I would love to see Handoff of videos between Apple TV and iPad, etc.
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.
What's New in tvOS 16 for Apple TV: Features and Enhancements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For sure.
I think I said as much in the original thread that my post came from.
Another thing that just popped in my head that could be added to tvOS is remote management.
My parents like their ATVs, but if there is a problem, I would love to be able to remote into their ATVs to help them versus the hard and long struggle of trying it over the phone/FaceTime, only to have to make the long trip over their home to fix it anyways.
Hell yeah.
To be fair to the ATV, imo, I think it is still the best streaming box available. It just can be so much more than just a simple streaming box, one that is overpowered and overpriced to be used as just a streaming box.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why push a speaker (and its costs) into this new tvOS-type device you describe? Why not leave the speaker off... but I guess that gets right back to only a bit of circuity brains in a little box, which is what we have now.
Personally, I'd have zero interest in having a speaker pushed on me to get a next-gen AppleTV. I'd have zero use for the speaker since I hook AppleTV to much better speakers for the many things AppleTV can do. Besides, speakers are usually fully usable for far longer than computing tech remains usable and gets os updates. No need to "throw baby out with the bathwater" when the tech guts are no longer supported and yet that would be the proposition in such a device.
If Apple wants to stream the whole AppleTV UI from something else, run it all on the connected Mac or PC and stream only the video over to the AppleTV. Then AppleTV can be a little Airplay-type receiver and this hypothetical (and virtual) AppleTV can have all of the much greater processing power and much bigger storage of the host computer. Computer does all of the heavy lifting and AppleTV simply shows whatever the user is trying to see/do/use... much like you seem to be envisioning with this HomePod/AppleTV hybrid concept.
If the Mac or PC becomes the much more powerful brains and storage of this "virtual" AppleTV, the new AppleTV needs only an Airplay-like receiver for the video and a remote. For:
- those really wanting to spend little, sell the remote separately and use the iDevice virtual remote instead.
- TVs already able to airplay directly, perhaps this AppleTV doesn't even need the dongle: run it all on the Mac or PC and airplay the UI and playback/app functionality to the TV.
But other than that, I think the above would completely work, basically get rid of the box by virtualizing it and letting the much more powerful computer be the new AppleTV (put 1+ of these many CPU and graphics cores to work for this when at your TV). There's already the same basic concept in play for running games on a computer but displaying the game on the TV. If very intensive games can work this way, anything we do on AppleTVs can work the same way.
Last edited:
Why? I'm logged into our Netflix account on my Mac, and it always remembers to go directly to my profile. My wife is logged in on her Windows laptop and it always remembers to go directly to her profile. And the kids are both logged in on their user accounts on both our machines and it always remembers to go directly to their Netflix profiles. The problem is that tvOS is based on iOS, which is at it's core a single user OS, not macOS which is designed for multiple users. So all it's multiuser features are a bit of a bodge.
For streaming services that don't support profiles, yes, it would mean having separate accounts for each user. So yes, here in the UK, for paid services like Now it would be a massive expensive pain. But for free services like BBC iPlayer or All4 it would be ideal.
For one, I imagine just about anyone who travels with an Apple TV also has an iOS device. Second, I can't imagine how you are supposed to comfortably navigate a web page and enter passwords using the remote for a streaming box. Roku boxes, for example, also require that you use a phone or computer (but the procedure is much clunkier than Apple's).
This is my question. Or rather my assumption that "HDR10+ support added to the TV App" makes me think that content in that app only may play in HDR10+, which I would think includes Apple TV+ content. And content purchased from Apple (née iTunes)?
And what of other apps? Does the TV App supporting HDR10+ inherently mean the AppleTV hardware itself must, and therefore other apps can be updated to use HDR10+ content?
Still an uphill battle given that I think the only streaming services with stated support for HDR10+ are Amazon Prime and Paramount+, but as a Samsung TV owner I welcome this. Finally
I was under the impression that Amazon Prime Video already had support for HDR10+. I just assumed that is what content played in the app on the Apple TV. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.This is my question. Or rather my assumption that "HDR10+ support added to the TV App" makes me think that content in that app only may play in HDR10+, which I would think includes Apple TV+ content. And content purchased from Apple (née iTunes)?
And what of other apps? Does the TV App supporting HDR10+ inherently mean the AppleTV hardware itself must, and therefore other apps can be updated to use HDR10+ content?
Still an uphill battle given that I think the only streaming services with stated support for HDR10+ are Amazon Prime and Paramount+, but as a Samsung TV owner I welcome this. Finally
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This is my question. Or rather my assumption that "HDR10+ support added to the TV App" makes me think that content in that app only may play in HDR10+, which I would think includes Apple TV+ content. And content purchased from Apple (née iTunes)?
And what of other apps? Does the TV App supporting HDR10+ inherently mean the AppleTV hardware itself must, and therefore other apps can be updated to use HDR10+ content?
Still an uphill battle given that I think the only streaming services with stated support for HDR10+ are Amazon Prime and Paramount+, but as a Samsung TV owner I welcome this. Finally
EDIT: Since posting this, another forum member has confidently made the case that my assumptions in this post below are wrong... that the royalty is not attached to per stream... and that apparently this addition is simply to add a feature bullet for us AppleTV owners vs. saving some (meaningful) money for Apple or the Studios. Quickly looking around, I find nothing tangible to dispute their opinion, so I'm buying their counterpoint. I leave this post as is anyway, but am reasonably convinced now that the following is not core rationale driving this addition.
I assume- but do not know for sure that- this is mostly about cost-cutting. If Apple can stream you a movie in HDR10+ instead of Dolby Vision, a royalty to Dolby doesn't get paid. Or maybe this is for the Studios if they are the ones who pay that royalty.
Conceptually, AppleTV knows if the TV to which it is connected is able to handle HDR10+. The video you are trying to stream may have both options available. Send the HDR10+ to your TV and skip a royalty. Send the Dolby Vision version and somebody pays the royalty.
Even if that benefit actually benefits the Studios, Apple is also a Studio now, so AppleTV+ content can have both streaming options. If they can send your TV the HDR10+ version, they don't pay the royalty.
I presume- but do not know- that Apple would have favored HDR10+ from the start if it had existed. Instead Dolby Vision delivered the superior quality HDR and Apple went that way. Now that there is HDR10+ and it's royalty-free cost savings, somebody's accountants are finding some pennies to keep and Apple is supporting that.
If the Studios pay the royalty, I would expect a swift shift to HDR10+ either as one option or as THE option to not pay the royalty. If the streamers pay the royalty, same thing.
This is a situation where penny pinching greed works FOR us consumers with Samsung TVs (and some others) that only support HDR10+ and not Dolby Vision. We'll get an HDR quality upgrade vs. HDR10 (sans plus) for content that supports HDR. Studios or streamers (whoever pays the royalty) will keep a bit more of the money we pay to rent/buy. Dolby seems to be the sole loser in all of this, as some royalty they would have received won't be applicable when HDR10+ can sub in for DV.
Last edited:
Would love to eventually see Spatial Audio activated for when two sets of Airpods Pros are connected (currently Spatial Audio is disabled when two sets of Airpod Pros are connected), as well as the ability to connect more than two sets of Airpods to the Apple TV at a time.
All I really want is audio passthrough. I want to ditch my Nvidia Shield so I can use my ATV for Atmos.
Great list. Basically would love to see Apple treat it as a first class citizen.
Some of the controller and game updates are promising. Just got to cooperate more with third party developers.
It would be really nice if they would add HDMI 2.1 fast media switching so my TV doesn't blank out for 5 seconds every time the video format changes.
And fix the dang Atmos dropouts for crying out loud.
And fix the dang Atmos dropouts for crying out loud.
How many people own an ATV solely to watch tv? Guessing 99% of them. And things like the browser on the TV has been tried before by others and it was awful and I don't see Apple doing it. I own four ATVs and never had any bug issues other than when I have betas running on them.
I’m skeptical Safari is ever going to come to AppleTV. I just don’t think the number of people that want to browse on their tv is that high these days.
VPN support is pointless because a number of streaming providers would just insert “If VPN connected=yes, block launch.” Better to have it on the router level then all devices are protected.
Did HDR10+ ever improve? The early reviews of the first 4K discs seemed fairly underwhelemed as it appeared not that different from HDR10 and reviewers had the impression that while Dolby Vision layers were graded manually by colourists, HDR10+ layers were generated automatically.
I can't imagine Apple would want HDR10+ to avoid royalties - after all, they have fixed on HEVC as the their 4K codec and have to pay royalties to MPEG LA and have not implemented AV1 hardware support for the royalty-free alternative.
My understanding is that Panasonic, Samsung, 20th Century Fox and Amazon set up HDR10+ but Panasonic adopted Dolby Vision in 2019 products and 20th Century Fox was bought by Disney who support Dolby Vision (but not HDR10+) leaving just Samsung and Amazon as the main supporters. I got the feeling that Samsung didn't want to pay for Dolby Vision because they thought MicroLED TVs were coming soon which would have high brightness meaning that dynamic HDR formats such as Dolby Vision and HDR10+ would no longer be needed.
I can't imagine Apple would want HDR10+ to avoid royalties - after all, they have fixed on HEVC as the their 4K codec and have to pay royalties to MPEG LA and have not implemented AV1 hardware support for the royalty-free alternative.
My understanding is that Panasonic, Samsung, 20th Century Fox and Amazon set up HDR10+ but Panasonic adopted Dolby Vision in 2019 products and 20th Century Fox was bought by Disney who support Dolby Vision (but not HDR10+) leaving just Samsung and Amazon as the main supporters. I got the feeling that Samsung didn't want to pay for Dolby Vision because they thought MicroLED TVs were coming soon which would have high brightness meaning that dynamic HDR formats such as Dolby Vision and HDR10+ would no longer be needed.
Probably about the same amount of people that want to use the Computer app on tvOS.
You are probably right, and Safari may never make its way to tvOS, but I think this has more to do with Apple not wanting it there more than whether or not people would use it.
Not to wait 12 month for them to sort out the bugs that Riddle the iOS for 12 months till iOS 17 comes out.
The royalty is on hardware, not software. $3 per unit sold. For encoding, it’s free software to set it up, but $2500 for an annual license to print what you’ve encoded onto discs or push to streamers. Royalties really aren’t a big deal, some manufacturers are just selling their TVs at razor thin margins.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If there’s nothing in it for Apple because presumably every AppleTV would still have to pay the hardware royalty and there’s no more than $2500/yr in it for the Studios or Streamers, what would be the point for Apple going to the trouble to add it?
Perhaps I've become too cynical, but I suspect there would need to be something directly for Apple in this… that they are not going to the tvOS programming and perhaps content trouble to save Studio partners only $2500/yr. Saving AppleTV+ (studio/streamer) only $2500/yr?
With a big Samsung TV as my principal TV, I'll certainly appreciate the feature but I'm not sure it- in a feature list- would have played any role in moving me to buy AppleTV. I own 3 on the heels of many in prior generations and none of them had this feature, nor had any promise of adding it. Of course, that's just me. Perhaps others would see this in among the many features and it would be a big driver for buying AppleTV vs. something else? If it's basically a pure gift feature from Apple, that's very nice of Apple.
Perhaps I've become too cynical, but I suspect there would need to be something directly for Apple in this… that they are not going to the tvOS programming and perhaps content trouble to save Studio partners only $2500/yr. Saving AppleTV+ (studio/streamer) only $2500/yr?
With a big Samsung TV as my principal TV, I'll certainly appreciate the feature but I'm not sure it- in a feature list- would have played any role in moving me to buy AppleTV. I own 3 on the heels of many in prior generations and none of them had this feature, nor had any promise of adding it. Of course, that's just me. Perhaps others would see this in among the many features and it would be a big driver for buying AppleTV vs. something else? If it's basically a pure gift feature from Apple, that's very nice of Apple.
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with HDRs so what is the difference between normal HDR and HDR10. I've been told to set my TV (Which is Dolby Vision) to HDR (Or SDR) and it will adjust to Dolby Vision for you. Is only newer (Like released in the last 2 years) TVs HDR10 compatible?
Just the simple fact that they can say they Support it. A check box. Roku supports it. I’m fairly confident newer Chromecasts do. Amazon has been on board since day 1 of its existence. Why allow a simple software feature like that to be a differentiator? I guess at the end of it all - I don’t think you’re being cynical, I just think you’re taking one step too far.
It already does. I play it on mine. TrueHD and DTS-HD-MA are lossless. AppleTV outputs LPCM (lossless).
It's going to get decoded one way or another to LPCM, it's all a matter of where. It seems to be an argument for who does the decoding. Right now AppleTV does the decoding, but you seem to want your receiver to. That doesn't matter.
Blu-ray Audio Decoded: Your Ultimate Guide to Understanding LPCM, Dolby Digital, and More
A Blu-ray disc has several audio formats, including LPCM, Dolby Digital and DTS. Learn about the different audio types in this guide to Blu-ray audio formats.
www.the-home-cinema-guide.com
Also Plex is a fringe use for ATV. Apple will never sacrifice their main use in order to support what is essentially pirates, compared to the money and drive that all the big studio streaming services offer.
Last edited: