Who else is disappointed with the new Apple TV?

[GadgetBen]

I don't know about everyone else but I am so disappointed with the new Apple TV announcement.

I've got too many boxes plugged into my TV and I don't need any more clutter. Everyone else is principally offering the same thing, a TV box that does something different or has a channel that other boxes don't have. Well...Great! Apple had the chance to do something different.

I was hoping that Apple would bring out an actual 4k or 5k TV with a 'selling point' of it being the thinnest on the market. I was expecting sensory capabilities from an isight camera which could tell if you left the room and go to standby. FaceTime but on your TV. Perhaps maybe an Apple Sound Bar to work with Apple Music? Cool stuff like that which we expect from Apple. I would have bought this.

On the plus side, I was expecting SIRI to feature quite heavily with the remote and that part is quite exciting. The remote could have been designed to look better, perhaps matching the colours of the iPhone with a touch screen display. Basically an iPod style remote with wifi capabilities to allow you to change channels from another room or access your tv remote via an app if you lose it behind the sofa!

Maybe I'll just buy the iPad pro and put that on my wall....... Actually, thats not a bad idea!

 

[keysofanxiety]

It's fine, really. Sure you need a load of subscriptions still, but that's down to the cable companies. The UI's simple, intuitive, and not frustrating. Really that's all you can ask from a TV.

Not to sound apathetic about your criticisms, but there are so many of these threads that pop up.

Not sure what people expect Apple to conjure up. Just be glad they updated it at all. It's not bad, though it's not groundbreaking. It's just a little better and a little nicer to use, and makes life a little easier. I'm getting to the age now where in some cases that's preferable to some crazy new 'MindTouch' brain-warble control technology.

 

[GadgetBen]

Yes its fine, just fine. I'm sure they will sell enough. But I wanted Apple to use the huge pile of cash they have at their disposal to release a ground breaking product. Apart from the SIRI remote, this is just a little bit better.

For me, the new Apple TV is not the response I want from a market leading tech Company that represents the finest innovation in consumer products!

 

[GadgetBen]

Not sure what people expect Apple to conjure up.

I think I gave a good description of a few things that Apple could have done and what people would have wanted!

 

[MisterMe]

I think I gave a good description of a few things that Apple could have done and what people would have wanted!

Look. People have been harping on an Apple TV set for the better part of a decade. Apple still has not introduced one. From where I sit, the TV 3 means that an Apple TV set is farther less likely now than then if it ever were likely. There must be a business case for a TV set if Apple is to put one on the market. Over the last decade, HDTV sets have dropped in price by 95%. Manufacturers went to 4k in an effort to jack-up prices. Over the last 2 or 3 years, the prices of 4k sets have dropped about 90%. I recently bought one for about $700.

The bottomline is that TV sets have rapid depreciation and very long lives. That is not a prescription for a lucrative business venture.

 

[26139]

I think I gave a good description of a few things that Apple could have done and what people would have wanted!

You're essentially describing an Xbox One here.

 

[aberrero]

I don't really see the benefit over the 3rd gen Apple TV. In fact, the loss of the optical out means it is much less useful for streaming music to with the TV turned off. And the Siri stuff is a gimmick, just like on the iPhone.

I'll probably get the amazon box for 4k streaming since I already own a 4k monitor and a 4k TV and need more content for them.

 

[d21mike]

Maybe I'll just buy the iPad pro and put that on my wall....... Actually, thats not a bad idea!

Funny you mention that. My wife and I have been using iPad's to watch TV for about 2 years. She has one (iPad Air) on her dressing table and I have one on my desk (iPad Mini - gave my iPad 2 to my dad expecting to get the Pro much sooner). Anyway, we are upgrading to the iPad Pro for our personal TV viewing. But we do have our large TV's where we plan to put ATV 4's on. We do enjoy our TV Shows and Movies.

You also mentioned the iPod Touch as a remote. Based on the demo I expect they will have a much better Remote App on the iOS Devices then they have now for the ATV 3.

 

[Sedulous]

I really do not understand the insistence on 4K. So few people have a 4K TV and there is very little content. Yeah, some streaming services offer "4K" but it is so compressed as to be pointless. As long as the new AppleTV is responsive and works as advertised, I think it will be good.

One criticism I share with others is that it would have been nice to break the chain to iTunes. It would have been a boon for users if the USB port were utilized to read media from local storage.

 

[d21mike]

I really do not understand the insistence on 4K.

Do you see NO Value in the millions of new iPhone 6s customer filming in 4K but have no way to watch it on their TV's? Most new high end TV's this year will include 4K. My 70" VIZIO was only a few hundred more the the 70" 1080P and it had better components beside being 4K. Of course we are early but why did Apple add 4K Video to the iPhone since no one has 4K TV's?

 

[aberrero]

I really do not understand the insistence on 4K. So few people have a 4K TV and there is very little content. Yeah, some streaming services offer "4K" but it is so compressed as to be pointless. As long as the new AppleTV is responsive and works as advertised, I think it will be good.

One criticism I share with others is that it would have been nice to break the chain to iTunes. It would have been a boon for users if the USB port were utilized to read media from local storage.

HEVC support on the Fire means that 4k content can be much higher quality than what has been done so far using h264.

 

[Menel]

Needed A9X and a game controller out of the box by default, for the same price.
And it could have taken hold of the market. As offered... questionable.

 

[\-V-/]

Since I have a 4K TV ... I'm disappointed. The NVIDIA Shield and Amazon Fire TV are both 4K. And the Amazon Fire TV is cheaper.

 

[zhenya]

The app store will be a huge addition, so for that alone I'm sure I will buy one. I don't much care about 4k as I'm unlikely to upgrade for a few years. I would prefer to see uncompressed 1080p before moving to compressed 4k. A video camera for facetime would be great, even if it was an accessory. Our kids use facetime almost every day and sometimes we use airplay to get it on the tv, but it doesn't really work that great.

I really wish they would do something about my main ATV complaint; give us some way to have a single-sign-on for all services and all ATV's in the house. Keeping everyone logged in to every app across multiple ATV's is a nightmare.

 

[Sedulous]

Do you see NO Value in the millions of new iPhone 6s customer filming in 4K but have no way to watch it on their TV's? Most new high end TV's this year will include 4K. My 70" VIZIO was only a few hundred more the the 70" 1080P and it had better components beside being 4K. Of course we are early but why did Apple add 4K Video to the iPhone since no one has 4K TV's?

Did not say "I see no value". I said I do not understand the insistence on 4K. Again so few people HAVE 4K TVs. Sure, you can film 4K video with new iPhones but unless you have a 4K TV, there will not be much benefit. In three years when they update AppleTV again, 4K will be the standard and worth including. Until then, it was probably viewed by Apple as an extra cost simply not worth adding for most people.

 

[Sedulous]

HEVC support on the Fire means that 4k content can be much higher quality than what has been done so far using h264.

True, H.265 does have better image quality with higher compression.

 

[jmantn]

I'm disappointed as i have a 70 inch 4K TV that cost me under 2K. Vizio and numerous other TV's will be 4K and under a grand for most sized 45 inches and under this holiday season. Yet 4K right now isn't that huge as I get that it's not going to do anyone any good if we don't have the content to make use of the support. However Netflix Does support 4K and so does some other services like Amazon (yes I know they're not on Apple TV yet).

I'm upset because this means we'll be upgrading Apple Tv's next year if we want 4K. I'm upset that I sold my current Apple TV which was used daily in the hopes of buying the $199 Apple TV and it suiting all my needs for a long time. Now it looks like for us "Early Adopters" We'll be updating our iPhone's, iPad's, and Apple TV's next year (for those that try and be current when financially feasible). Basically it's yet another device with upgrades I wanted this year that will most likely come next year.. Kind of like how we all knew Touch ID was coming to iPad a year later or how a year later the iPad gets the current iPhone's camera.

Also disappointing is that Amazon's offering a 4K TV with a game controller for under $200. Yes I think Apple's remote and user experience will be top notch but unfortunately it's not a clear decision for others. I really think Apple delayed this far too long because other companies are within a year of pretty much copying and mimicking what Apple Demoed this month and until Apple's user experience is blatantly ripped off they will sweeten the pot with things Apple isn't including.

Just stinks as I think they dropped the ball on 4K support and including a controller. Including a controller is key because that means every game (which I don't really bother with however I definitely realize the importance) will have full support and it would have been a true console experience for kids and adults. I think of all places to take a profit hit to gain marketshare they missed their biggest opportunity. I look at it like this, Xbox and PS3 both had camera support (yet didn't come with one out of the box) and hardly anything made good use of them, at least anything I came across. Also like the motion sensing attachments...customers had to purchase them then a game had to support it for it to work. When something is included from day one it will always receive better support.

Anyways just ranting but a lot of this was taken from console discussions as recently as when the current get consoles were about to launch and from past history from those industries.

I will be getting a new Apple TV but I'll also be aware that at least on SOME points it's not the best deal out there (my biggest pro to not getting the Amazon tv is that it uses android and I'm not going back to that ever again) but it does make it harder to convert others over when there's "Seemingly" better upfront value to another platform even when the user experience is truly everything.

 

[GadgetBen]

You're essentially describing an Xbox One here.

Yes but Apple could do it better and I could come up with more cool features but Apple would have to put me on their payroll!

 

[GadgetBen]

I really do not understand the insistence on 4K. So few people have a 4K TV and there is very little content. Yeah, some streaming services offer "4K" but it is so compressed as to be pointless. As long as the new AppleTV is responsive and works as advertised, I think it will be good.

One criticism I share with others is that it would have been nice to break the chain to iTunes. It would have been a boon for users if the USB port were utilized to read media from local storage.

Apple released a 5K iMac last year which not many people can use!

Content is not widely available yet in most places, but in the UK we have Ultra HD sport with BT Sports now available:

http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/ultra-hd/

Also Sky are going to introduce 4K channels soon as well.

The problem is that BT are only offering the 4K service if you subscribe to their TV box. Exclusively. This wouldn't be a problem if you had an actual Apple TV and not an Apple TV box.

 

[ozaz]

They basically had me at App Store. No single smart TV or streaming device currently supports all the content that I'm interested in. I'm sure an Apple TV with App Store is the best chance of all services being supported on a single device.

I'm not particularly bothered about lack of 4K support.

The important I think is lacking is multi-user support. Do Apple expect us to have an Apple TV for each person in the house?

 

[Sedulous]

Apple released a 5K iMac last year which not many people can use!

Content is not widely available yet in most places, but in the UK we have Ultra HD sport with BT Sports now available:

http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/ultra-hd/

Also Sky are going to introduce 4K channels soon as well.

The problem is that BT are only offering the 4K service if you subscribe to their TV box. Exclusively. This wouldn't be a problem if you had an actual Apple TV and not an Apple TV box.

Higher resolution on a computer display is immediately useful because the user is close to the display and it offers greater "real estate".

As for television services, the video is very compressed. I suspect the actual difference between 1080p and 4K will not be greatly beneficial for fast moving scenes (i.e. sports). But that is only a guess as I have no evidence to offer.

Anyway, back on topic. I am sure Apple did the "math" and found that the benefits of including 4K in AppleTV4 were not great enough for the market. Maybe not enough people have 4K TV, not enough media, the hardware costs, and perhaps too many areas do not have enough bandwidth to make use of 4K. I'd prefer to a have a responsive AppleTV at 1080p than a laggy box that only sees limited benefit from 4K.

One thing I do find somewhat disappointing is the limitation on game controllers. Apple definitely seems to have made a mistake. Simplistic controls greatly limit game designs.

 

[2010mini]

Wait..... You are forming an opinion without even using it?

 

[aberrero]

Higher resolution on a computer display is immediately useful because the user is close to the display and it offers greater "real estate".

As for television services, the video is very compressed. I suspect the actual difference between 1080p and 4K will not be greatly beneficial for fast moving scenes (i.e. sports). But that is only a guess as I have no evidence to offer.

Anyway, back on topic. I am sure Apple did the "math" and found that the benefits of including 4K in AppleTV4 were not great enough for the market. Maybe not enough people have 4K TV, not enough media, the hardware costs, and perhaps too many areas do not have enough bandwidth to make use of 4K. I'd prefer to a have a responsive AppleTV at 1080p than a laggy box that only sees limited benefit from 4K.

One thing I do find somewhat disappointing is the limitation on game controllers. Apple definitely seems to have made a mistake. Simplistic controls greatly limit game designs.

Remember when the Apple TV2 didn't need 1080p. Because Apple has better pixels than everyone else.

Didn't take long for them to dump that and replace it with the 1080p ATV3 and 1080p content on iTunes. The same will happen with 4k.

Sports streams over the air are likely to be minimally compressed and I think HD will help a lot for sports like hockey where it is difficult to see the puck. Add in OLED's ultra fast refresh times and it easily adds up to a superior setup to what we have now for sports. The technology for all this exists today, although admittedly we are talking about 5-figure investments in equipment to get it.

 

[JGRE]

The only thing I was really looking for was the new WiFi standard which would provide better file transfer and prevent large movie files to stutter, everything else I consider just an extra.

Regarding the remote, I trust that Apple will pride an ATV remote app for the iPhone, so nobody should care whether it matches the color of the iPhone.

The hardware has nothing to do with the channels Apple might provide in future, let's wait and see.

 

[JGRE]

I really do not understand the insistence on 4K. So few people have a 4K TV and there is very little content. Yeah, some streaming services offer "4K" but it is so compressed as to be pointless. As long as the new AppleTV is responsive and works as advertised, I think it will be good.

One criticism I share with others is that it would have been nice to break the chain to iTunes. It would have been a boon for users if the USB port were utilized to read media from local storage.

4K is total overrated as you to have hawk-eyes to see the difference between 1080p and 4k. As MrMe mentioned above, it is a way for manufactures to prevent a further price dropt in a mature market.