ProRes is not processor intensive, that's the whole point! Playing back a high-resolution file that is ProRes encoded is I/O bandwidth intensive, not CPU intensive.
I think Apple is moving away from the complexity of having AppleTV content stored on and off the device. From my particular PoV this is annoying but from theirs this makes sense for many reasons.
As for getting more storage I can see the AppleTV being 16 or 32GB if it's 1080p and/or if it will be designed with an App Store in mind, but I think 16GB is most likely.
Also, if you don't want to keep you rMac and want to sync content from iTunes just put it on your iPhone, Touch or iPad and then use AirPlay. This is really the best way to control content going through the AppleTV.
I agree and was going to comment similarly.
I see the original poster's point though when it comes to the fact that Apple encourages us to use wireless for everything, but if you do so, then AppleTV will fail to find content when your computer goes to sleep. Walking into the next room and wiggling the mouse on the main computer so that the TV in the living room can see the content is really annoying and old-fashioned. If they really want everything to be wireless and for everything to stream, the part where the devices wake up and talk to each other still needs a little work.
My "wants" for this version of Apple TV would be:
- a new UI that doesn't require so much clicking
- a better remote
- re-enabling of the ability to purchase content on AppleTV
I find all the talk of 1080p content and resolutions to be quite beside the point given the fact that streaming such HD content is only just barely possible in most households today. Most "HD" channels, even cable channels right from your local supplier are not really HD at all and are highly compressed for reasons of bandwidth even if you are on broadband.
People just don't realise this as the average person can't actually look at a video image on a screen and tell if it's HD or whether it's 1080p versus 720p or 1080i. They just think they can.
They would do more to sell AppleTV's by lowering the prices of the store offerings to a more reasonable level than they would any technical improvements in quality. Right now the prices for digital content are almost always *more* than the same content on disc and you don't even get a hard copy. Entire seasons of TV shows should all be at least 720p and shouldn't cost more than 20 dollars tops. Paying 70, 90 or in some cases over 100 dollars for a season of a recent popular TV show that's not HD and just a digital copy is plainly ridiculous.
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
Wouldn't even those numbers be conservative? A 1080p blu-ray is 18-45GB for the movie alone.
Not necessarily, as the latest compression programs can make a hd movie as small as 7-8 gb and still look fantastic. Even when viewed up close on my 46" tv.
ProRes is not processor intensive, that's the whole point! Playing back a high-resolution file that is ProRes encoded is I/O bandwidth intensive, not CPU intensive.
Funny... that's what I'd always understood. The ability to play ProRes422HQ files from relatively low speed Firewire storage was only possible because the processor was taking up the slack.
But this article from 2007 does seem to agree with you:
Specifically it says, "Despite compressing HD footage to a size smaller than raw standard definition video, the codec's demands on the CPU and disk speed are light enough that a MacBook Pro can play editing-grade video in full HD resolution."
But unless you get into ProRes444, ProRes ISN'T bandwidth intensive. It clearly has a lower throughput than uncompressed.
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
In this scenario it makes sense because Apple has been pushing AirPlay streaming with the iPad for most of the year. A higher resolution iPad almost demands a higher resolution AppleTV. So as an iPad3 accessory, it makes a lot of sense to introduce this at the event.
I find it frustrating that Apple has been missing this trick for so long. AirCapsules should come with iTunes server capabilities built-in.
I've been looking forward to Apple TV 3 for a while. I'm going to be pissed if it still resamples all audio to 48 kHz
I have been expecting some kind of intelligent Airport device for ages (it will probably never happen) which would be able to serve content to multiple devices on a network. Storage would be in the form of Apple servers, and any designated local storage (and even TV content providers). Essentially iCloud does what my clever device would do but the shortcoming of iCloud (which I love) is that it increases streaming unnecessarily. Such a device could automatically mirror local iPhoto and iTunes libraries, or designated playlists and photo streams from those libraries.
Would be nice to have either a way to put an itune server on the Time Capsuled netdrive or allow to map network drives on the Apple TV. WD TV live has been doing this for years. More file format would be nice too but I dont think we will get it.
From what I heard of the TV set beta, we are getting TV Apps this time in preparation for the TV set release. Maybe the A5X is for the TV line since I am pretty sure we are getting 1080p this time.
Will we get the "one more thing" line on march 7th? I sure hope so.
I see the original poster's point though when it comes to the fact that Apple encourages us to use wireless for everything, but if you do so, then AppleTV will fail to find content when your computer goes to sleep. Walking into the next room and wiggling the mouse on the main computer so that the TV in the living room can see the content is really annoying and old-fashioned. If they really want everything to be wireless and for everything to stream, the part where the devices wake up and talk to each other still needs a little work.
You'd think they'd have added a "Aake on AppleTV" in System Preferences Of course, this likely wouldn't work with notebooks with the lid close and being their biggest Mac seller that make it a moot point.
Quote:
My "wants" for this version of Apple TV would be:
- a new UI that doesn't require so much clicking
- a better remote
- re-enabling of the ability to purchase content on AppleTV
I think the current UI is pretty good. It's certainly better than the Take 2 UI.
A better remote would be nice but I think Apple will likely move that to iDevices.
I think videos are the last holdout for iCloud content. I assume eventually we'll be able to get access to all out content again just like with music and apps. When that happens I think purchasing on the AppleTV again will be possible.
Quote:
I find all the talk of 1080p content and resolutions to be quite beside the point given the fact that streaming such HD content is only just barely possible in most households today. Most "HD" channels, even cable channels right from your local supplier are not really HD at all and are highly compressed for reasons of bandwidth even if you are on broadband.
People just don't realise this as the average person can't actually look at a video image on a screen and tell if it's HD or whether it's 1080p versus 720p or 1080i. They just think they can.
Like most things in tech they are defined poorly. 720 vertical lines of data is HD regardless of anything else.
Quote:
They would do more to sell AppleTV's by lowering the prices of the store offerings to a more reasonable level than they would any technical improvements in quality. Right now the prices for digital content are almost always *more* than the same content on disc and you don't even get a hard copy. Entire seasons of TV shows should all be at least 720p and shouldn't cost more than 20 dollars tops. Paying 70, 90 or in some cases over 100 dollars for a season of a recent popular TV show that's not HD and just a digital copy is plainly ridiculous.
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
You're talking a tiered model and that can get complex and turn the buyer off. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your examples that the cost is too high for older content, but their model is designed to be simple and does offer benefits others don't have, especially for content that aired the previous day.
If one wants older content then Netflix is the way to go. I've bought TV shows from iTS but it was either from missing an episode or because I was going to be somewhere I knew I didn't have internet and wanted to get some media to watch. In those cases it was well worth the money.
Personally I'm hoping for some package deals inline with cable and satellite offerings but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Why would they announce both on the same day?
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
It's a hobby device that only costs $99
Apple has a history of updating multiple products at once.
It would likely compliment the iPad's push into 1080p+ and 1080p content from iTS.
Note the original AppleTV was demoed before the iPhone was announced back in January 2007.
I'd laugh if all the CPU codes discovered recently are referencing the AppleTV 3 and not the iPad 3, leaving an even bigger CPU/GPGPU SoC for the iPad 3 a secret until the event.
Having the AppleTV + iPad/iPad2/iPad3 working together processing for applications to display on an HDTV and later an Apple HDTV would be a smart 1, 2, 3 punch.
[QUOTE=Atashi;2058888]I'm probably not the typical customer Apple's targeting with the ATV2 or rumoured ATV3, but I would love to see an ATV3 that had some onboard storage again. I primarily use my ATV for viewing my own content, and it's annoying to have to leave my computer turned on, logged on, and with iTunes running. Particularily as they made a big deal about the ATV2 being such a low-energy device, yet for me at least it's useless without an iMac chugging away in the background.
Could not have said it better myself. I would love to see some storage an connection with the cloud be part of this update.
Is 1080p going to be the only update to the Apple TV? I can't see that happening; there has to be something more. Other than Avatar or the Blu-Ray version of Baraka (8K), there isn't much media that would benefit.
The difference between 1080p and 720p is negligible, especially on LCDs made by Kragen, Westinghouse and Peacock Farms; the crap brands can barely display 480i properly.
A netbook makes a very good low-power iTunes server. Mine running Windows 7, actively streaming content from its internal HDD using iTunes consumes just under 5 watts (including mains power adaptor, screen and WiFi off; netbook is connected to wireless router via an ethernet cable); that's less than the wireless router!
But even then, don't you have to keep it open (not clamshelled) and awake? (And how do you do the latter?) Even when I go through the rigamarole of powering up my laptop, opening iTunes, and (for the nth time) turning on share, inevitably the laptop goes to sleep at some point, cutting off the photo slideshow / music. And I hate having the laptop sitting there open, screen aglow and wasting energy.
I think the current UI is pretty good. It's certainly better than the Take 2 UI.
A better remote would be nice but I think Apple will likely move that to iDevices.
Just having a "home" button on the remote would be a material improvement for both issues - I hate being several tiers down in the Podcasts or Netflix menu and have to keep *blip* *blip* *blip*ing my way to the main menu screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
I dunno, I think $30 or $40 or more for a current season is way too high, but $10 for a season of anything older seems fair.
I look on TV shows' costs as an offset for not paying for cable TV. As such, if I paid $120/month for cable and watched 4 hours a day (I don't, but for ease of calculation), that's $1 per hour of TV. So a season pass to a TV show -- even a current, first-run show -- shouldn't cost me more than the number of episodes.
Put differently, if the networks and other channels can make money from selling to cable providers, after cable providers take their cut, then they should be happy to make the same pro-rata $$ from me via iTunes. They shouldn't be bilking me for more than that.
Comments
processor intensive codec like ProRes
ProRes is not processor intensive, that's the whole point! Playing back a high-resolution file that is ProRes encoded is I/O bandwidth intensive, not CPU intensive.
I think a new Apple TV would almost certain have to be 1080p capable.
Apple does not play the specsmanship game. Very few people have a good enough TV to tell the difference.
I'd love to hook up an external hard drive to the device instead of having to run an old Mac Mini constantly.
You can buy an external hard drive from many different companies. It doesn't make sense for Apple to allow you to do that.
All they have to do is put up a single slide with nothing on it but this:
And all the people who care enough about it will be assuaged.
I agree.
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
I think Apple is moving away from the complexity of having AppleTV content stored on and off the device. From my particular PoV this is annoying but from theirs this makes sense for many reasons.
As for getting more storage I can see the AppleTV being 16 or 32GB if it's 1080p and/or if it will be designed with an App Store in mind, but I think 16GB is most likely.
Also, if you don't want to keep you rMac and want to sync content from iTunes just put it on your iPhone, Touch or iPad and then use AirPlay. This is really the best way to control content going through the AppleTV.
I agree and was going to comment similarly.
I see the original poster's point though when it comes to the fact that Apple encourages us to use wireless for everything, but if you do so, then AppleTV will fail to find content when your computer goes to sleep. Walking into the next room and wiggling the mouse on the main computer so that the TV in the living room can see the content is really annoying and old-fashioned. If they really want everything to be wireless and for everything to stream, the part where the devices wake up and talk to each other still needs a little work.
My "wants" for this version of Apple TV would be:
- a new UI that doesn't require so much clicking
- a better remote
- re-enabling of the ability to purchase content on AppleTV
I find all the talk of 1080p content and resolutions to be quite beside the point given the fact that streaming such HD content is only just barely possible in most households today. Most "HD" channels, even cable channels right from your local supplier are not really HD at all and are highly compressed for reasons of bandwidth even if you are on broadband.
People just don't realise this as the average person can't actually look at a video image on a screen and tell if it's HD or whether it's 1080p versus 720p or 1080i. They just think they can.
They would do more to sell AppleTV's by lowering the prices of the store offerings to a more reasonable level than they would any technical improvements in quality. Right now the prices for digital content are almost always *more* than the same content on disc and you don't even get a hard copy. Entire seasons of TV shows should all be at least 720p and shouldn't cost more than 20 dollars tops. Paying 70, 90 or in some cases over 100 dollars for a season of a recent popular TV show that's not HD and just a digital copy is plainly ridiculous.
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
Wouldn't even those numbers be conservative? A 1080p blu-ray is 18-45GB for the movie alone.
Not necessarily, as the latest compression programs can make a hd movie as small as 7-8 gb and still look fantastic. Even when viewed up close on my 46" tv.
The most you'll get there will be an A5 or an A5X. Nothing more.
Nah I think BT 4.0 replaces IR or at the least adds to it.
Why would they announce both on the same day?
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
The Apple TV is basically just an accessory. It's not going to steal any thunder from the iPad IMO
ProRes is not processor intensive, that's the whole point! Playing back a high-resolution file that is ProRes encoded is I/O bandwidth intensive, not CPU intensive.
Funny... that's what I'd always understood. The ability to play ProRes422HQ files from relatively low speed Firewire storage was only possible because the processor was taking up the slack.
But this article from 2007 does seem to agree with you:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...eo_format.html
Specifically it says, "Despite compressing HD footage to a size smaller than raw standard definition video, the codec's demands on the CPU and disk speed are light enough that a MacBook Pro can play editing-grade video in full HD resolution."
But unless you get into ProRes444, ProRes ISN'T bandwidth intensive. It clearly has a lower throughput than uncompressed.
The Apple TV is basically just an accessory. It's not going to steal any thunder from the iPad IMO
I meant the other way around, iPad stealing thunder from Apple TV.
Why would they announce both on the same day?
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
In this scenario it makes sense because Apple has been pushing AirPlay streaming with the iPad for most of the year. A higher resolution iPad almost demands a higher resolution AppleTV. So as an iPad3 accessory, it makes a lot of sense to introduce this at the event.
I find it frustrating that Apple has been missing this trick for so long. AirCapsules should come with iTunes server capabilities built-in.
I've been looking forward to Apple TV 3 for a while. I'm going to be pissed if it still resamples all audio to 48 kHz
I have been expecting some kind of intelligent Airport device for ages (it will probably never happen) which would be able to serve content to multiple devices on a network. Storage would be in the form of Apple servers, and any designated local storage (and even TV content providers). Essentially iCloud does what my clever device would do but the shortcoming of iCloud (which I love) is that it increases streaming unnecessarily. Such a device could automatically mirror local iPhoto and iTunes libraries, or designated playlists and photo streams from those libraries.
I meant the other way around, iPad stealing thunder from Apple TV.
Maybe it will be similar to one more thing...
Especially if they have some new feature that lets them work together in a new way. Then everyone in line will be purchasing both products together.
From what I heard of the TV set beta, we are getting TV Apps this time in preparation for the TV set release. Maybe the A5X is for the TV line since I am pretty sure we are getting 1080p this time.
Will we get the "one more thing" line on march 7th? I sure hope so.
I agree and was going to comment similarly.
I see the original poster's point though when it comes to the fact that Apple encourages us to use wireless for everything, but if you do so, then AppleTV will fail to find content when your computer goes to sleep. Walking into the next room and wiggling the mouse on the main computer so that the TV in the living room can see the content is really annoying and old-fashioned. If they really want everything to be wireless and for everything to stream, the part where the devices wake up and talk to each other still needs a little work.
You'd think they'd have added a "Aake on AppleTV" in System Preferences Of course, this likely wouldn't work with notebooks with the lid close and being their biggest Mac seller that make it a moot point.
My "wants" for this version of Apple TV would be:
- a new UI that doesn't require so much clicking
- a better remote
- re-enabling of the ability to purchase content on AppleTV
I think the current UI is pretty good. It's certainly better than the Take 2 UI.
A better remote would be nice but I think Apple will likely move that to iDevices.
I think videos are the last holdout for iCloud content. I assume eventually we'll be able to get access to all out content again just like with music and apps. When that happens I think purchasing on the AppleTV again will be possible.
I find all the talk of 1080p content and resolutions to be quite beside the point given the fact that streaming such HD content is only just barely possible in most households today. Most "HD" channels, even cable channels right from your local supplier are not really HD at all and are highly compressed for reasons of bandwidth even if you are on broadband.
People just don't realise this as the average person can't actually look at a video image on a screen and tell if it's HD or whether it's 1080p versus 720p or 1080i. They just think they can.
Like most things in tech they are defined poorly. 720 vertical lines of data is HD regardless of anything else.
They would do more to sell AppleTV's by lowering the prices of the store offerings to a more reasonable level than they would any technical improvements in quality. Right now the prices for digital content are almost always *more* than the same content on disc and you don't even get a hard copy. Entire seasons of TV shows should all be at least 720p and shouldn't cost more than 20 dollars tops. Paying 70, 90 or in some cases over 100 dollars for a season of a recent popular TV show that's not HD and just a digital copy is plainly ridiculous.
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
You're talking a tiered model and that can get complex and turn the buyer off. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your examples that the cost is too high for older content, but their model is designed to be simple and does offer benefits others don't have, especially for content that aired the previous day.
If one wants older content then Netflix is the way to go. I've bought TV shows from iTS but it was either from missing an episode or because I was going to be somewhere I knew I didn't have internet and wanted to get some media to watch. In those cases it was well worth the money.
Personally I'm hoping for some package deals inline with cable and satellite offerings but I'm not holding my breath.
Why would they announce both on the same day?
Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.
Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?
I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.
- It's a hobby device that only costs $99
- Apple has a history of updating multiple products at once.
- It would likely compliment the iPad's push into 1080p+ and 1080p content from iTS.
Note the original AppleTV was demoed before the iPhone was announced back in January 2007.Having the AppleTV + iPad/iPad2/iPad3 working together processing for applications to display on an HDTV and later an Apple HDTV would be a smart 1, 2, 3 punch.
Could not have said it better myself. I would love to see some storage an connection with the cloud be part of this update.
Thanks
The difference between 1080p and 720p is negligible, especially on LCDs made by Kragen, Westinghouse and Peacock Farms; the crap brands can barely display 480i properly.
There has to be something more up their sleeves.
Discuss.
A netbook makes a very good low-power iTunes server. Mine running Windows 7, actively streaming content from its internal HDD using iTunes consumes just under 5 watts (including mains power adaptor, screen and WiFi off; netbook is connected to wireless router via an ethernet cable); that's less than the wireless router!
But even then, don't you have to keep it open (not clamshelled) and awake? (And how do you do the latter?) Even when I go through the rigamarole of powering up my laptop, opening iTunes, and (for the nth time) turning on share, inevitably the laptop goes to sleep at some point, cutting off the photo slideshow / music. And I hate having the laptop sitting there open, screen aglow and wasting energy.
Is 1080p going to be the only update to the Apple TV?
Where did you get that idea?
To include 1080p in the AppleTV you need a better SoC and likely 2x the NAND flash. For $99 that isn't a bad update.
My "wants" for this version of Apple TV would be:
- a new UI that doesn't require so much clicking
- a better remote
I think the current UI is pretty good. It's certainly better than the Take 2 UI.
A better remote would be nice but I think Apple will likely move that to iDevices.
Just having a "home" button on the remote would be a material improvement for both issues - I hate being several tiers down in the Podcasts or Netflix menu and have to keep *blip* *blip* *blip*ing my way to the main menu screen.
Paying even ten dollars for a season of a 40 year old TV show or movie is laughable.
I dunno, I think $30 or $40 or more for a current season is way too high, but $10 for a season of anything older seems fair.
I look on TV shows' costs as an offset for not paying for cable TV. As such, if I paid $120/month for cable and watched 4 hours a day (I don't, but for ease of calculation), that's $1 per hour of TV. So a season pass to a TV show -- even a current, first-run show -- shouldn't cost me more than the number of episodes.
Put differently, if the networks and other channels can make money from selling to cable providers, after cable providers take their cut, then they should be happy to make the same pro-rata $$ from me via iTunes. They shouldn't be bilking me for more than that.