or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad - Page 4

post #121 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henriok View Post

It's most certainly not zero. One suggested 16 GB but I find that very hard to believe at the 99 dollar pricepoint. 16 GB would be a massive overkill if the only purpose is to cache streamed content.

The rumor was 4 GB iirc, and that seems more reasonable given the price and purpose. That would be enough for apps too. We haven't seen apps yet but that doesn't mean that they won't come in the future. We didn't see any apps for the first iPhone either. They must build an SDK too.. and knowing Apple, an SDK will come _after_ they reveal the product it's for.

So my best guess is 4 GB.
I would also guess that the new AppleTV is quite hackable. It will be interesting to follow that development.

I was thinking under 2GB NAND. if it haas 4GB then i think that an SDK could be in the works, but if it has 2 or less than I would say its not likely for this device.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #122 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Apple uses Imagination for their iDevices GPU and decoders. They have been making efficient chips that can decode high-profile 1080p that is found in Blu-ray discs for awhile now. Considering the AppleTV is not battery operated I would definitely be possible for Apple to have put in a 1080p decoder instead of just 720p.

Cool. Is the Infineon chip in other devices capable of 1080p but Apple choses not to use it for more than 720p? If that's the case, you would be correct in that argument would be moot for the AppleTV. Arguments based in platform consistency, bandwidth, storage and such are still valid though.
post #123 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmonstk View Post

Does this or the current (previous) Apple TV allow you to play music to other speakers. In other words could I play a song from my iTunes library but rather than listening on just the TV speakers could I also send the signal to speakers hooked up to an aiport express

Yes, no problem!
post #124 of 156
I presume the previous ATV will continue to work just fine and offer the same interface as the new one, i.e. rental only? Was there any mention of the old ATV, will it need a software update?
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #125 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Legally?

And legality aside, "your own file server" immediately throws this as an extreme edge case.

Your not in the target market for the Apple TV. Nothing to see here, move along.

Your Mac is the 'file server' if it has iTunes, nothing extreme here ... no need to 'move along'.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #126 of 156
IMHO more of a problem than lack of 1080p (which is not the end of the world as some would have you believe) is the poor support for open file formats.

At least with an iPod you can play the most common non-iTunes music format - MP3 (although sadly it lacks Ogg support).

This new Apple TV does not support MPEG 2 (all my UK digital TV recordings are in this format), neither does it support MKV/XVID formats commonly found on the web.

So you have no choice but to buy content for it, rather than get it from alternative sources when practical and/or legal to do so.
post #127 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsec View Post

IMHO more of a problem than lack of 1080p (which is not the end of the world as some would have you believe) is the poor support for open file formats.

At least with an iPod you can play the most common non-iTunes music format - MP3 (although sadly it lacks Ogg support).

This new Apple TV does not support MPEG 2 (all my UK digital TV recordings are in this format), neither does it support MKV/XVID formats commonly found on the web.

So you have no choice but to buy content for it, rather than get it from alternative sources when practical and/or legal to do so.

You could of course run your torrented XVIDs and MKVs through one of dozens of video converters available.
post #128 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post

In most cases, the different between 720P and 1080P are unnoticeable. Unless you have a 46 inch + TV monitor. ( Although the trend is that most are buying bigger TV sets anyway.... so 720P isn't very forward looking )

But the problem with Apple TV and 1080P is streaming. You cant not stream a 1080P through Internet. You can barely do that in Korea or Japan, Hong Kong or Singapore where there are 1 Gbps Internet FTTH. And that is only a small portion of the total net population. So i dont expect US and Europe can do it.

But i am surprised and angry why Apple still hasn't decide to use Mepg 4 High Profile and instead sticking to Main Profile 3.1. I would much rather they support High Profile then 1080P. The difference is quality is substantial.

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p with ease. I have a 50" KURO plasma and I sit about 2 meters away from it.

As for streaming 1080p, I do that regularly through my Xbox 360 (all rental movies are 1080p on the 360) and even through YouTube. Works fine for me, never a hitch. My connection is 50mbit cable.
post #129 of 156
This is a downgrade, not an actual upgrade to the current AppleTV.

For movies and tv rental, having the ability to stream from the internet is nice. But music? pictures? Why do I have to have the mac on, or an networked HDD, in order to view my pictures?

40GB of the original version where the minimum... I can both rent as well as store something on the device and not always, when I have friends visiting, turn on the mac, turn on the apple tv, stream...

I would just fire off my ATV and have it all there, "magically"....
post #130 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Bandwidth is too high. Realistically, you need a 10 Mbs connection to reliably stream 1080p at a decent compression. Remember that a 10 Mbs connection is really a 5 to 7 Mbs connection, and that's only if your line is clean.

Well in France at least an 28 Mbit/s enhanced ADSL2+ line is the norm, cable goes up to 100Mbit/s and FTTH is available in large cities. I know it isn't exactly there in the US and I do feel sorry for you.
post #131 of 156
The price is right.

It's a shame that the video handling isn't boosted. I can deal with a lack of 1080p at the price point (and because I don't have a 1080p television, nor do most streaming services provide 1080p) but the bitrates for other codecs are quite low too (2.5mbps for MPEG4).

It's probably about equal to the old Apple TV. Which isn't to be sniffed at, considering all the components in that device a mere three or four years ago.

I'd like them to release a 1080p version in the future. Maybe they're holding the specs back to maintain parity with the offerings in the iTunes Store. One day they'll have to start providing high bitrate 1080p downloads though, let's hope that Apple TV 3 supports it (probably requires a new version of the A4 CPU with better GPU and CPU).
post #132 of 156
I seriously think that all these people here making a big stink about 1080p are either just here to bash Apple as a sport, astroturfers working for vaguely competing products, or just the clueless who got all fired up about it reading something somewhere from some other clueless person. (EDIT: And the codec thing is totally ridiculous too.)

I think there are legitimate criticisms of AppleTV -- no local storage, UI, although better than many TV devices, not exactly spectacular, Apple didn't go far enough with iOS/App Store support, etc. -- but this whole 1080p thing, which seems to occupy most of this thread, is such a red herring. Just use your Blu-ray player for your 1080p content, study up on optics, and think about something important.
post #133 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Absolutely worthless.

No 1080p hardware support.

Guess I'll be waiting another four years for Apple to make a product worth buying.

What's worthless is 1080p with a 2 - 4mbps data stream...

One thing I don't get, is why no app store? Why no Hulu? I'm not interested until there is no restirction on streaming sources.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #134 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.

I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p. I work extensively with these and other resolutions, my home & work system(s) handle support a variety of these so I consume my content at all levels. I am very aware of the technical detail differences. In the end though, I simply don't care. Very very little content has enough fidelity that I give one whit that I'm theoretically missing something by watching in 720p instead of 1080p. I have watched the same content on >100" screens in both resolutions, and I don't care that 720p loses a little of its fidelity. The marginal rate of gain beyond 720p just doesn't matter enough to worry about, and frankly I'd rather save the bandwidth and capacity when streaming or storing it. And if datarate is the limiting factor, having 720p compressed less is usually better than 1080p compressed more anyhow.

I'm not alone. Apple's marketing is aimed squarely at people with the same opinion as I have, and that is because we number in the hundreds of millions. The 1080p whingers are a vocal minority, the same group that insists they can hear differences between 44 kHz and 96 kHz, or compressed vs uncompressed audio. Sure, I can hear it too... if I listen to both side-by-side. Or I'm listening for a particular note in a particular piece. I don't. I listen to the holistic whole that is the work of art (or not, in the case of most TV programming). That extra little bit of fidelity... just... doesn't... matter.

This same principle applies to many, many things in the world of tech, of course. And its not going to go away. There will always be feature-whores that obsess about every last MHz, FLOP, DPI, resolution, megabyte, millisecond, GUI feature, etc. I know and work with many of these guys (and they're all guys, generally under 40, if not 30), and it is amusing to watch them ruin their own experience because they are so pre-occupied with the medium that they forget to sit back and watch the media. Yes, I used to be one of them... then I woke up and realized I have better things to spend my efforts on.

Is there a place for 1080p? Sure. There will always be that marginal group that demands a bit more and is willing to pay for it. That group needs to be aware that they are on the margin, however, and that the amount of gain they are pushing for these days is truly minor compared to a decade (or two, or three...) ago. Going from NTSC to 720p was far far far more important than 720p to 1080p. Going from a 8 MHz CPU to a 3 GHz quad-core w/ 500 SIMD core GPU was far more important than next year's 30% faster systems. This is important to realize because it changes the business models substantially.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #135 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

One thing I don't get, is why no app store? Why no Hulu? I'm not interested until there is no restirction on streaming sources.

Maybe it was a secret test of Apple's military expansion to see if boredom could be used as a WMD?

Seriously though, there is a lot of stuff they could have done to make the new Apple TV interesting, and I'm sure there is a lot of stuff that Steve would have liked to do to make it interesting, but we need to remember that Apple are subject to the same resource constraints as every other company.

The Apple TV is still very much a "hobby" project and they aren't going to pull resources from important products like the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Imagine if we had to wait for another 12 months (or longer) for the already long overdue iOS4 updates on the iPad just so they could create an Apple TV app store. It wouldn't be pretty
post #136 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

The 1080p whingers...

Ironic.
post #137 of 156
I think a little patience is required. Apple probably would not be able to get all the Networks to sign on the dotted line, if they would
show their hand to quickly and reveal that perhaps the ATV does
really run iOS. That's the beauty of having their very own chip. They
can start up anything at their liking.
Also, the great thing about the ATV now is Netflix. We can finally
try watching some of the older movies in their old library. BUT, I seem to remember that Netflix just paid a big sum of money to make the newer arrivals available sooner.
Also, that is the best way that they can outdo RedBox. I could rent 2 or 3 movies a week with RedBox. Now at about $10. I have
them ready for me to watch at home without having to drive anywhere to pick up or dropoff.
post #138 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The new, smaller Apple TV announced Wednesday will stream 720p HD video thanks to the same custom-built ARM A4 processor found inside the iPhone 4, iPad and the new iPod touch.

It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19833...hone_ipad.html



Actually, I will grant the possibility that the A4 as it appears in the iPad may be a custom order - in that it has 256mb less ram than the straight Hummingbird, though it wouldn't be something I would exactly brag about.

Quote:
The creation of it was made possible through the purchases of chipmakers Intrinsity and PA Semi.

Really? I think that statement is factually incorrect on several levels. Samsung and Intrinsity announced the development of the Hummingbird on 27th July 2009. Apple doesn't appear to have purchased Intrinsity until sometime in April 2010. What Pa Semi has to do with it, I have no idea.

Quote:
press releases
SAMSUNG and Intrinsity Jointly Develop the World's Fastest ARM® Cortex-A8 Processor Based Mobile Core in 45 Nanometer Low Power Process
Seoul, Korea , Austin, Texas on Jul 27, 2009

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...o?news_id=1030

Quote:
New York Times: Apple Bought ARM Design Firm Intrinsity For $121MM
Share

By John Brownlee (6:23 am, Apr. 28, 2010)

Confirming earlier rumors, the New York Times is reporting that Apple has purchased ARM design firm Intrinsity for an estimated $121 million.

Intrinsity was the company that helped design the Samsung Cortex A8 core, one of the fastest mobile processors out there before the A4 chip, which could only be clocked up to a 650MHz. Sources speaking to the New York Times say that Apple, impressed by theat work, picked up Intrinsity and tasked them with modifying their Cortex A* design to run at 1GHz. The end result is the iPads A4 chip.

http://www.cultofmac.com/new-york-ti...or-121mm/40508

Even the NYT got it wrong. The original announcement of the Hummingbirds development had it doing 1Ghz - see the above link to the original press release.

Quote:
Its inclusion in the new Apple TV makes it the first A4-powered device that does not have access to the App Store.

Actually, I would say the Samsung Wave S8500 was the first device to meet that criteria.
post #139 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Absolutely worthless.

No 1080p hardware support.

Guess I'll be waiting another four years for Apple to make a product worth buying.

WAIT new Apple TV is only 720p? WTF??? (this was my lil bro's response yesterday..

(so here is my reply....)

The current answer is sort of as follows of the 1080p question in GEEK SPEAK is...
*
(i said) if your talking about watching cable tv over the air' (cable co's are linear networks) - AINT NOBODY broadcasting TRUE REAL 1080p media it cost them a whole lotto $$$ to upgrade to be able to broadcast 720p and 1080i, i doubt we'll see 1080p for another 5-10 years. By that time, there will be something better out there worth them upgrading to.

we've been sold FOOLS GOLD with all these numbers and specs -
APPLE is not dumb they understand that there is no need for the over kill and if you already have an XBox or PS3 then you will have that plugged in to your Flat Panel thru one of the many HDMI inputs, why waste the extra $$ on the higher 'p' for?? (hence the new low price of $99. vers $229.)

What benefit would there be to the consumer, broadcaster and/or manufacturer to increase resolution beyond what we have today? Even if the bandwidth existed, and if you believe the seating charts BS that at 10' you would have to have a display of about 80" before you would begin to notice the benefit of 1440 (real true HD 1080p). The majority of sets being sold are in the 40-50" range, most viewers (at 10') are not even seeing the benefit of 1080p.

it (APPLE TV) will sell in the millions.. trust me.
post #140 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe hs View Post

i know it's all about streaming, but how much local storage does this thing have?

none.
post #141 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I rather doubt that.



Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.



Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.



I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.



Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.

There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.

OK, if you are a GAMER or Watch BLU-Ray Content....then i could understand your gripes, I don't play games on an X-Box or PS3 nor do i own/have (the desire to watch) Blue-Ray Media it cost too much and I am perfectly HAPPY with 720p- so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too
post #142 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The type of display has little to do with it. Whether it's front or rear projection has nothing to do with the power used. To get the same size image, you need the same brightness, which means the same size projector bulb.

My rear projector uses three LEDs for illumination. It uses less power than a rear projection plasma, a front projection, or other forms of rear projection. LCd Tvs with LED backlighting also have lower power use. There are a small handful of front projectors out now that use RGB LEDs like my model, but they cost $10,000 and more. Ready to go for one now?

I'm not hellbent on the future of LED projection; it's coming, it's gonna be dirt cheap, and the current 'tank' television will be even cheaper on the resell. Try selling a used flat panel not even a year old. It's worth 40% of it's value; China has pumped these egregious, power-sucking devices into the American I.V. at an alarming rate since 2005.

That said, the point of having an "Apple TV" is specifically to have a TV/DVR/CONVERTOR BOX/INTERNET MEDIA DATABASE--ALL-IN-ONE that stays at home and functions as your entertainment assistant. The current build simply sucks, and does nothing but play as an extra box of electronics in the cabinet. By not including a simple ATSC HD cable option with Apple-engineered DVR software suggests they have no interest in making the living room an optimized experience. Live television, despite how awful it can be at times, is still the most watched by the numbers. Try watching a live sporting event through iTunes, or the news, etc.

Apple appears mainly interested in selling you rentals and movies/shows through iTunes. If they actually wanted to reinvent the living room, they would've included the above mentioned in their hardware--as a start at least.

The obvious solution is a Mac Mini Server + Elgato. iOS4 is great, but it's not needed as a home entertainment system when a Mac Mini will simply serve as a much better option than this $99 joke.
post #143 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too

I don't play video games beyond my computer and I don't own any Blu-ray disks. I have 1080p video content that I would like to view on a television. Having a standalone Apple product dedicated to store/display this content (as well as photos, music, et. al.) on a television designed for 1080p is what I desire. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell me such a device. As such, I'll keep waiting until said device exists to give me a reason to purchase it and a television.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #144 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

WAIT new Apple TV is only 720p? WTF??? (this was my lil bro's response yesterday..

(so here is my reply....)

The current answer is sort of as follows of the 1080p question in GEEK SPEAK is...
*
(i said) if your talking about watching cable tv over the air' (cable co's are linear networks) - AINT NOBODY broadcasting TRUE REAL 1080p media it cost them a whole lotto $$$ to upgrade to be able to broadcast 720p and 1080i, i doubt we'll see 1080p for another 5-10 years. By that time, there will be something better out there worth them upgrading to.

we've been sold FOOLS GOLD with all these numbers and specs -
APPLE is not dumb they understand that there is no need for the over kill and if you already have an XBox or PS3 then you will have that plugged in to your Flat Panel thru one of the many HDMI inputs, why waste the extra $$ on the higher 'p' for?? (hence the new low price of $99. vers $229.)

What benefit would there be to the consumer, broadcaster and/or manufacturer to increase resolution beyond what we have today? Even if the bandwidth existed, and if you believe the seating charts BS that at 10' you would have to have a display of about 80" before you would begin to notice the benefit of 1440 (real true HD 1080p). The majority of sets being sold are in the 40-50" range, most viewers (at 10') are not even seeing the benefit of 1080p.

it (APPLE TV) will sell in the millions.. trust me.

Pragmatically and in relation to internet-based streaming I agree with you, but marketing a product also has psychological aspects, something which Apple typically excels at and something I think Apple missed on two counts with yesterdays announcement.
  1. I dont think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. Its the one thing all the other media extender appliances cant compete with.

    It also would have gone a long way to quelling many of the why do I need this? and such-and-such device already does this blah blah blah, even though there is no device that offers all the features, build quality or UI even this $99 AppleTV has.

    How long does it even take to start a $70 Blu-ray player movie and what kind of UX and UI is there for accessing Netflix on these cheap devices?
  2. I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Lets face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming wont be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.

    Just like with 3G v. 4G tech they wont look the bit rate of Apples 720p v. cables 1080i, for example, they will just see the higher number and assume more is better (and based on the definition of just the numeric value they would be technically correct, if ultimately incorrect).

    If Apple offered a larger AppleTV, say built into the aluminium case of the current Mac Mini, using the same components as the $99 AppleTV but with a 3.5 HDD (note that no iOS-based device has ever support HDDs) for 1 to 2TB of local storage and 1080p they could have had an expensive option for those that are too foolish to know better, those that want the large local data storage and HP 1080p, which is still a viable option on a LAN, on a device with local storage and, lets face it, from ripped Blu-ray titles.

    Sure, most Blu-ray rips will need the MKV container replaced, but that is childs play and it may help get more of these uploaded rips to stop using this container while selling an AppleTV that is probably double the cost of the old AppleTV.

    They could market these two devices for different televisions, which modern homes tend to have several of. You have the $399 AppleTV Pro for your 1080p widescreen TV and the $99 AppleTV Mini for all the other TVs in bedrooms that are probably smaller anyway and likely dont have 1080p as it is. They could then use Bonjour (Zero-Config Networking) so these multiple AppleTV Minis could access the content from the flagship AppleTV Pros HDD, as well all other devices with iTunes connected.

I believe that both of these things are well in reach of Apples technical abilities and would have made Apple the industry leader for the living room and turned this hobby into a bona fide leg instantly.

I agree they will sell millions and I also think the old AppleTV isthe most successful media extender appliances to ever hit the market, but I think they could have dominated an excessive number of TVs in a very short time and a long time to come if they had done things just a little differently.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #145 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices.

Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apples needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #146 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apples needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.

His comments, whether he realizes it or not, only apply to the processor. He ought to realize it, based on links he's posted in the past to "prove" it, but I think he's here to make political points more than anything else.
post #147 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.

Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.

Do you have a Blu ray player Carmissimo? If you do and you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at 14ft then you may want to get your eyes checked. I can see a huge difference on a 46" TV at 11ft. It's not in my imagination. Maybe it's because I had Lasik a few years ago....I don't know...but to me the difference is night and day. You're insulting everyone's intelligence when you are telling people that clearly see a difference that it's all in their head. Could it be that your eyes and brain just aren't that good at processing a video signal?

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #148 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

It will be interesting to see how long it takes someone to hack it to run iOS - big trick will be interaction though. I am sure this is why Apple did not make it run iOS in the first place.

Yeah Divx support may be interesting especially streaming the MKV but ALL of mine is 1080p!
post #149 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The specs that Apple has in their store for this give everything that it will do as far as codecs are concerned. No, it won't do DivX, etc. I wish that had never been invented. It's inferior, and a pain in the butt. Just another proprietory format we don't need.

Unfortunately they are here and for some people it would be nice to have them supported. Number of DVD/DVR boxes do play DivX/XViD, so I'd guess they are a bit more popular around than you suggest.

Quote:
Nevertheless, Apple is basically supporting formats that are either open, or have been well accepted. That includes H.264, Mpeg 4, and MJpeg. About 95% of all video is in those codecs, or formats. I don't know if it will be able to stream from a NAS. It would depend on how sophisticated the NAS is. What OS it uses. There are NASs that use Windows Home Server. It might work with those as it works with a Windows machine.

No, not Windows Home Server. NAS box like Netgear ReadyNAS NV+.

Quote:
How would you suggest people run media on their computers already? Streaming seems to be a good way to do it. Who would buy this if they didn't already have a computer?

Someone who doesn't want computer to stream media from the Internet..? Like, people with only one computer that don't want their machine to be plugged to TV all the time (or to keep plugging/unplugging on occasion)?
post #150 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Ironic.

Cryptic. Why?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #151 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

[list=1][*]I dont think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. Its the one thing all the other media extender appliances cant compete with.
[*]I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Lets face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming wont be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.


1) Why not? They're going to sell quite a few of these things, and like the iPhone1 before it the AppStore support is just software. It can be upgraded.

2) Too complicated at this point. Maybe if (when?) an AppStore for it happens. Until then do 1 model, keep the price to a rock bottom so that people interested by what they have now will buy what they have now.

When they've sold a few million, open an AppStore and presto! instant market for developers.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #152 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19833...hone_ipad.html



While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #153 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apples needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.

I don't know, you would have to ask Apple. The other people who really know the answer are http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ and Samsung

The A4 and Hummingbird SOCs both use the same graphics processor and in the incarnation used in the IP4 and Samsung Wave and Galaxy the amount of RAM included in the package is also the same. The designation for the Samsung part is S5PC110 while the A4 is S5PC110A01

What else would there be to be optimised for Apples 'needs'?
post #154 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.

http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.

Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.
post #155 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.

Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.


Thanks for the link. It proves, however, that you're wrong. Or at least you are being sloppy with your terminology. Current practice is to refer to the whole silicon die as the "processor". Companies typically license components from various design houses and then assemble their SoC processor chip from those. This is what Apple did -- one component is indeed the Samsung ARM core. The article you quote includes whole die photos that very clearly show that aside from the CPU core, the rest of the processor is quite different from the Samsung chip. It isn't clear to me whether this analysis could detect very low level changes to the transistor level substrate, but it is clear that Apple did not rearrange the core's layout and most likely that means Apple was focusing on the rest of the chip. My understanding is that this is the sort of work Intrinsity was doing.

My guess is that PA Semi's efforts for Apple are yet to be seen. Their expertise is in taking a core and changing it to optimize it's performance/watt. I speculate that the next Apple custom silicon will include an A9 core or two that has been significantly optimized uniquely to Apple, along with the next PowerVR GPU (perhaps similarly optimized), and a custom set of on chip components.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #156 of 156
[QUOTE=cnocbui;1706813]It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices:]

If you took the time to do a bit more research into the review you quote, you might realize that while the "core" CPU of the A4 may well be identical to the "core" CPU of the Hummingbird, the rest of the die clearly is visually VERY different (ie Hummingbird is NOT the same as A4). Apple never stated that the entire A4 was custom. The report you quote simply states that the CPU core of both dies appear to be the same, NOT that the two application processors (ie CPU along with the rest of the on-die circuitry) are the same. What Apple and Intrincity did with the "other" circuitry on the die of the A4 has a major impact on how the device performs as well as what it actually does in hardwire vs software.

dt
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad