I hope this is more than just a way for me to pay for cable through Apple TV. I cut the cord several years ago and have been living with Roku on one TV, an Apple TV on the other and over-the-air for local networks. It has worked really nicely, with the only exception being things like the Olympics, which NBC spreads out to various cable channels (and requires a cable sub to access Internet streams) and ESPN. I was hoping Apple would break the old cable model, not embrace it. I guess I should wait to see what this will be, but this isn't promising (at least from my vantage point as a consumer who hated paying for 150 useless cable channels to get the four or five I liked).
Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).
Lots of friends use the current Apple TV, and we can get some BBC stuff on it, as well as films on Netflix (which is great and good value, incidentally). America isn't the only country on the planet and we have some of the best TV in the world over here, not to mention the emerging Scandinavian stuff. I consider that the worst TV in the world is from Italy. I understand that American Commercial TV is not further behind
At present, Apple TV is a friendly little beast.
OK, add time/Warner, but don't damage it's present character as a modest little box full of great things.
actually it would not matter where Time Warner is located, in theory they can stream their content to you as long as you has internet access on any provider, no different than netflix or hulu. If they do this deal, you could turn off you video service from your local provider and only maintain internet access and pay as you use form Apple TV and Time Warner. I would also suspect they will offer network DVR functionality which is the current trend, they are moving away from you having content in your home on you DVR.
Are you sure about that? It would be nice and what needs to happen but I suspect you'd have to verify your HD Cable subscription with whoever you use for it to work just like almost everything else.
On a side note, I know there is a lot of chatter about Netflix feeds slowing since net neutrality law change, but NBC's attempt at streaming the Olympics seems to be a disaster for me. I have FiOS 75 Mps download speed, Netflix is working pretty well, I get the Super HD 99% of the time but I cannot watch the NBC streaming on anything, Mac, iPads etc. without massive delays, buffering every few seconds and resolution of a Mac Plus, if that!
It might have been better for NBC to contract with Netflix for distribution of streaming!
This country's internet system (be that hardware, software or corporate politics) has to significantly improve before we can move to a 100% on demand TV world.
... Apple could introduce the new platform in April and have it on shelves by Christmas ...
That's a long lead time. If true, it could mean that Apple will use the announcement to "plant the stake," to prove their commitment to the next step in their TV makeover, then attempt to get other content providers to sign contracts over the rest of the year. The providers who were waiting for someone else to make the first step with Apple. Interesting.
Also, if true, the long lead time means that the next-gen Apple TV will bring something completely new to the table. And Apple doesn't mind Osborning sales of current models while the new one is being developed. (Search for "Osborne effect" in Wikipedia.) But, unlike the Osborne 1, the Apple TV is cheap enough that buyers won't really need to postpone their purchase until the next-gen model comes out. Consumers might just say "Oh well, it's only $99. I'll get one now and move it into another room when the new one is released. It has wi-fi after all."
Oh, and just for completeness, Time Warner's market cap is $37.5 billion as I type this. There's a small chance that Apple and TWC might do a deeper deal than just content distribution rights.
Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal [sic] Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).
Wrong? Probably. Illegal? Probably.
Something tells me you're not ripping home movies, which generally don't contain more than two channels of audio.
Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).
Not that I have tried it in years, back when I transferred all my own DVDs to disk, but have you tried Handbrake?
Something tells me you're not ripping home movies, which generally don't contain more than two channels of audio.
Assume much? First, check the web. There is conflicting information about support for more than 2 channels, and how to get it to work. Second, these are my DVDs that I own. I've digitized my music library and seek to do the same with my movies. In the U.S. I believe this falls under Fair Use.
That makes the most sense. There's no need to pre-announce a product that supposedly isn't shipping until Christmas time "unless" it requires the support of 3rd party software developers.
Pretty much a tacit confirmation of App store support.
make senses.
so on the hardware side I wish for a full A7 chip or with no disable cores (so not the rejects of the A7 line) and even a A7X would be better if they want to compete in the game console market.
TWC is not The Weather Channel it's Time Warner Cable. Did you even read the article?
I chose to not assume anything about your intelligence thus the question as Time Warner Cable has no relevance on purchasing a Roku versus an AppleTV. Of course there is an awful app for Time Warner Cable on Roku but that isn't a factor any intelligent person would consider.
actually it would not matter where Time Warner is located, in theory they can stream their content to you as long as you has internet access on any provider, no different than netflix or hulu. If they do this deal, you could turn off you video service from your local provider and only maintain internet access and pay as you use form Apple TV and Time Warner. I would also suspect they will offer network DVR functionality which is the current trend, they are moving away from you having content in your home on you DVR.
Its not that easy, I would assume that if youre ISP is also Time Warner, then all the lived stream will used there normal digital broadcast so it wont consume or slowdown youre internet connection.
IF youre ISP is NOT Time Warner, then you will need one hell of an internet connection. We are talking 100mbits or more and unlimited download, depending on the number of TV's. I am sure Time Warmer would love to sell a package to someone not on there network, but not a lot of people will want to pay for the required internet package to stream all that data.
My Bell Fibe IPTV setup has 100mbits of dedicated potential that is segmented from the internet 25/10 mbits connection. This ensure that TV feeds never slowdown my internet connection. On the TV side, 100 mbits can support 3 HD feeds and 5 SD feeds. IF I were to used all those feeds (using the PvR for example), I would consume close to 100 mbits, so 45 gigs per hour... good thing that Bell doesnt charge me for the TV feeds consumption.
That being said, if you live alone and only have one TV and dont watch a lot of it, it could be doable to get a Timer Warner package on a different ISP, assuming you get a 500g to 1TB download limit on a 50 mbits + connection. But I dont recommend doing it with anything less than unlimited downloads or you will have to constantly make sure you dont go over youre limit. And you better not fall asleep in front of the TV or it could get expensive fast.
Apple is not going to introduce a new AppleTV in April and ship it in, what, late November? No way. Not a chance.
Much more likely the new version ships in April, with certain content rolling out by year's end. I can't imagine them doing something so stupid as showing off a new generation of a current product so far in advance. There is ZERO purpose to it.
The Mac Pro was an exception for extremely obvious reasons.
There is a purpose to it. The same reason that the Xbox one and PS4 were previewed before their launch.
Games take time to code. And we've known for awhile that gaming would be part of the new Apple TV mix.
Actually it does have a significant bearing if you are a TWC subscriber. Apple TV does not let you watch TWC cable channels because there is no TWC app. On the other hand Roku does. Then you can get rid of the POS TWC cable boxes that they charge $12 a month for.
so on the hardware side I wish for a full A7 chip or with no disable cores (so not the rejects of the A7 line) and even a A7X would be better if they want to compete in the game console market.
4K support would be nice.
I"m guessing a A7 or variant alongside a Broadcom BCM7364 for HEVC support. I think 4K is a shoe in because if the rumors are true that Apple's investing in more content distribution infrastructure they could leverage an efficient codec like HEVC to not only deliver 4K content but to also shrink their current 1080p content to half its size.
I figure during the handshake processor for streaming a movie the servers notice that HEVC decoding is available and sends the appropriate stream. So for every 1080p movie that Apple streams now they'll be able to do two movies within the same bandwidth envelope.
Comments
TWC app? The Weather Channel? Like The Weather Channel on AppleTV?
TWC app? The Weather Channel? Like The Weather Channel on AppleTV?
TWC is not The Weather Channel it's Time Warner Cable. Did you even read the article?
I hope this is more than just a way for me to pay for cable through Apple TV. I cut the cord several years ago and have been living with Roku on one TV, an Apple TV on the other and over-the-air for local networks. It has worked really nicely, with the only exception being things like the Olympics, which NBC spreads out to various cable channels (and requires a cable sub to access Internet streams) and ESPN. I was hoping Apple would break the old cable model, not embrace it. I guess I should wait to see what this will be, but this isn't promising (at least from my vantage point as a consumer who hated paying for 150 useless cable channels to get the four or five I liked).
Lots of friends use the current Apple TV, and we can get some BBC stuff on it, as well as films on Netflix (which is great and good value, incidentally). America isn't the only country on the planet and we have some of the best TV in the world over here, not to mention the emerging Scandinavian stuff. I consider that the worst TV in the world is from Italy. I understand that American Commercial TV is not further behind
At present, Apple TV is a friendly little beast.
OK, add time/Warner, but don't damage it's present character as a modest little box full of great things.
Greatrix
Are you sure about that? It would be nice and what needs to happen but I suspect you'd have to verify your HD Cable subscription with whoever you use for it to work just like almost everything else.
On a side note, I know there is a lot of chatter about Netflix feeds slowing since net neutrality law change, but NBC's attempt at streaming the Olympics seems to be a disaster for me. I have FiOS 75 Mps download speed, Netflix is working pretty well, I get the Super HD 99% of the time but I cannot watch the NBC streaming on anything, Mac, iPads etc. without massive delays, buffering every few seconds and resolution of a Mac Plus, if that!
It might have been better for NBC to contract with Netflix for distribution of streaming!
This country's internet system (be that hardware, software or corporate politics) has to significantly improve before we can move to a 100% on demand TV world.
... Apple could introduce the new platform in April and have it on shelves by Christmas ...
That's a long lead time. If true, it could mean that Apple will use the announcement to "plant the stake," to prove their commitment to the next step in their TV makeover, then attempt to get other content providers to sign contracts over the rest of the year. The providers who were waiting for someone else to make the first step with Apple. Interesting.
Also, if true, the long lead time means that the next-gen Apple TV will bring something completely new to the table. And Apple doesn't mind Osborning sales of current models while the new one is being developed. (Search for "Osborne effect" in Wikipedia.) But, unlike the Osborne 1, the Apple TV is cheap enough that buyers won't really need to postpone their purchase until the next-gen model comes out. Consumers might just say "Oh well, it's only $99. I'll get one now and move it into another room when the new one is released. It has wi-fi after all."
Oh, and just for completeness, Time Warner's market cap is $37.5 billion as I type this. There's a small chance that Apple and TWC might do a deeper deal than just content distribution rights.
Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal [sic] Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).
Wrong? Probably. Illegal? Probably.
Something tells me you're not ripping home movies, which generally don't contain more than two channels of audio.
Not that I have tried it in years, back when I transferred all my own DVDs to disk, but have you tried Handbrake?
Assume much? First, check the web. There is conflicting information about support for more than 2 channels, and how to get it to work. Second, these are my DVDs that I own. I've digitized my music library and seek to do the same with my movies. In the U.S. I believe this falls under Fair Use.
That makes the most sense. There's no need to pre-announce a product that supposedly isn't shipping until Christmas time "unless" it requires the support of 3rd party software developers.
Pretty much a tacit confirmation of App store support.
make senses.
so on the hardware side I wish for a full A7 chip or with no disable cores (so not the rejects of the A7 line) and even a A7X would be better if they want to compete in the game console market.
4K support would be nice.
I chose to not assume anything about your intelligence thus the question as Time Warner Cable has no relevance on purchasing a Roku versus an AppleTV. Of course there is an awful app for Time Warner Cable on Roku but that isn't a factor any intelligent person would consider.
I chose to not assume anything about your intelligence thus the question as Time Warner Cable has no relevance on purchasing a Roku versus an AppleTV.
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/support/faqs/faqs-tv/twctvapp.html
I looked into this and the Apple TV is already doing better than Roku. And the Apple TV has potential global reach.
EDIT: here
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/16/apple-tv-roku-sales-stats/
Apples hobby is 50% of the market.
actually it would not matter where Time Warner is located, in theory they can stream their content to you as long as you has internet access on any provider, no different than netflix or hulu. If they do this deal, you could turn off you video service from your local provider and only maintain internet access and pay as you use form Apple TV and Time Warner. I would also suspect they will offer network DVR functionality which is the current trend, they are moving away from you having content in your home on you DVR.
Its not that easy, I would assume that if youre ISP is also Time Warner, then all the lived stream will used there normal digital broadcast so it wont consume or slowdown youre internet connection.
IF youre ISP is NOT Time Warner, then you will need one hell of an internet connection. We are talking 100mbits or more and unlimited download, depending on the number of TV's. I am sure Time Warmer would love to sell a package to someone not on there network, but not a lot of people will want to pay for the required internet package to stream all that data.
My Bell Fibe IPTV setup has 100mbits of dedicated potential that is segmented from the internet 25/10 mbits connection. This ensure that TV feeds never slowdown my internet connection. On the TV side, 100 mbits can support 3 HD feeds and 5 SD feeds. IF I were to used all those feeds (using the PvR for example), I would consume close to 100 mbits, so 45 gigs per hour... good thing that Bell doesnt charge me for the TV feeds consumption.
That being said, if you live alone and only have one TV and dont watch a lot of it, it could be doable to get a Timer Warner package on a different ISP, assuming you get a 500g to 1TB download limit on a 50 mbits + connection. But I dont recommend doing it with anything less than unlimited downloads or you will have to constantly make sure you dont go over youre limit. And you better not fall asleep in front of the TV or it could get expensive fast.
Apple is not going to introduce a new AppleTV in April and ship it in, what, late November? No way. Not a chance.
Much more likely the new version ships in April, with certain content rolling out by year's end. I can't imagine them doing something so stupid as showing off a new generation of a current product so far in advance. There is ZERO purpose to it.
The Mac Pro was an exception for extremely obvious reasons.
There is a purpose to it. The same reason that the Xbox one and PS4 were previewed before their launch.
Games take time to code. And we've known for awhile that gaming would be part of the new Apple TV mix.
make senses.
so on the hardware side I wish for a full A7 chip or with no disable cores (so not the rejects of the A7 line) and even a A7X would be better if they want to compete in the game console market.
4K support would be nice.
I"m guessing a A7 or variant alongside a Broadcom BCM7364 for HEVC support. I think 4K is a shoe in because if the rumors are true that Apple's investing in more content distribution infrastructure they could leverage an efficient codec like HEVC to not only deliver 4K content but to also shrink their current 1080p content to half its size.
I figure during the handshake processor for streaming a movie the servers notice that HEVC decoding is available and sends the appropriate stream. So for every 1080p movie that Apple streams now they'll be able to do two movies within the same bandwidth envelope.
Games run already on iPhones. Most can be scaled up with just art changes.