Why doesn't Apple allow the ATV to play more codecs/video formats like VLC? Currently the ATV is only good for playing over-priced content from the iTunes Store.
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content. Having Netflix is huge, but I'd like to see Hulu, Pandora, and Amazon's VOD service as well, as unlikely as that may be. Finally, I'd like the Apple TV to be able to pull some of the other streams out there, like ESPN3.com or NPR.
+1. The ATV used to have a lot more network content but now its slim pickings. The networks are being short sighted as usual. I would still rather watch programs via my satellite but occassional if I've missed a bunch and want to get caught up, the ATV/iTunes is great for that. It's just another stream of revenue the studios are forgoing out of stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly
I never understood the purpose of Google TV. Dishnetwork resells it for "only" $179. Apparently, it does nothing because returns now exceed sales.
I had it for awhile. The best aspect of it was using the keyboard to search for shows to set them to record on your DVR. Much easier than typing it out via the remote. However, the GoogleTV software looked like it was in beta and after 6 months and no updates I finally sold it. The thing didn't even have an app for your Gmail for crying out loud. It would have been sweet to get a little indicator with preview when a message comes in but it never happened.
Logitech ought to sue Google for breach of contract. Google went by it's typical M/O of not seeing something through to the end.
Indeed - with a full SDK of it's own ATV could eat Wii's lunch.
Maybe, but they would still need to address the controllers. A Nintendo branded Wii controller streets for $18 easily. iOS devices start around $200. I don't think the controller has to be a touch screen device, but going by this thread, people might think Apple set the standard on touch screen input and anything less might get widely rejected. On the other hand, I wish I could find a good use for my old iPhone 3G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor
1080i is still more discrete pixels of information (approx 1,000,000) per frame compared to 720p (approx 920,000).
while motion artifacts can be present due to the interlacing, 1080i will still give you more information than 720p.
I'd say the motion artifacts make 1080i more or less pointless because it's ugly. Besides, encoding 1080p24 takes less bandwidth than 1080i60 unless they do special pull-down removal, but when you do that, you might as well encode it as 24p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Sadly there is no such thing.
1080p is already "low res" on some of the monitors you can buy today, and there are likely just as many higher res formats above it in the future as there are below it today.
One very important thing is frame rate. Anyone with good eyesight can see flicker and stutter even in an uncompressed 1080p format when the camera moves, simply because they eye can detect higher frame rates than 30 or 60 fps. Don't you want to go to a movie someday and have the camera pan across a gigantic detailed scene and actually be able to see the elements clearly?
The problem here is the people that rail against the "soap opera effect". In other words, they want the low frame rate. I think it's going to take a while to get higher resolutions in the home.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
Well, why not just 480p then? it is good enough for most people, especially those that aren't videophiles.
I've used ATV stand alone with the candy bar cursor remote, with the Remote app on an iPhone and iPad, and with screen mirroring from my iPad via the HDMI dongle/cable. some observations:
- all old school cursor LRUD UI's suck. but since ATV uses one so it can be an inexpensive universal device, its entire UI is structured to work that way.
- unfortunately the Remote app offers instead only trackpad control of that cursor which requires a lot of scrolling and is clumsy to use, when instead it should provide full sets of simple direct touch buttons for the UI branches. i think that is because it was really designed for the iPhone which lacks a lot of screen area to work with, and was not re-thought much for the later iPad which does have the room. so i find myself using the candy bar ATV remote most of the time (even tho its controls are a bit fussy too, being small).
- there already exists a third class of iOS ATV apps - the built in third party ATV apps specifically formatted for 16:9 display: MLB, Netflix, NBA, and YouTube. they are similar to the iPad versions but simplified to work with the cursor UI.
- once the iOS 5 wifi screen mirroring is out, i'll use it a lot more. the HDMI dongle works now, but it's clumsy when you are holding the iPad and sitting on the sofa.
- some iPad media and game apps already output a 16:9 display. but otherwise the screen mirroring is pillar-barred to 4:3 on your HDTV. certainly a specific 16:9 format would be better for any app.
- many apps are pointless to port to big screen TV viewing anyway. but mirroring web browsing from the iPad works great because it is so easy to zoom, scroll, and select on the iPad. all cursor UI browsers, like the PS3, are practically unusable.
- input switching on your HDTV is necessary. my wife barely understands it. with iOS 5, i won't need to use the HDMI aux input anymore, and so will be down to just two - TV (OTA, Cable, or TiVo - i've got a lot of TV's)) and ATV. if ATV had a widget app with local weather and news headlines on its start screen, that would be my default input for when i turn on the TV. except you can't set default inputs on TV's, they always start with the last one used.
given all the above, i'd say:
- for ATV 3 - next year? - Apple should do a total UI redesign (and hardware spec bump) that dumps the ATV cursor UI and candy bar remote totally and uses only the iOS touch screen Remote app instead. which needs to also be totally re-designed.
- that would also make a new Apple HDTV an innovative and unique product, not just one more like Samsung, Sony, and the others that are trying to stick set top box functions (including Google TV) with cursor UI apps inside their HDTV's. and so it might really happen.
- until then i don't think Apple needs to put out an SDK for third party ATV apps. but i assume it will continue to add more built in ATV 2 apps via deals with content owners - Hulu et al.
- i expect most iPad media and game apps will be augmented to take advantage of screen mirroring with 16:9 output and even split UI controls, like Real Racing has demonstrated. we'll see how much other types of apps try this too. this will be the big impact of iOS 5, and there should be a lot of good new stuff. i'm looking forward to it.
- widgets would be nice too. Jobs seems to have some bias against them, i dunno why.
1080p is already "low res" on some of the monitors you can buy today, and there are likely just as many higher res formats above it in the future as there are below it today.
Of course. I meant "future-proof" w.r.t. data formats compatible with modern HDTVs that I'm likely going to want to stream through an ATV in the next 3 years, given that I have a 30/30Mbps FIOS link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
One very important thing is frame rate. Anyone with good eyesight can see flicker and stutter even in an uncompressed 1080p format when the camera moves, simply because they eye can detect higher frame rates than 30 or 60 fps. Don't you want to go to a movie someday and have the camera pan across a gigantic detailed scene and actually be able to see the elements clearly?
Um, yes. Not sure what this has to do with my TV, an ATV, and a 30/30 link though.
500k devices didn't seem a lot to me for a 99 dollar streaming device until I read the whole line that said per quarter. I bought the Apple TV because I love the design (and Apple) and streaming youtube and Netflix from this is great without hearing the fan go off on my 360. It's too bad that Netflix is still a subpar experience compared to the 360 (minus the ability to use an iOS device as a remote) and Roku seems to offer more versatility for the same price. I guess these Apple TV boxes will have much better value when iOS 5 comes out so I can stream my iPad content to my TV.
So odd that a company which popularised the concept of an app store can't see the logic and merit in an app store connected to the TV. An ATV app store would make the device infinitely more useful, more appealing, and so hugely increase sales. In the US at least you get Netflix on ATV, but in the UK the closest we have to Netflix is BBC iPlayer, and there's no sign of that on ATV.
Apple need to promote ATV from a hobby to a real product and spend some serious time improving it.
Maybe, but they would still need to address the controllers. A Nintendo branded Wii controller streets for $18 easily. iOS devices start around $200. I don't think the controller has to be a touch screen device, but going by this thread, people might think Apple set the standard on touch screen input and anything less might get widely rejected. On the other hand, I wish I could find a good use for my old iPhone 3G.
They could easily create cheaper controllers, an entirely dumb touch sized tablet. They'd probably need to put a screen on it, but it needn't be a high quality IPS screen, or superbright. You would rather want inductive charging though. I think a $150 console with $50 controllers, but compatible with iPod/iPhones as extra controllers would work just fine. Just depends if they're interested in the market.
They could easily create cheaper controllers, an entirely dumb touch sized tablet. They'd probably need to put a screen on it, but it needn't be a high quality IPS screen, or superbright. You would rather want inductive charging though. I think a $150 console with $50 controllers, but compatible with iPod/iPhones as extra controllers would work just fine. Just depends if they're interested in the market.
I was thinking more along the lines of a D-controllers that mirrors the current remote buttons, but with additional buttons for more complex gameplay.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
True, but if you've ever seen something dazzling in 2k or higher, believe me people are going to want it, and not just videophiles. As for Apple TV, well for now that's fine. For now. I have one and it's convenient, or it would be if I'd stop going on preview binges and just watch a movie
And the rest of us have 1080p content that we've downloaded or ripped ourselves and would like to play back on our 1080p televisions that everyone sells and has sold for half a decade.
99% of the general population wouldn't be able to tell the difference under normal video scenarios so is there really a point for such low bitrate content?
Hell, the *majority* of television is broadcast in 720p and a lot of the stuff in 1080i is converted from 720p source.
99% of the general population wouldn't be able to tell the difference under normal video scenarios
Then "99% of the general population" needs to get their eyes checked. There's a large difference between 720 and 1080.
Quote:
Hell, the *majority* of television is broadcast in 720p and a lot of the stuff in 1080i is converted from 720p source.
And that's... the fault of the viewers? If anything, that just proves they don't know high definition content when they see it because they've never really seen it.
There's an easy way Apple can do an end run around all of AppleTV's limitations: just make it stupid cheap. Sell it at a loss if need be. $49 tops.
Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.
I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content. Having Netflix is huge, but I'd like to see Hulu, Pandora, and Amazon's VOD service as well, as unlikely as that may be. Finally, I'd like the Apple TV to be able to pull some of the other streams out there, like ESPN3.com or NPR.
I love my Apple TV. But I think that I should be able to do some basic surfing on it - e.g., it's got a WiFi connection; why shouldn't I be able to surf to the Hulu website and watch videos on my TV via my Apple TV? That's what I do right now with my Windows-based laptop -- hook up the HDMI output from the laptop to the TV. Seems like a no-brainer to be able to do the same via Apple TV and its on-screen "keyboard".
There's an easy way Apple can do an end run around all of AppleTV's limitations: just make it stupid cheap. Sell it at a loss if need be. $49 tops.
Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.
I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.
I disagree with this. I think $99 is already low and don't think Apple should take a loss on a product if it doesn't have to.
Now, if they do offer an SDK and App Store that will increase economy of scale and supplement profits from selling content then I can see a natural lowering of the price point, but I don't think halving it would be best. Perhaps $79 after the sales from the $99 A5, 512MB RAM, 16GB NAND, 1080p AppleTV start to taper off as I don't see a reason for the hardware to be updated at the same rate as the other iOS-based devices.
Comments
1080i is still more discrete pixels of information (approx 1,000,000) per frame compared to 720p (approx 920,000).
while motion artifacts can be present due to the interlacing, 1080i will still give you more information than 720p.
http://firecore.com
Why doesn't Apple allow the ATV to play more codecs/video formats like VLC? Currently the ATV is only good for playing over-priced content from the iTunes Store.
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content. Having Netflix is huge, but I'd like to see Hulu, Pandora, and Amazon's VOD service as well, as unlikely as that may be. Finally, I'd like the Apple TV to be able to pull some of the other streams out there, like ESPN3.com or NPR.
+1. The ATV used to have a lot more network content but now its slim pickings. The networks are being short sighted as usual. I would still rather watch programs via my satellite but occassional if I've missed a bunch and want to get caught up, the ATV/iTunes is great for that. It's just another stream of revenue the studios are forgoing out of stupidity.
I never understood the purpose of Google TV. Dishnetwork resells it for "only" $179. Apparently, it does nothing because returns now exceed sales.
I had it for awhile. The best aspect of it was using the keyboard to search for shows to set them to record on your DVR. Much easier than typing it out via the remote. However, the GoogleTV software looked like it was in beta and after 6 months and no updates I finally sold it. The thing didn't even have an app for your Gmail for crying out loud. It would have been sweet to get a little indicator with preview when a message comes in but it never happened.
Logitech ought to sue Google for breach of contract. Google went by it's typical M/O of not seeing something through to the end.
Why in the world do you think that 1080i is good? -- it's like 540 lines of resolution! 1080i is actually lower quality than 720p!
Watch this for explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXfyvlPh0
iOS Apple TV *is* capable of decoding 1080p video, see:
http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title...S_specific_FAQ
Umm... the point was that 1080i is evidence of higher-bitrate streaming on its way. Not anything about its relative merits.
Indeed - with a full SDK of it's own ATV could eat Wii's lunch.
Maybe, but they would still need to address the controllers. A Nintendo branded Wii controller streets for $18 easily. iOS devices start around $200. I don't think the controller has to be a touch screen device, but going by this thread, people might think Apple set the standard on touch screen input and anything less might get widely rejected. On the other hand, I wish I could find a good use for my old iPhone 3G.
1080i is still more discrete pixels of information (approx 1,000,000) per frame compared to 720p (approx 920,000).
while motion artifacts can be present due to the interlacing, 1080i will still give you more information than 720p.
I'd say the motion artifacts make 1080i more or less pointless because it's ugly. Besides, encoding 1080p24 takes less bandwidth than 1080i60 unless they do special pull-down removal, but when you do that, you might as well encode it as 24p.
Sadly there is no such thing.
1080p is already "low res" on some of the monitors you can buy today, and there are likely just as many higher res formats above it in the future as there are below it today.
One very important thing is frame rate. Anyone with good eyesight can see flicker and stutter even in an uncompressed 1080p format when the camera moves, simply because they eye can detect higher frame rates than 30 or 60 fps. Don't you want to go to a movie someday and have the camera pan across a gigantic detailed scene and actually be able to see the elements clearly?
The problem here is the people that rail against the "soap opera effect". In other words, they want the low frame rate. I think it's going to take a while to get higher resolutions in the home.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
Well, why not just 480p then? it is good enough for most people, especially those that aren't videophiles.
- all old school cursor LRUD UI's suck. but since ATV uses one so it can be an inexpensive universal device, its entire UI is structured to work that way.
- unfortunately the Remote app offers instead only trackpad control of that cursor which requires a lot of scrolling and is clumsy to use, when instead it should provide full sets of simple direct touch buttons for the UI branches. i think that is because it was really designed for the iPhone which lacks a lot of screen area to work with, and was not re-thought much for the later iPad which does have the room. so i find myself using the candy bar ATV remote most of the time (even tho its controls are a bit fussy too, being small).
- there already exists a third class of iOS ATV apps - the built in third party ATV apps specifically formatted for 16:9 display: MLB, Netflix, NBA, and YouTube. they are similar to the iPad versions but simplified to work with the cursor UI.
- once the iOS 5 wifi screen mirroring is out, i'll use it a lot more. the HDMI dongle works now, but it's clumsy when you are holding the iPad and sitting on the sofa.
- some iPad media and game apps already output a 16:9 display. but otherwise the screen mirroring is pillar-barred to 4:3 on your HDTV. certainly a specific 16:9 format would be better for any app.
- many apps are pointless to port to big screen TV viewing anyway. but mirroring web browsing from the iPad works great because it is so easy to zoom, scroll, and select on the iPad. all cursor UI browsers, like the PS3, are practically unusable.
- input switching on your HDTV is necessary. my wife barely understands it. with iOS 5, i won't need to use the HDMI aux input anymore, and so will be down to just two - TV (OTA, Cable, or TiVo - i've got a lot of TV's)) and ATV. if ATV had a widget app with local weather and news headlines on its start screen, that would be my default input for when i turn on the TV. except you can't set default inputs on TV's, they always start with the last one used.
given all the above, i'd say:
- for ATV 3 - next year? - Apple should do a total UI redesign (and hardware spec bump) that dumps the ATV cursor UI and candy bar remote totally and uses only the iOS touch screen Remote app instead. which needs to also be totally re-designed.
- that would also make a new Apple HDTV an innovative and unique product, not just one more like Samsung, Sony, and the others that are trying to stick set top box functions (including Google TV) with cursor UI apps inside their HDTV's. and so it might really happen.
- until then i don't think Apple needs to put out an SDK for third party ATV apps. but i assume it will continue to add more built in ATV 2 apps via deals with content owners - Hulu et al.
- i expect most iPad media and game apps will be augmented to take advantage of screen mirroring with 16:9 output and even split UI controls, like Real Racing has demonstrated. we'll see how much other types of apps try this too. this will be the big impact of iOS 5, and there should be a lot of good new stuff. i'm looking forward to it.
- widgets would be nice too. Jobs seems to have some bias against them, i dunno why.
Sadly there is no such thing.
1080p is already "low res" on some of the monitors you can buy today, and there are likely just as many higher res formats above it in the future as there are below it today.
Of course. I meant "future-proof" w.r.t. data formats compatible with modern HDTVs that I'm likely going to want to stream through an ATV in the next 3 years, given that I have a 30/30Mbps FIOS link.
One very important thing is frame rate. Anyone with good eyesight can see flicker and stutter even in an uncompressed 1080p format when the camera moves, simply because they eye can detect higher frame rates than 30 or 60 fps. Don't you want to go to a movie someday and have the camera pan across a gigantic detailed scene and actually be able to see the elements clearly?
Um, yes. Not sure what this has to do with my TV, an ATV, and a 30/30 link though.
Apple need to promote ATV from a hobby to a real product and spend some serious time improving it.
should be exit***
Maybe, but they would still need to address the controllers. A Nintendo branded Wii controller streets for $18 easily. iOS devices start around $200. I don't think the controller has to be a touch screen device, but going by this thread, people might think Apple set the standard on touch screen input and anything less might get widely rejected. On the other hand, I wish I could find a good use for my old iPhone 3G.
They could easily create cheaper controllers, an entirely dumb touch sized tablet. They'd probably need to put a screen on it, but it needn't be a high quality IPS screen, or superbright. You would rather want inductive charging though. I think a $150 console with $50 controllers, but compatible with iPod/iPhones as extra controllers would work just fine. Just depends if they're interested in the market.
They could easily create cheaper controllers, an entirely dumb touch sized tablet. They'd probably need to put a screen on it, but it needn't be a high quality IPS screen, or superbright. You would rather want inductive charging though. I think a $150 console with $50 controllers, but compatible with iPod/iPhones as extra controllers would work just fine. Just depends if they're interested in the market.
I was thinking more along the lines of a D-controllers that mirrors the current remote buttons, but with additional buttons for more complex gameplay.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
True, but if you've ever seen something dazzling in 2k or higher, believe me people are going to want it, and not just videophiles. As for Apple TV, well for now that's fine. For now. I have one and it's convenient, or it would be if I'd stop going on preview binges and just watch a movie
And the rest of us have 1080p content that we've downloaded or ripped ourselves and would like to play back on our 1080p televisions that everyone sells and has sold for half a decade.
99% of the general population wouldn't be able to tell the difference under normal video scenarios so is there really a point for such low bitrate content?
Hell, the *majority* of television is broadcast in 720p and a lot of the stuff in 1080i is converted from 720p source.
99% of the general population wouldn't be able to tell the difference under normal video scenarios
Then "99% of the general population" needs to get their eyes checked. There's a large difference between 720 and 1080.
Hell, the *majority* of television is broadcast in 720p and a lot of the stuff in 1080i is converted from 720p source.
And that's... the fault of the viewers? If anything, that just proves they don't know high definition content when they see it because they've never really seen it.
Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.
I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.
Sell it at a loss if need be.
I know you're not new to Apple, so I'll just take this as a joke from you.
Why not offer the A4 Apple TV at $49 and the A5 Apple TV at $100?
Cheaper model does 720p, more expensive one does 1080p and has more features, like Channels?.
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content. Having Netflix is huge, but I'd like to see Hulu, Pandora, and Amazon's VOD service as well, as unlikely as that may be. Finally, I'd like the Apple TV to be able to pull some of the other streams out there, like ESPN3.com or NPR.
I love my Apple TV. But I think that I should be able to do some basic surfing on it - e.g., it's got a WiFi connection; why shouldn't I be able to surf to the Hulu website and watch videos on my TV via my Apple TV? That's what I do right now with my Windows-based laptop -- hook up the HDMI output from the laptop to the TV. Seems like a no-brainer to be able to do the same via Apple TV and its on-screen "keyboard".
There's an easy way Apple can do an end run around all of AppleTV's limitations: just make it stupid cheap. Sell it at a loss if need be. $49 tops.
Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.
I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.
I disagree with this. I think $99 is already low and don't think Apple should take a loss on a product if it doesn't have to.
Now, if they do offer an SDK and App Store that will increase economy of scale and supplement profits from selling content then I can see a natural lowering of the price point, but I don't think halving it would be best. Perhaps $79 after the sales from the $99 A5, 512MB RAM, 16GB NAND, 1080p AppleTV start to taper off as I don't see a reason for the hardware to be updated at the same rate as the other iOS-based devices.