. This continues to work even if the library is unavailable on the network.

Correct. This is why I was somewhat letdown that onboard storage did not increase to 16GB. Pictures repeat a lot if we have less than 600 set to show, especially with some of the newer slodeshow

Sorry for the duplicate post - I'm fighting against a lousy airport connection
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

jmshaw said:
Given that the Apple TV is a streaming-only device, on-board storage is only required to support the operating system and buffering of streaming content.

The flash memory is also used to store user photos if your photo library is selected as a screensaver. This continues to work even if the library is unavailable on the network.

Correct. This is why I was somewhat letdown that onboard storage did not increase to 16GB. Pictures repeat a lot if we have less than 600 set to show, especially with some of the newer multipic slideshow, but on the other hand the system can hang up every now and then because of this....
 
and apple is a business, they're not entitled to make a profit? let's bitch about dell/microsoft/hp, they all make profits too!

I don't have any problem with making profit. It is what keeps me in business. I do have a serious problem with liars which try to damage companies with blatant lies.

Scratch that, I have a serious problem with liars, period.

(remember, the claim was 'Each Apple TV probably costs 5 dollars to make. Massive profits for Apple once again.' Which is a blatant lie.)
 
Last edited:
No one has an internet connection that is remotely fast enough to take advantage of gigabit ethernet. And lastly, most people don't have their routers near where their ATV(s) are used, and wouldn't want to run long cables all over the house to attach them.

Uhm, my cable internet is 120 Mbit (down) and it regularly reaches that speed in terms of throughput. 100 Mbit ethernet slows it down; had to buy new switches and everything. Also, many homes here have fiber-to-the-home connections at 600 Mbit down.

And I am probably not the only person with a full Cat 5e network in their home, with a network socket next to every power socket.

As for the ATV, it can probably do without GigE - just challenging your other assumptions in the quote.
 
I pre-ordered two but am returning them. As I have a hacked 1st gen with a Crystal HD graphics card, my 1080P mkv's play amazingly through my Pioneer Elite AVR/plasma. I believe the hardware specs on the third gen are disappointing. I've played iTunes 1080P versions of films, compared them to my 1080P handbraked mkv/m4v's from my 12-Core Mac Pro and to their Blu-Ray disc source. Of course, Blu-Ray wins hands down, but my own 1080P encodes are much better than Apple's (multi-track audio allows for DTS passthru that Apple does not support).

It seems Apple decided on compressing the data through H.264 at L4 with [generally] slight improvements over their 720P counterparts instead of using a better A5 ARM, etc. as in the iPad and iPhone. I understand why as streaming and internet downloads for 1080P encodes must to be manageable for the average consumer bandwidth, but this "update" isn't much to justify the difference from its predecessor. Had Apple provided a better ARM processor and the ability for NAS, it'd be perfect.

I decided on going full out and got a Mac Mini running Plex with my NAS. Now that there is software that can play Blu-Ray's on OS X, I attached an external LG Blu-Ray drive and that's all I need. No more jailbreaking and tinkering, worth the extra $$$.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

hspace said:
And I can't believe it still doesn't have gigabit ethernet! Must be expensive:eek:

Ha! This is a streaming device.
- Is there ANY content on your network you want to share through it that requires more than 100mb/s bandwith? Or even a fraction?
- Same goes for streaming internet video, is your internet pipe 100mb/s? If not, why the heck does it need gigabit? And what content, again, would require it?

Bluray like quality HD 1080p content streamed from an external harddisk perhaps? Content thats 25-50GB?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)



Bluray like quality HD 1080p content streamed from an external harddisk perhaps? Content thats 25-50GB?

Considering that a 2 hour movie @ 60Mbit per second is around 43GB, i dont see a reason either
 
I'm hoping it actually makes the thing work correctly.I bought the second generation and had to return it. Every movie took forever to stream and most wouldn't play properly. No, I dont have any internet issues, just wouldn't work for some reason. First time I had a problem with an Apple product.. Here's to hoping it works much better as I will get the new one on Monday. Amazon - tax free :D

Just curious, was it iTunes content, or ANY content? I found that unless I have my ATV2 hard connected to my internet, iTunes content has unforgivable buffer times for HD. Turning it to standard def made it instant... and I was mostly renting tv shows i'd missed so I didn't care. Netflix, I've never had a problem at all.

Each Apple TV probably costs 5 dollars to make. Massive profits for Apple once again.

Really?! I'm gonna go take a look now. - Are you sure it wasn't "Genius"?

----------



Hardly true. Apple runs at (according to elsewhere) around 37-52% for the new iPad. That's a pretty healthy margin, so the ATV3 will probably be running at a similar (or IMO, a higher margin).

That's their range on hardware... with displays. They have other items (iPod shuffle for instance and even the Nano, despite its display) that probably are much higher.

iSupply estimates Apple TV 2 BOM +manufacturing to be ~$64 (http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals-Apple-TV-Inner-iPad.aspx). I would expect Apple TV 3 to cost roughly the same.

Tear down price lists are never accurate. The processor is something that is exclusive to Apple, and they have to take a guess on it's cost based on similar open stock parts most like it. The rest of the parts are what any jo schmo could buy them for.

Some of those prices don't even exclude the fact that there is no middle man in the process and everything is factory direct, or that larger companies are going to get volume discounts and will have negotiated pricing that is not publicly known. Whenever you see a tear down pricing list, it's very safe to assume the real cost is 15%-30% less than what they get it at unless it's a small company.

If the Apple TV costs more than $25-$30 from procurement to store, I'd be really shocked. You have to remember that Apple isn't just making Apple TV's... they are buying parts for dozens of other devices from these companies. Then look at a company like Roku that only makes one product line of 4 models, sells them for less, and doesn't really have any kind of echo system in which they can make additional revenue and they're making money. They're also going to likely be paying a lot more for parts than Apple, and they're turning out good margins.

There is a reason why Apple is sitting on $100 billion in cash... they are business savvy in addition to making great products.
 
I don't have any problem with making profit. It is what keeps me in business. I do have a serious problem with liars which try to damage companies with blatant lies.

Scratch that, I have a serious problem with liars, period.

(remember, the claim was 'Each Apple TV probably costs 5 dollars to make. Massive profits for Apple once again.' Which is a blatant lie.)

Yeah, $5 is an extreme exaggeration for Emphasis, but there is a slight validity to the point. People can chose not to buy one and get a $49 Roku if their heart so desires and fits their needs.

Apple will be flogged for their success. They bring in margins no other computer/device makers come close too, but people are willing to pay a premium. It's business. If people stopped buying Apple products tomorrow, I'm sure they'd reconsider their pricing.

I personally would rather pay a premium for a product that I know will be supported for years, that works and gets dedicated updates, and makes getting things done easier and without headaches. To me, I see value in the extra price.

But those who don't... why are they on Apple related forums in the first place or using their products?
 
They don't need to add an app store for that. They just need to convince Netflix etc to remove the regional restricted stick out of their butts.

It would help in the iTunes Store as well. The nets etc talk about not wanting to make things like Amazon and iTunes quicker, better or cheaper because it promotes piracy by giving them better access to nice files to spread around. What they don't realize is how much of the folks that would download those files do it because you air a show and don't post the eps until almost a year later. or it airs in one country, six months later in another, but you have to wait a year after that to get the downloads the first country had as it airs. And in the US, only some perhaps 100k folks are tracked for the precious ratings to judge shows so why not just torrent, no one notices in the end. So there's another reason to just torrent.

But if they posted within a week tops of the OTA, to all stores worldwide, at a decent pricing many of those torrent users would stop because they have access from the source. If the nets would count those buys with the ratings, more would stop because buying would be a 'vote' to keep the show on the air. Post with decent quality and pricing and with the same audio/subtitle files and features on a season pass as you put on the disks and folks are less inclined to just wait for that and the nets have the money when they need it most, during the season. Perhaps then we would see a reduction in piracy (it will never completely end) and a rise in decent shows being able to stick around. No more peanuts and plastic dinosaurs and such being mailed to nets for canceling decent shows like Jericho or Terra Nova and replacing them with yet another lame reality crap (what they need to do to make shows actually good is a different thread for another board)

Sure that would all help, but if big content doesn't want to be involved then it should be their loss not mine. Apps allow for new business models and more direct Consumer/Producer relationship. Apps allow more local and cultural specific content, in a way that media stores like iTunes never can.

Not expecting a full iOS like app or games like the iPad or iPhone, but some form of Apps to open opportunities beyond big media.
 
With 2gb RAM and over-clocked A6 Quad chip that ATV could be quite good gaming platform also. More powerful than Nintendo Wii thats for sure.

It is already now more powerful than Nintendo Wii, assuming the A5 GPU is dual core like in the iPad 2. Nintendo is using 10 years old cpu/gpu technology in the Wii, as they wanted a cool and quiet system rather than compete with CPU power.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.