or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Report: Next Apple TV to be renamed iTV, drop 1080p
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report: Next Apple TV to be renamed iTV, drop 1080p - Page 6

post #201 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I can tell the difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720 resolutions. Try it on your desktop computer sometime

You're talking a viewing distance of 1-2 feet. TV viewing distances are several times that and, at those distances, you do need a much larger screen to tell the difference.
post #202 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy View Post

Wow dude. Do you read the comments?

Sure did. All 197 of them. Everyone commenting about whether 1080p or 720p is better, why, Blu-Support, and how Apple should do this, and should do that, which way the market is going, etc.

But not a single person pointing out the headline is just plain incorrect. How can Apple be "dropping" something they never supported to begin with? That is my argument. The headline is misleading. It should say "Apple still not adding 1080p support with new AppleTV" or something like that.
post #203 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonhen View Post

...But not a single person pointing out the headline is just plain incorrect. How can Apple be "dropping" something they never supported to begin with? That is my argument. The headline is misleading. It should say "Apple still not adding 1080p support with new AppleTV" or something like that.

Whoops. I see I missed Gordy's original comment on the same issue. Apologies. Well, at least two people came up with the same observation \
post #204 of 231
1080p streaming isn’t feasible for most people. Maybe it will be in a few years.
post #205 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Because people claim streaming/downloads are a competitor to Blu-ray,a nd since I have poor bandwidth Blu-ray is my choice of product as I prefer the quality.

A competitor in convenience not raw quality.

Blu-Ray would need 60Mbps sustained to stream down as it is. They could get away with under 20Mbps but current itunes movies only need under 4Mbps, which is how the FCC define a broadband connection.

In the interests of accessibility, Apple would offer 720p streaming well within this limit to allow for drops and can scale it up as they see fit in future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

I didn't realise you were my mother, I can sit as close, or far away from the TV as I choose.

Sure you can but you can't expect the rest of the world to accommodate your choice if it's not feasible to do it. You can tell Apple that you aren't happy with the iPhone 4 display because you choose to hold it 3 inches from your eyes. It doesn't mean they are going to recognise any urgency in upping the resolution again.

Here's an image that compares the resolutions:

http://blog.isnoop.net/wp-content/up...view_large.png

If you look close, you can see the difference. If you sit back to normal computer viewing distance, the difference between 720p and 1080p is noticeable but slight, 480p is clearly blurry. Back at 8ft, the top two slices don't look much different in terms of sharpness.

No doubt there are people with projectors making an 80" picture complaining that 1080p isn't enough while sitting 3 feet away from it.

Once broadband speeds catch up, Apple can easily bump up the resolution for people who are able to benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

It won't combat online piracy, the reason most people pirate movies are because they don't want to pay for them, getting them to buy isn't going to fix it.

It depends on the pricing model. If they have a subscription or pay per minute, the ability to simply get in from work, click on a movie and start watching is better than P2P methods. Like with Blu-Ray, even pirates using P2P have to prepare their choice in advance and then watch it later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr

So they can call it iTV everywhere but the UK. and call it something else in UK only. not a big deal in the global scheme of things.

They can also license the name like they did with the iPad.

Apple have obviously tested the streaming capabilities and quality as well as looked into the use of the iTV name so I reckon they have a good idea of where they want to go with this. I personally think the concept is entirely sound and an extremely viable product, far better than the current ATV.

In true Apple minimalism, this would essentially be a modem for your TV. The full internet is one place that TVs haven't done right yet but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to browse the web from your sofa. The magic trackpad would be a great accessory for it. Imagine there being a large cursor on screen that you can use to click on iOS icons and use two fingers to scroll and zoom in. This is one reason why 720p makes sense too - 1080p would be tiny to see text on.

I think this will be the point ATV stops being a hobby.
post #206 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

1080p streaming isn’t feasible for most people. Maybe it will be in a few years.

Streaming has nothing to do with it, it's the marketing feature of 1080p that's important.

Stream 720p into the box if you like, stream whatever, just deliver 1080p to the set. Upconvert. It needs to be there to support full sized 1080p movies, too - maybe you ripped something & fed it into iTunes. Certainly, we'll be able to move our cache of movies into & out of it, I can't imagine that Apple would lock this out.

To really sell & be recognized as supporting higher quality video, it has to output 1080p. That's what's being discussed.
Hot tub blonde, pouring champagne: "Say when..." Dangerfield: "Right after this drink."
Reply
Hot tub blonde, pouring champagne: "Say when..." Dangerfield: "Right after this drink."
Reply
post #207 of 231
As far as the 1080p up conversion topic goes I am pulling that off right now with my current Apple TV and my Onkyo TX-SR608 receiver I recently bought. I have the HDMI of the Apple TV running thru the receiver then to the TV and it is up converting the movies to 1080p. Well worth the $490 if you want a theater system.

I'm wondering thou if Apple is going to allow the new iTV to sync with iTunes and play the movies I have on my computer like I currently do. I'm going to be hating it if Apple forces people into using the cloud system that they in the process of setting up. Nobody is going to want to buy a device for $99 then be told "Oh you have to pay a monthly fee for it to function with our cloud sync system for it to work properly". But it won't surprise me that Apple will do that. And I do hope they continue to support the current Apple TV after this new device is released. I don't really care if I can play movies or shows from Netflix or Hulu.
post #208 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandrakeTheMagician View Post

Most consumers can't even tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and upscaled DVD ???????

Are you kidding ??? Just open your eyes ....

The difference between 720p and 1080p is just HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!!


completely depends on your viewing distance:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html


simply put, at specific viewing distances the extra resolution loses its benefits. this is all based on the resolving power of the human eye:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
post #209 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandrakeTheMagician View Post

... all your considerations about 1080p are untrue.

In Europe we have NOTHING coming in 720p. Everything is in 1080p.
The only videos we could get in 720p come from the US.

If you're talking about the idea of streaming in 720p, nobody there will buy any streaming in 720p except the US HDTV series.

For real cinema, Apple won't sell anything in Europe because we know the difference between 720p and 1080p when you get at least a 40" screen..


Are you sure about this? or is it 1080i, like iTV's HD broadcasts and the BBC's HD broadcasts?

In the US, broadcasts are pretty much all 720p or 1080i - over the air are MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than today's h.264. But there is little, if any, 1080p content other than Blu-ray.
post #210 of 231
There is an error in the article. The ITV trademark in the UK is not owned by the Independent Television Authority, it's owned by ITV plc.
post #211 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjlexky View Post

I would say an upscaled DVD is pretty close to on par with Broadcast HD.

That doesn't say much for broadcast HD. \
post #212 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor View Post

Are you sure about this? or is it 1080i, like iTV's HD broadcasts and the BBC's HD broadcasts?

In the US, broadcasts are pretty much all 720p or 1080i - over the air are MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than today's h.264. But there is little, if any, 1080p content other than Blu-ray.

DirecTV has a bunch of HD PPV channels in 1080p. My assumption is that they're doing 1080/24p to save on bandwidth.

Jó napot.
post #213 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

DirecTV has a bunch of HD PPV channels in 1080p. My assumption is that they're doing 1080/24p to save on bandwidth.

Jó napot.


interesting. they do - good for them. according to their website:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global...ssetId=3720002

it is only a handful of On Demand movies, and to access most of them in 1080p, you need an internet-connected receiver.

the fact that they wont estimate the number of actual movies they offer in 1080p makes me assume it isn't many. and they are 1080p24, which is already available via 1080i60 via 3:2 pulldown, which is usually flagged hollywood 24p features, so 1080p capable tv's can convert 1080i back to 1080p24.
post #214 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor View Post

interesting. they do - good for them. according to their website:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global...ssetId=3720002

it is only a handful of On Demand movies, and to access most of them in 1080p, you need an internet-connected receiver.

the fact that they wont estimate the number of actual movies they offer in 1080p makes me assume it isn't many. and they are 1080p24, which is already available via 1080i60 via 3:2 pulldown, which is usually flagged hollywood 24p features, so 1080p capable tv's can convert 1080i back to 1080p24.

That is weird that the link you provided only refers to OnDemand programming. Their guide shows 2 PPV movies as well. You are right though, it isn't many. As to your last point, I rather take the native 1080/24p stream over the 1080/60i stream with the TV doing 3/2 pulldown if I have a choice.
post #215 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor View Post

and they are 1080p24, which is already available via 1080i60 via 3:2 pulldown, which is usually flagged hollywood 24p features, so 1080p capable tv's can convert 1080i back to 1080p24.

I was under the impression that 1080p capable TVs de-interlace 1080/60i programming to 1080/60p, not to 1080/24p.
post #216 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebitch View Post

I don't think that will matter too much given that iphone.com, ipad.com etc don't point to Apple websites

Sorry but iphone.com is registered to Apple Inc. and redirects to apple.com.
post #217 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

In true Apple minimalism, this would essentially be a modem for your TV. The full internet is one place that TVs haven't done right yet but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to browse the web from your sofa. The magic trackpad would be a great accessory for it. Imagine there being a large cursor on screen that you can use to click on iOS icons and use two fingers to scroll and zoom in. This is one reason why 720p makes sense too - 1080p would be tiny to see text on.

I think this will be the point ATV stops being a hobby.

It appears the rumored chip can output either 720p & 1080p over the same HDMI iO. It would be simple to use whatever resolution looks better for the menus and then, whatever output resolution looks better for the video, allowing the user to override if desired. If the box auto-selected or chose 480i for my movie but I wanted 1080p, I could should be able to order the box to provide this. But the menus can be anything, it doesn't much matter as long they look good. Nobody will care.

Some people will want the internet on their TV, but many others won't. Internet enabled TV's have traditionally not been big sellers and not a successful product segment for one reason or another. Complexity is an issue, I think; availability of quality high speed internet accessibility is a big issue; and, I also think there's a lot of folks who - after working all day - just don't want more of it in their family room at night.

However, virtually all HDTV owners will want 1080p output for any HDTV-attached box they are considering purchasing.
Hot tub blonde, pouring champagne: "Say when..." Dangerfield: "Right after this drink."
Reply
Hot tub blonde, pouring champagne: "Say when..." Dangerfield: "Right after this drink."
Reply
post #218 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_s View Post

...However, virtually all HDTV owners will want 1080p output for any HDTV-attached box they are considering purchasing.

Agreed. It is probably the de-facto spec that virtually everyone looks for when shopping for a new flat-panel TV. Getting peripherals to go along with that spec is simply the logical extension of it.
post #219 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Agreed. It is probably the de-facto spec that virtually everyone looks for when shopping for a new flat-panel TV. Getting peripherals to go along with that spec is simply the logical extension of it.

About half-way down this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video

they have a list of services and bitrates. I'd say only the 8Mbps PSN store has an acceptable 1080p bitrate. Netflix are sticking to 720p this year. The Zune 1080p uses a lower bitrate than Apple's 720p.

720p certainly won't stop people from buying the iTV given that they will already own cable and other services that stream 720p.
post #220 of 231
THE TOUCHPAD in your livingroom with the Apps and iTV. Apple has found the next best thing to the holy grail. Games internet and the whole ball of wax.
post #221 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

About half-way down this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video

they have a list of services and bitrates. I'd say only the 8Mbps PSN store has an acceptable 1080p bitrate. Netflix are sticking to 720p this year. The Zune 1080p uses a lower bitrate than Apple's 720p.

720p certainly won't stop people from buying the iTV given that they will already own cable and other services that stream 720p.

I don't disagree with you. All I was saying is that the 1st thing people look for when buying a new flat panel TV is if it's 1080p. It only stands to reason that they'll (incorrectly) assume that all their peripherals will have to be 1080p as well. I've been a custom A/V integrator since 1994 and one thing I've learned is that people will latch onto whatever the latest hyped feature is at the time. It was 1080p last year and the year before that and now 3D is trying to be the next "must have" feature. BTW, I'm sure you realize this, but most people don't even know what resolution their content is arriving in. They just know what they're told to want or need.
post #222 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A new report says the next update to Apple TV will adopt the name iTV, while also dropping support for 1080p video output to standardize on 720p HDTV.

Continuing upon the Engadget rumor that the next generation Apple TV will move from a scaled down Mac running Front Row software to an iOS device that works like a screen-less iPod touch, the latest wrinkle says the new model will get its former "iTV" codename.

Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs originally introduced the device (a few months before it shipped) under the iTV name while noting that the company was still looking for a permanent name. Apple TV was subsequently released as Apple announced the iPhone in early 2007.

Kicking apps

Since then, Apple has built up the iTunes App Store for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad devices but left Apple TV to sit in maintenance mode, collecting few features and never getting an official SDK of its own that would enable third parties to extend its features.

By converting Apple TV into an iOS device, the company could erect a third new wing of apps in iTunes. The popularity of iPad (which has collected a portfolio of over 20,000 apps in just a few months) suggests tremendous potential for a TV-oriented iOS product.

Apple's ability to rapidly muscle into the market for portable gaming could similarly be repeated by giving existing App Store developers the ability to quickly port and optimize many of their existing games to work on HDTV sets, providing a very cheap alternative to more serious console gaming devices.

If released alongside iPod touch 4 expected next month, Apple could decisively leverage the current excitement surrounding iPad to inhale lots of HDTV users during the holiday season at a time when the growth of the Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony PS3, and Nintendo Wii are all maturing.

Taking names

Apple has also grown adept at taking names that appeared to belong to other companies. In 2007, "iPhone" was cordless telephone product owned by Cisco. Apple has since absorbed the rights to iPad (claimed by other hardware makers) and iOS (Cisco's router operating system).

That makes it more likely that Apple has the interest and capacity to begin using iTV, despite its trademarked use by UK broadcasters (the Independent Television Authority, a competitor to the BBC).

No 1080p in iTunes

The shift toward a smaller, cheaper device that uses network streaming rather than Apple TV's hard drive for local storage also likely necessitates using the same video output of iPhone 4 and iPad, which is 1024x768 (or perhaps the very similar 720p HDTV resolution).

Apple sells HD content in iTunes as 720p. Higher resolution 1080p is an alternative HD standard, but video experts note that the difference in resolution is not visible to users at a normal TV viewing distance unless the screen is larger than 55 inches.

For Apple's mass market users, a cheaper device that streams easy to buy and view HDTV content makes far more sense than the current Apple TV, which requires syncing with a local iTunes system or downloadable storage for rentals.

Such a device would seem to necessitate HDMI output, rather than the VGA output currently offered by iPhone 4 and iPad, as few HDTV sets or video projectors still support VGA-style inputs.

Two steps forward, one step back, eh?

Or a political move to downplay one of blu ray's strengths while also easing their data center load?

I guess I wont be getting one.
post #223 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

I guess I wont be getting one.

Not even for $99? The sort of device that it's going against would be the Asus O! Play:

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Play-Medi...erbuilder.com/

It costs $79 and streams 1080p. I think one aspect of the Apple box will be that it's just a plug. If they take an iPod Touch and get rid of the screen and battery with some power components, that thing will be tiny.

They can then just have an HDMI port on it. With internal bluetooth, it will find a Magic Trackpad and keyboard.

iPod Touch hardware is capable of 1080p so they may unlock it later but it's wise to test the waters with lower bandwidth media so it doesn't just bring down their network from the start.

As always, people will vote with their money. I personally don't see a lack of 1080p being an issue at all. I agree to an extent with the marketing mentioned above where consumers gravitate towards matching marketing terms if they've invested in higher definition TVs but 720p is still HD so they can call it iHDTV and get round the naming problem and hide the 720p aspect like they did with the amount of RAM in the iPad.
post #224 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreshh20 View Post

THE TOUCHPAD in your livingroom with the Apps and iTV. Apple has found the next best thing to the holy grail. Games internet and the whole ball of wax.

I'm convinced they are going to do a Wiimote clone. The magic touchpad would totally suck for something like this.
post #225 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Yep. Nobody can really see 1080p except for a tiny, tiny percentage who have gigantic tv sets.

Apple is smart to get rid of the useless 1080p frmat.


nahh..i like my 1080p and dont want 720p unless i have to...I do have a TV that it makes a difference on too tho...
post #226 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I'm convinced they are going to do a Wiimote clone. The magic touchpad would totally suck for something like this.

It would be no worse than plugging your computer into the TV and using it at a large scale. I think the biggest issue would be cost. The device will absolutely need a primary controller and to bundle one that costs almost as much as the device doesn't make much sense - maybe if they do a $149 deal - but a much cheaper motion wand would make much more sense price-wise.

I just think the tablet would work very well. Wii-motes aren't bad but I don't find them to be good for everything like say they enabled browsing, how do you zoom in, how do you scroll? I guess they could have a metal wand with a touch surface like the iPod Shuffle.
post #227 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It would be no worse than plugging your computer into the TV and using it at a large scale. I think the biggest issue would be cost. The device will absolutely need a primary controller and to bundle one that costs almost as much as the device doesn't make much sense - maybe if they do a $149 deal - but a much cheaper motion wand would make much more sense price-wise.

I just think the tablet would work very well. Wii-motes aren't bad but I don't find them to be good for everything like say they enabled browsing, how do you zoom in, how do you scroll? I guess they could have a metal wand with a touch surface like the iPod Shuffle.

And it would feel like having a computer plugged into the TV, only a little less comfortable because of position of the track pad and the screen. Not great if they want to really push Apple TV as a "new" product.

The track pad simply wouldn't work for gaming either. It seems the track pad would work for a few scenarios but overall the Wiimote clone would be better.

There are a bunch of ways to implement different actions using the Wiimote.
  • Zoom in/out could be accomplished by clicking and moving the remote towards/away from the screen.
  • Rotation could be a click and then rotate the remote left or right.
  • Context menus could be accessed with a click and hold or secondary button click
  • Swiping/scrolling is the same as the iPhone/iPad... either click and drag or click and "flick".
  • Two finger swiping could be accomplished with a simultaneous primary and secondary button press
  • Three and four finger swiping would be hard to implement though!!
post #228 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

And it would feel like having a computer plugged into the TV, only a little less comfortable because of position of the track pad and the screen. Not great if they want to really push Apple TV as a "new" product.

I reckon it would be similar to how the iPad works with the Magic Trackpad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GfY7nfLpQ

It probably wouldn't have the mouse cursor but icons would highlight and the movement would simply move the highlighted app and just tap to launch.

If you were browsing a website, areas would similarly highlight and dragging over the surface would move the highlight and the highlight would always be on an object within your current view.

The same thing can happen with a remote though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

The track pad simply wouldn't work for gaming either. It seems the track pad would work for a few scenarios but overall the Wiimote clone would be better.

I don't think either will work well for games as they all have some on-screen buttons but if they put a gyroscope in the remote, it would probably work just fine for games like Monkey Ball and even the racing games which you couldn't do with the trackpad.

If they made the remote with a touch surface, it removes most advantages of the Magic Trackpad. If they just put the same number of buttons as the current metal one, any gestures can be covered by button presses combined with the movement.

From the cost and movement aspect, I agree that the remote would be the better controller to bundle with the new ATV. They may allow the other peripherals to connect to it depending on the connection protocol. If this is still IR, they may not make an ATV plug due to line-of-sight issues, which makes me wonder if the remote will get a switch to Bluetooth.
post #229 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I reckon it would be similar to how the iPad works with the Magic Trackpad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GfY7nfLpQ

There is no way in the world Apple would ever release something like that for the Apple TV!! Even if they could make it functional it would be way to boring to sell!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't think either will work well for games as they all have some on-screen buttons but if they put a gyroscope in the remote, it would probably work just fine for games like Monkey Ball and even the racing games which you couldn't do with the trackpad.

73M Wii systems sold at around $200 each tells me a Wiimote clone would work for games!

The Wiimote already has a gyroscope/accelerometer, or at least it does with the Motion Plus addon. Apple could add a digital compass in there as well... I'm not sure how it would be used though.

Apple could also have the surface of the remote touch enabled (i.e. like the Magic Mouse) or even dynamic buttons (who know maybe that is what this thing is for!!). The core experience would still be controlled via pointing with the remote however as multi-touch has a limited use when you're actually holding the device in one hand!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They may allow the other peripherals to connect to it depending on the connection protocol. If this is still IR, they may not make an ATV plug due to line-of-sight issues, which makes me wonder if the remote will get a switch to Bluetooth.

They will almost certainly allow devices to connect via Bluetooth. For example a remote keyboard application on the iPhone\\iPad or multiple iDevices connected together for some kind of gaming experience.

The main controller would still be the Wiimote clone however.

I think this shows Apple are on the right track.
post #230 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3rdParty View Post

I bought an aTV for exactly these reasons too, and I recall that back in 2006 (before the aTV first came out) this aspect was the focus of some debate in the rumour mill. I would hope that Apple does not make the device totally dependant on local streaming that there is at least an option to attach a USB drive and use this for local storage.

If Apple doesnt do this out of the box, I guess that someone would release a liberating hack, providing of course that the device has a USB port....

Glad someone agrees with me and isn't completely hung up on the resolution debate which quite frankly is irrelvant to joe public. Ask anyone on the street whether they know what 720p is or 1080p and I bet they won't have a clue.

Would be disappointed if a local hard drive was only available with a hack as I am always a bit nervous about hacking stuff.

Fingers crossed we get just an updated and uprated version of what we've got now !
post #231 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

73M Wii systems sold at around $200 each tells me a Wiimote clone would work for games!

I should have said for current games as they are but they can certainly be reworked. The Wi-mote has 11 control buttons though, I can't see Apple including that many. That's one advantage with touch - you can make as many as you like on the screen. Although you can add touch buttons to the remote and a small LCD, people would need to be looking at the TV screen.

You could just touch the surface in different areas I guess but the physical buttons on the current remote would work better - they'd just need more.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Report: Next Apple TV to be renamed iTV, drop 1080p