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.
Top Apple TV Apps Revealed With Games Topping the Lists
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
it will be in the comedy category when they turn categories own with the sub-category of news paradoy.
I'm sorry, but you're making lame arse excuses for penny pinching on Apple's part. You don't buy an HDMI receiver for a high-end audio room that uses $2k ribbon speakers (i.e. surround isn't practical with 6 foot speaker and a piano where the center would go and wouldn't match the sound field). I play my 9000 song music collection (plus LP collection) in that room and watch some TV shows and music videos. Optical or RCA is the optimal solution there. It's a ~50 cent part for Apple. The new box is more than large enough to accommodate it. The truth is Apple didn't include it to save that 50 cents per unit, knowing full well that most people will just plug it into their TV and say good enough.
Frankly, in an age where people listen to horrible sounding "ear buds" or ridiculously inaccurate "Beats" headphones that 1975 connection of choice would be preferable. I'd even take my 1979 console stereo with small 2-way speakers that's now in my garage any day over my plasma's built-in speakers (modern tech in your world).
So your excuse for not providing proper equipment support is that someone (Plex) found a work-around for Apple's lame lack of WORLD STANDARDS support (DLNA) ? Lame.
Sure it is.
So now I have to spend $399 MINIMUM to to implement your idea of a "solution" for this problem? Yeah, that 1975 tech is outdated! Why spend 50 cents on solving a problem when you can spend $399 on it!!?!?!? Or in this case, $39 for that very same FireTV stick you insulted above. Yeah, $399 is way better than $39!
OK, let's talk about "inferior" here since you seem to believe that is the reason they didn't include it rather than them saving 50 cents a unit (my opinion). The mere fact I can buy a $10 100% separate solution that has to include duplicated hardware shows that it really is 50 cents to a dollar at most for Apple to add in bulk. That is a fact and not in question here. The reason I'm irked at the lack of optical audio output is that I already bought a separate DAC with optical input to deal with the fact that Gen2/3 units couldn't be bothered to include the already existing optical/analog combination port found on Apple's own Airport Express (one part does all). Now THAT was a nice solution to saving space and they already had the tech. How odd my cheap Airport has a better connection selection than AppleTV in that regard. So now I have to order a $60 breakout box that gives me optical/RCA out (the one I ordered has remote switching; might as well get it so I can deal with having to buy a competing device as well since Apple can't manage an Amazon App either). That adds 50% more cost to the unit whereas it would have cost Apple 50 cents to include a lousy combo analog/digital port they already own/make and have on their Airport Express and most Macs. Then all I'd need is a tiny 50 cent cable to connect it to my analog system.
So if Apple is worried about providing "inferior" connections (even though they only add flexibility and don't stop HDMI from working at the same time) on a box they know most people will just connect to their plain old crappy TV speakers (yes, that actually IS inferior to using even a 1965 stereo, BTW. Kids today seem to happily listen to 50 cent ear buds and call that music and then get on here and insult "old" technology that was 500x better sounding), then why, pray tell has Apple not added support for a single damn newer/superior digital audio format since Dolby Digital came out in the 1990s?
Your argument has no merit for that very reason. Apple doesn't support anything better than optical can handle in terms of surround sound so arguing that HDMI's extra bandwidth is somehow needed on this product is a bit ridiculous. Apple doesn't even support DTS, let alone DTS-HD or Dolby HD or Dolby Atmos or anything that actually NEEDS more bandwidth. The truth is they expect most users to just listen through their POS TV speakers. The problem is they're selling this product at a premium price and yet their "inferior" $69 product has more flexibility than their $150 and 200 products! It at least made some sense that Apple dropped RCA on Gen2/3 boxes because they dropped the price to 1/3 the cost or more and shrunk the size of the product.
Here, they increased the size and price of the product (plenty of room on the back to include the extra connections) and yet ditched the extra connections. This is in stark contrast to all known practices by others in the audio-visual field. Cheap receivers have LESS connections and less flexibility. More expensive receivers have more connections and more flexibility. But even a total POS receiver in 2015 still has basic RCA stereo connections for 2-channel audio as that is a standard and the only thing needed to listen to 99.999% of the world's music. Surround sound for music has never caught on and shows zero signs of ever catching on. Sure Dark Side of the Moon is cool in Quad or 5.1, but the music is 10x more important than footsteps running behind me in On The Run.
I've got "meegwell" above talking to me like I'm some old fart listening to a mono speaker attached to an old furniture sized radio instead of something "modern" above when in fact, I've got two major systems in my house and 4 other "minor" systems all set to synchronize to iTunes.
The minor systems are THX-rated Klipsch sat/sub systems (best sounding 2-channel for the dollar ratio in existence) and oddly they use analog RCA 2-channel input because that is the STANDARD for 2-channel audio (your iPhone uses analog 2-channel 1/8" analog output for headphones...in 2015. Is that a shock? It's dirt cheap and it works. WTF would anyone use digital there? It would mean needing powered headphones with a DAC in the headphones! Bluetooth? Great, but you need to keep the headphones in batteries. Sometimes simpler is better. Look at the ultra-high end HiFi gear. You'll find 2-channel pre-amps without any video circuitry. You'll even find "ancient" tube amplifiers because they sound warmer. This brings me to my next point.
My living/audio room has $2k 6-foot tall oak framed ribbon speakers with custom made crossover networks and dual amplifiers (sliding Class A/AB on the ribbons and high powered 350 watt amps on the fast response 10" sub-woofer drivers that handle from 200Hz down to 26Hz). It's a STEREO system because that is what music comes in and with this system, you can't reasonably make a surround setup with matching speakers. It's "old" 1980s/90s tech. I use 100% analog equipment for the separate pre-amp/amp system (even the remote volume control is a motorized analog pot). It's also superior sounding to 99.9% of the systems out there (Genesis Audio bought these same drivers for their custom cabinet $50k speakers rated Class A by Stereophile; they are as good as they get and arguably the best ribbons ever made and a steal at $2k a pair. I had to move to $6k speakers to get similar sound when I auditioned them back in the mid 90s. I've had friends come over thinking I had some kind of African art in the room when they saw these things and weeped when they heard their favorite music on them. One friend begged me to put him in my will for these things.
HDMI? WTF does that have to do with high quality audio? I have a high-end LP rig connected as well. Those seem to be on a come-back lately. I didn't buy it for that reason (I happen to like digital storage formats), but to play back records that STILL aren't available on CD. But the system is paid for by just selling ONE record I bought as a keep-sake in the 1990s for $8 (that's how high the demand is for relatively rare, low volume productions in the LP's darkest years). My Pink Floyd PULSE (unopened) 4LP box set alone is selling for as much as $1200 right now. I paid $47 back in 1994. Isn't it odd how people are flocking to buy that OLD essentially 1948 tech and yet someone tries to flame me for wanting an RCA or optical connection (i.e. I already bought one breakout box to use optical and now I need an HDMI one even though I don't need HDMI switching simply because Apple couldn't bother with a 50 cent part on their $150 box that they do have on their $69 box contrary to the rules of flexibility above and plenty of space on the back of the new larger unit to put it; a 1/8" headphone style jack would have sufficed). Now look at ROKU. Their cheap devices lack connections. Their top of the line unit has optical. Why is that? Oh yeah, they actually follow he rule that the high-end units should have more features than the cheap ones. They also even provide an analog 2-channel output on their remote control for headphone usage! Now THAT is a sweet (1975, ha) feature!
My other major system? It's a home theater room with a projector, 93" screen and 6.1 surround (7.1 wouldn't work due to the layout of hte back of the room). It's a matching driver identical center-based system (i.e. the center speaker is identical to the left/right speakers for optimum spread like a real theater, not crappy center-channel systems with comb effects. The surround speakers match the front speakers as well. It produces a COHERENT soundfield. It also has a 15" subwoofer that can shake the house if need be. THIS is where I expect an HDMI connection yet when I first got the system in 2007, I used optical for AppleTV because the HDMI connection needed to go to the projector and HDMI receivers made back then are worthless today (old HDMI standards don't work with 3D, etc.) yet the audio portion of the receiver still functions just fine. And in case you hadn't noticed, Apple TV (including the new one) don't support DTS of any kind (including DTS-HD Mster or Dolby True Sound or Dolby Atmos).
This IS 2015. Why isn't Dolby Atmos standard on the new AppleTV? The truth is that AppleTV simultaneously provides poor 2-channel support (the vast vast majority of all music made) while ignoring all the modern home theater sound formats of Blu-Ray and the like. Even my 1997 system had DTS support!
It's 2015 and Apple STILL doesn't even support lossless audio in their iTunes store! I had that back in 1987 with my first CD player! But yeah, this is about having modern HDMI not that old 1975 crap?
See above. Comparing VHS to this is ridiculous. Music is STILL 2-channel in 2015 for the vast majority of albums. Most people listen on cheap crappy earbuds, the default speakers their cars come with or god forbid, those horrible speakers on their flat TVs. Yet you have the nerve to suggest optical (which handles EVERYTHING the new AppleTV supports) is "outdated" while Apple doesn't support a single newer audio format that would require HDMI bandwidth. The two arguments are incompatible. Apple did this to save 50 cents. That's the only reason. If they were interested in newer audio formats, they would not only sell music in Apple Lossless on their iTunes store, but they would also offer 5.1 (or better yet Dolby Atmos unlimited soundfield channels) music on their store. They do neither. That means it can ONLY be about saving that 50 cents.
Last edited:
MOD NOTE: {SNIP}
I'm not thinking of buying that FireTV for games. I'm thinking of getting to get a damn Amazon player since Apple couldn't manage one. And it only costs $39 so I don't expect much out of it. Apple's new player costs at least $149 so yeah, I expect MORE. But people like you don't GET that because you're too busy trying to tell people how wrong they are to conclude the new AppleTV is a bad product right now.
So now you're suggesting there are going to be AAA games? And you expect me to take you seriously?
My comments aren't based on the current games. They're based on the FACT that this is a WEAK iOS system that doesn't even come with a slightly reasonable game controller and they're not "allowed" to make games that require one. Apple is the one pushing games on this system. I simply think if they're going to do games, then DO GAMES and don't do it half-arsed. At the very least, don't require a remote that obviously wasn't designed with gaming in mind.
Every word you say contradicts itself. You want "fun and fresh" and "great games" but you want it dirt cheap. Sorry, but the two don't go hand in hand. People expect to be paid money for anything reasonably good. They can't afford to give games away for free. Show me one awesome game on iOS. It's a $1 fart App system. It's great for getting email and surfing a site or two in a pinch when you're not at home, controlling your AppleTV house setup with "Remote" and playing music on the bus, but it's hard to take seriously for much else, IMO and I've had three (Gen1, Gen4, Gen5) models of iPod Touches.
Actually, I don't personally really want games at all (especially iOS type games), but I do think if Apple is going to do games, they shouldn't purposely hobble the system with arbitrary limitations on games to require them to use a POS "stick" with 2 buttons and a rocker switch and expect that to be "good enough" to play even basic games. If you're going to push gaming (and Apps in general) as THE reason this is better than the $69 model, then WTF would you make a rule that ensures it will never go anywhere?
All I really wanted from an App store is KODI support or VLC or something so I don't need a second box to use the rest of my non-Apple formatted media or a photo viewer that has a "random" that actually works (Apple's seems to often repeat itself over large slideshows or pick the same images in a very non-random manner; I never had that problem with XBMC/KODI). The problem here is that I'm unlikely to get KODI due to Apple's draconian policies and even IF I do, I still don't have an Amazon Prime player so I'm right back to FireTV again at which point the cheap $39 FireTV + 3rd Gen ATV makes more sense and since I'm going to need at least 3 HDMI sources and my living room plasma only has 2 inputs, I'm going to need that switching break-out HDMI box either way (to get optical/rca output options for my high-end analog 2-channel system in my living/music room) and enough inputs to cover these options even though I don't watch movies in that room, only music, music videos and some television shows when I'd rather sit in my lazy boy than the home theater couch downstairs.
Gaming makes more sense on a PS4, like you say. Of course, if the PS4 had all these playback options included (PS3 worked better for that, really), that might cover everything rather than a FireTV or whatever. But because all these companies want to try and lock you to their ecosystems, you don't get that level of flexibility. Apple won't even support industry standards like DLNA for one reason only, they want you to buy everything from the iTunes store.
I'm not thinking of buying that FireTV for games. I'm thinking of getting to get a damn Amazon player since Apple couldn't manage one. And it only costs $39 so I don't expect much out of it. Apple's new player costs at least $149 so yeah, I expect MORE. But people like you don't GET that because you're too busy trying to tell people how wrong they are to conclude the new AppleTV is a bad product right now.
So now you're suggesting there are going to be AAA games? And you expect me to take you seriously?
My comments aren't based on the current games. They're based on the FACT that this is a WEAK iOS system that doesn't even come with a slightly reasonable game controller and they're not "allowed" to make games that require one. Apple is the one pushing games on this system. I simply think if they're going to do games, then DO GAMES and don't do it half-arsed. At the very least, don't require a remote that obviously wasn't designed with gaming in mind.
Every word you say contradicts itself. You want "fun and fresh" and "great games" but you want it dirt cheap. Sorry, but the two don't go hand in hand. People expect to be paid money for anything reasonably good. They can't afford to give games away for free. Show me one awesome game on iOS. It's a $1 fart App system. It's great for getting email and surfing a site or two in a pinch when you're not at home, controlling your AppleTV house setup with "Remote" and playing music on the bus, but it's hard to take seriously for much else, IMO and I've had three (Gen1, Gen4, Gen5) models of iPod Touches.
Actually, I don't personally really want games at all (especially iOS type games), but I do think if Apple is going to do games, they shouldn't purposely hobble the system with arbitrary limitations on games to require them to use a POS "stick" with 2 buttons and a rocker switch and expect that to be "good enough" to play even basic games. If you're going to push gaming (and Apps in general) as THE reason this is better than the $69 model, then WTF would you make a rule that ensures it will never go anywhere?
All I really wanted from an App store is KODI support or VLC or something so I don't need a second box to use the rest of my non-Apple formatted media or a photo viewer that has a "random" that actually works (Apple's seems to often repeat itself over large slideshows or pick the same images in a very non-random manner; I never had that problem with XBMC/KODI). The problem here is that I'm unlikely to get KODI due to Apple's draconian policies and even IF I do, I still don't have an Amazon Prime player so I'm right back to FireTV again at which point the cheap $39 FireTV + 3rd Gen ATV makes more sense and since I'm going to need at least 3 HDMI sources and my living room plasma only has 2 inputs, I'm going to need that switching break-out HDMI box either way (to get optical/rca output options for my high-end analog 2-channel system in my living/music room) and enough inputs to cover these options even though I don't watch movies in that room, only music, music videos and some television shows when I'd rather sit in my lazy boy than the home theater couch downstairs.
Gaming makes more sense on a PS4, like you say. Of course, if the PS4 had all these playback options included (PS3 worked better for that, really), that might cover everything rather than a FireTV or whatever. But because all these companies want to try and lock you to their ecosystems, you don't get that level of flexibility. Apple won't even support industry standards like DLNA for one reason only, they want you to buy everything from the iTunes store.
Last edited by a moderator:
Huh! They do market for you. The channel is a marketing tool. Good GRIEF.
That's like getting your product into a great store with great demos is done magically; no it isn't.
Exposure and distribution to the appropriate demos is a huge part of marketing.
They don't do the extra step of putting a poster in the store, or giving you the best shelf in that great store with fantastic foot traffic, but they can't do everything for us... Companies that want this kind of exposure have to do it themselves, pay for it or do extra out of channel promotion.
No different than the real world were there are zillions of products. How do you sell your product!
Is anyone helping you, or do you have to help yourself.
Massive competition means just about any unique solution will be either unfair or insufficient.
That's why there are many ways to find out about products, and apps.
Would this be the start of Apple showing Apple TV off with getting something similar on the device like Dance Central on Kinect ? although u can only do multiple remotes.. that's enough as is for now, but i don't why Apple can't allow more.
(*mental note: must watch more of TWIT new years*)
(*mental note: must watch more of TWIT new years*)
I agree that the app needs work but don't buy the crappy UI as a reason for a poor ranking. Do you really think Netflix customers downloaded the app and hated it so much they deleted it?
