It won't be cheaper than $349 unless subsidised by IPs or other interested parties.
I don't think there's a chance Hades that it will be $99 like some people are saying. But I also would bet money (and admittedly possibly lose that money) that it won't be $349 either.
Originally I liked "Apple Home", emphasizing it as a central control for HomeKit (... and more).
But if Apple possibly wanted to position this to BUSINESS customers too -- e.g., as a media center via the IBM partnership, then using the word "Home" would send a limiting message, PR-wise. (Of course we/I don't know if Apple even wants to sell the new device to business customers.)
Originally I liked "Apple Home", emphasizing it as a central control for HomeKit (... and more).
Frankly for this and other reasons, I don't see Apple introducing a control hub.
That was the intention behind MobileMe. The computer was the "hub" and not the cloud. Apple doesn't want you to control your services from home, they want you to retrieve them from the cloud.
In that regard, why have a dedicated "hub" when Apple hopes you will be surrounded by Apple devices that can already be cross-utilized to provide whatever services you need from them? I can take calls on my Mac from my iPhone now!
If you've got an ?Watch, an iPhone, iPad or Mac within earshot, Siri's just a command away. Instead of coming up with a dedicated device for this purpose, why not add microphones to your AirPort, or Time Capsule, or ?TV? Worst case scenario, Apple has to introduce a wireless microphone that is hidden discreetly into your decor to expand coverage, or guarantee you have a mic where you need it. Then again, why should Apple do this when dozens of third party companies are more than willing to provide these solutions?
And the idea of needing a physical disk in your home to provide DVR services is seriously antiquated ... in a world where the internet can deliver 4K streaming video, the cloud itself is the DVR.
It just seems unnecessarily redundant to me, whereas companies like Amazon have no choice.
It won't be cheaper than $349 unless subsidised by IPs or other interested parties.
Why not, Nvidias new Shield Console, comes with 3GB RAM, 32GB SSD + mini SD, 2 USB ports for external HD, Tegra X1, GamePad for only 200. So under 300 is more than likely.
I don't think there's a chance Hades that it will be $99 like some people are saying. But I also would bet money (and admittedly possibly lose that money) that it won't be $349 either.
Why not, Nvidias new Shield Console, comes with 3GB RAM, 32GB SSD + mini SD, 2 USB ports for external HD, Tegra X1, GamePad for only 200. So under 300 is more than likely.
Why not, Nvidias new Shield Console, comes with 3GB RAM, 32GB SSD + mini SD, 2 USB ports for external HD, Tegra X1, GamePad for only 200. So under 300 is more than likely.
The bluetooth remote on that device is something I would like to see Apple adopt for the new Apple TV. It has a microphone in the top of it, so you can use voice control, and a headphone/headset jack in the base. I'm not too sure if the sound quality would be that great, but it might come in handy.
Apple like their margins. It could come subsidised with a contract with an ISP.
Liking your margins and potentially pricing yourself out of the game is a very hard thing to do. Especially with something like a TV appliances, even more so when most TV's come with a built in smart function. Even though I prefer using my Minix Z64 or ChromeBox, I have to say that our big Samsung is very useable as a smart TV.
if it has storage it will be a dvr--how much content can 128gb hold i don't know how much is in my TWC cable box but it can hold weeks
USA has some of the slowest internet in the industrialized world..(regulation and allowing monopoly position of cable ind ISPs) what can most families stream, download (with a dvr you could download at night while sleeping ) the apple tv must face the realities of US based isp non competition what incentive do these bozos have to improve speed and consistency??
compression-- cable companies will likely start data caps so to prepare for this i like my apple tv 2 shows at 720 and i don't see much dif from my friends 1080---can you adjust the resolution so you can reduce data volume--you know data caps are coming
ala cart as many of you have said--let me choose my bundle give customers choice, give them an apple UI DVR BOOM
but i don't think apple will go half jack; they know how cable is, hope understand what customers want (heck i wish aero won the court battle) they MUST give value and after some of the prior stumbles
THIS CAN'T BE ONE
soooooo
how many shows can be stored?
resolution vs download speed
dvr
voice control siri
?be able to plug multiple hdmi devices in let siri sort out the switching ( which i hate doing )
now about the satellite ???? a threat , promise, strategic positioning ??
any links to a forum that discusses this satellite thing---hmmmmmmm my house faces south hmmmm
Liking your margins and potentially pricing yourself out of the game is a very hard thing to do. Especially with something like a TV appliances, even more so when most TV's come with a built in smart function. Even though I prefer using my Minix Z64 or ChromeBox, I have to say that our big Samsung is very useable as a smart TV.
This new Apple TV will play games, run Apps, run your house via home kit etc. It won't be as dumb as modern smart TVs.
I doubt it. The storage would be for the on-device Channels and video content you wanted to store there. The only storage for live stuff would be temporary cache as buffer for rewinding, etc.
…what incentive do these bozos have to improve speed and consistency??
None, now that their monopolies are permanently protected and mandated by the government.
…cable companies will likely start data caps…
Could’ve sworn that many already had. H.265 does GREAT things, so look for iTunes content to migrate to that in the near future.
can you adjust the resolution so you can reduce data volume
I imagine that’ll be a necessity, but you’d run into in the first place because of our slow bandwidth.
ala cart as many of you have said--let me choose my bundle give customers choice, give them an apple UI DVR BOOM
Boom, indeed. That’s all I would ever want out of a television. If I can’t pick only the channels I want, I don’t want it at all.
but i don't think apple will go half jack; they know how cable is, hope understand what customers want
It’ll be a 802.11ac and gigabit Ethernet device, just like the current one. Can you imagine a disgusting coax cable coming out of an Apple product this side of 1994? Yuck!
voice control siri
I imagine, but I don’t know how it could work other than using your iDevice.
?be able to plug multiple hdmi devices in let siri sort out the switching ( which i hate doing )
Nah, I don’t see it being a hub device at all. Rather, they’d position it as the only device you would ever want–or need–to have plugged into your television in the first place, negating the need to switch at all.
If it serves up television content, streams your computer’s media, streams Internet media, and plays games, that’s all of what you plug into a TV. And with an optical out, you’d just hook your speakers straight to it.
now about the satellite ???? a threat , promise, strategic positioning ??
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
I can't think of a single piece of technology where guys like you weren't parroting the exact same arguments. They said YouTube would NEVER take off because of bandwidth limitations.
They said color TV was unecessary and "too expensive".
Same with VHS and betamax tapes
Same with CDs
Same with DVDs
Same with Blu Ray
Same with seeing anything graphical over the internet
Same with HDTV
Same with the jump from 720i to 1080p
Same with YouTube
blah blah blah. It's happening. Whether or not it "matters" or is "affordable" right now, 4K on demand streaming is where things are headed. You have to be willfully blind to not see that.
The way this works is people go to upgrade their TVs every few years, and guess what.... the old tube TVs aren't available to buy, *even if you wanted to*. You can barely get any 720 TVs. They're just not presented as an option. Regular DVD player? Sure we *might* have 1-2 models in a dusty old box somewhere, but why not come over here and look at this AppleTV with Netflix, dear consumer? That's the way it works, the new stuff gets phased in as the old gets phased out.
As for the big cable companies volunatarily increasing their bandwidth, well, just take a look at the caps now compared to 5 or 10 years ago. Look at the storage capacity of SSD and HDD today compared to then. You could have been prattling on about the exact same "issues" on a completely different scale back then.
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
Why would you be screwed? Why assume that some content being available in 4K UHD means that all content would be available in 4K UHD? I'd think TV shows would take a longer to get to 4K UHD than movies, but even after TV shows start populating with 4K UHD quality content why assume that 720p or 1080p wouldn't be available to you if you have a slower connection, usage caps, or simply want a streaming video to start a little quicker? Are all TV shows even offered in 1080p on Netflix? I don't think so and yet 1070p ha been around for how long now? Is True Detective even offered in 1080p? Finally, why assume that H.264 is the codec to be used for 4K UHD with Apple when H.265 HW en/decoders are finally making their way into products?
If Apple can add features mentioned in this article along with few that people said in commnets than that would be a killer set-top box. I don't need any set-top or Apple-TV box but I would certainly buy one with these features. I would call near perfect Home entertaining and Home control HUB.
Why would you be screwed? Why assume that some content being available in 4K UHD means that all content would be available in 4K UHD? I'd think TV shows would take a longer to get to 4K UHD than movies, but even after TV shows start populating with 4K UHD quality content why assume that 720p or 1080p wouldn't be available to you if you have a slower connection, usage caps, or simply want a streaming video to start a little quicker? Are all TV shows even offered in 1080p on Netflix? I don't think so and yet 1070p ha been around for how long now? Is True Detective even offered in 1080p? Finally, why assume that H.264 is the codec to be used for 4K UHD with Apple when H.265 HW en/decoders are finally making their way into products?
For certain Apple would not launch a "4K UHD" only service, as it would extremely limit the target market. It would make no sense. It is possible they would offer some small amount of 4K content on-demand as optional (as only a small amount of 4K is available). Hard to say - targeting a small niche (those with 4K TVs and with enough Internet b/w to support streaming it - even with HEVC) - is not Apple's normal approach, but the people in that small niche are also in the higher income brackets that are Apple's target.
To address the widest target market, Apple would need to offer 1080p (with H.264 codec). That is compatible with all gen3 Apple TVs as well as iPhone/iPad devices for last few years. They might also offer the streams in 720p as well, to enable broader support for older gen2 Apple TVs, but I think that is less than 50% likely (generally Apple likes to keep it simple, and that is a driver for upgrades). It is important to remember that *vast majority* of current HD television services (cable, satellite, IPTV like U-Verse, terrestrial broadcast) are not in 1080p - they are either 1080i or 720p. So an Apple TV service in 1080p would already be better resolution than majority of live TV services. Note: Netflix, Amazon, and iTunes content are often 1080p, but that is on-demand file-based, not live TV.
I also believe that Apple would offer HEVC/H.265 codec streams in 1080p, and these would be compatible with A8(x) devices, including this new rumoured Apple TV. This would enable a significant reduction in bandwidth requirements per stream, or improved quality (less compression), or combination thereof. That would be a leader in its field today. If the Apple television service is very compelling, it would help drive the adoption of the new ?TV unit for this reason - more streams per home - serving homes with slower broadband access, etc.
Comments
It won't be cheaper than $349 unless subsidised by IPs or other interested parties.
I don't think there's a chance Hades that it will be $99 like some people are saying. But I also would bet money (and admittedly possibly lose that money) that it won't be $349 either.
Originally I liked "Apple Home", emphasizing it as a central control for HomeKit (... and more).
But if Apple possibly wanted to position this to BUSINESS customers too -- e.g., as a media center via the IBM partnership, then using the word "Home" would send a limiting message, PR-wise. (Of course we/I don't know if Apple even wants to sell the new device to business customers.)
Re: name of new product...
Originally I liked "Apple Home", emphasizing it as a central control for HomeKit (... and more).
Frankly for this and other reasons, I don't see Apple introducing a control hub.
That was the intention behind MobileMe. The computer was the "hub" and not the cloud. Apple doesn't want you to control your services from home, they want you to retrieve them from the cloud.
In that regard, why have a dedicated "hub" when Apple hopes you will be surrounded by Apple devices that can already be cross-utilized to provide whatever services you need from them? I can take calls on my Mac from my iPhone now!
If you've got an ?Watch, an iPhone, iPad or Mac within earshot, Siri's just a command away. Instead of coming up with a dedicated device for this purpose, why not add microphones to your AirPort, or Time Capsule, or ?TV? Worst case scenario, Apple has to introduce a wireless microphone that is hidden discreetly into your decor to expand coverage, or guarantee you have a mic where you need it. Then again, why should Apple do this when dozens of third party companies are more than willing to provide these solutions?
And the idea of needing a physical disk in your home to provide DVR services is seriously antiquated ... in a world where the internet can deliver 4K streaming video, the cloud itself is the DVR.
It just seems unnecessarily redundant to me, whereas companies like Amazon have no choice.
It won't be cheaper than $349 unless subsidised by IPs or other interested parties.
Why not, Nvidias new Shield Console, comes with 3GB RAM, 32GB SSD + mini SD, 2 USB ports for external HD, Tegra X1, GamePad for only 200. So under 300 is more than likely.
Apple like their margins. It could come subsidised with a contract with an ISP.
Why not, Nvidias new Shield Console, comes with 3GB RAM, 32GB SSD + mini SD, 2 USB ports for external HD, Tegra X1, GamePad for only 200. So under 300 is more than likely.
The bluetooth remote on that device is something I would like to see Apple adopt for the new Apple TV. It has a microphone in the top of it, so you can use voice control, and a headphone/headset jack in the base. I'm not too sure if the sound quality would be that great, but it might come in handy.
Apple like their margins. It could come subsidised with a contract with an ISP.
Liking your margins and potentially pricing yourself out of the game is a very hard thing to do. Especially with something like a TV appliances, even more so when most TV's come with a built in smart function. Even though I prefer using my Minix Z64 or ChromeBox, I have to say that our big Samsung is very useable as a smart TV.
background information needed
what storage in apple tv 128 256??
if it has storage it will be a dvr--how much content can 128gb hold i don't know how much is in my TWC cable box but it can hold weeks
USA has some of the slowest internet in the industrialized world..(regulation and allowing monopoly position of cable ind ISPs) what can most families stream, download (with a dvr you could download at night while sleeping ) the apple tv must face the realities of US based isp non competition what incentive do these bozos have to improve speed and consistency??
compression-- cable companies will likely start data caps so to prepare for this i like my apple tv 2 shows at 720 and i don't see much dif from my friends 1080---can you adjust the resolution so you can reduce data volume--you know data caps are coming
ala cart as many of you have said--let me choose my bundle give customers choice, give them an apple UI DVR BOOM
but i don't think apple will go half jack; they know how cable is, hope understand what customers want (heck i wish aero won the court battle) they MUST give value and after some of the prior stumbles
THIS CAN'T BE ONE
soooooo
how many shows can be stored?
resolution vs download speed
dvr
voice control siri
?be able to plug multiple hdmi devices in let siri sort out the switching ( which i hate doing )
now about the satellite ???? a threat , promise, strategic positioning ??
any links to a forum that discusses this satellite thing---hmmmmmmm my house faces south hmmmm
thanks for letting me vent
This new Apple TV will play games, run Apps, run your house via home kit etc. It won't be as dumb as modern smart TVs.
if it has storage it will be a dvr
I doubt it. The storage would be for the on-device Channels and video content you wanted to store there. The only storage for live stuff would be temporary cache as buffer for rewinding, etc.
…what incentive do these bozos have to improve speed and consistency??
None, now that their monopolies are permanently protected and mandated by the government.
Could’ve sworn that many already had. H.265 does GREAT things, so look for iTunes content to migrate to that in the near future.
I imagine that’ll be a necessity, but you’d run into in the first place because of our slow bandwidth.
Boom, indeed. That’s all I would ever want out of a television. If I can’t pick only the channels I want, I don’t want it at all.
It’ll be a 802.11ac and gigabit Ethernet device, just like the current one. Can you imagine a disgusting coax cable coming out of an Apple product this side of 1994? Yuck!
I imagine, but I don’t know how it could work other than using your iDevice.
Nah, I don’t see it being a hub device at all. Rather, they’d position it as the only device you would ever want–or need–to have plugged into your television in the first place, negating the need to switch at all.
If it serves up television content, streams your computer’s media, streams Internet media, and plays games, that’s all of what you plug into a TV. And with an optical out, you’d just hook your speakers straight to it.
Ruse, I’d bet.
I can't think of a single piece of technology where guys like you weren't parroting the exact same arguments. They said YouTube would NEVER take off because of bandwidth limitations.
They said color TV was unecessary and "too expensive".
Same with VHS and betamax tapes
Same with CDs
Same with DVDs
Same with Blu Ray
Same with seeing anything graphical over the internet
Same with HDTV
Same with the jump from 720i to 1080p
Same with YouTube
blah blah blah. It's happening. Whether or not it "matters" or is "affordable" right now, 4K on demand streaming is where things are headed. You have to be willfully blind to not see that.
The way this works is people go to upgrade their TVs every few years, and guess what.... the old tube TVs aren't available to buy, *even if you wanted to*. You can barely get any 720 TVs. They're just not presented as an option. Regular DVD player? Sure we *might* have 1-2 models in a dusty old box somewhere, but why not come over here and look at this AppleTV with Netflix, dear consumer? That's the way it works, the new stuff gets phased in as the old gets phased out.
As for the big cable companies volunatarily increasing their bandwidth, well, just take a look at the caps now compared to 5 or 10 years ago. Look at the storage capacity of SSD and HDD today compared to then. You could have been prattling on about the exact same "issues" on a completely different scale back then.
Why would you be screwed? Why assume that some content being available in 4K UHD means that all content would be available in 4K UHD? I'd think TV shows would take a longer to get to 4K UHD than movies, but even after TV shows start populating with 4K UHD quality content why assume that 720p or 1080p wouldn't be available to you if you have a slower connection, usage caps, or simply want a streaming video to start a little quicker? Are all TV shows even offered in 1080p on Netflix? I don't think so and yet 1070p ha been around for how long now? Is True Detective even offered in 1080p? Finally, why assume that H.264 is the codec to be used for 4K UHD with Apple when H.265 HW en/decoders are finally making their way into products?
If Apple can add features mentioned in this article along with few that people said in commnets than that would be a killer set-top box. I don't need any set-top or Apple-TV box but I would certainly buy one with these features. I would call near perfect Home entertaining and Home control HUB.
Just saw a headline that the NFL is dropping its blackout rules. I'm guessing this makes a live stream of NFL games to AppleTV much more likely.
Just saw a headline that the NFL is dropping its blackout rules. I'm guessing this makes a live stream of NFL games to AppleTV much more likely.
Link?
LOOKS LIKE FOOTY’S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS.
Yes, I relish in calling football by soccer’s preferred shorthand. No, this is the first time I’ve done it.
Why would you be screwed? Why assume that some content being available in 4K UHD means that all content would be available in 4K UHD? I'd think TV shows would take a longer to get to 4K UHD than movies, but even after TV shows start populating with 4K UHD quality content why assume that 720p or 1080p wouldn't be available to you if you have a slower connection, usage caps, or simply want a streaming video to start a little quicker? Are all TV shows even offered in 1080p on Netflix? I don't think so and yet 1070p ha been around for how long now? Is True Detective even offered in 1080p? Finally, why assume that H.264 is the codec to be used for 4K UHD with Apple when H.265 HW en/decoders are finally making their way into products?
For certain Apple would not launch a "4K UHD" only service, as it would extremely limit the target market. It would make no sense. It is possible they would offer some small amount of 4K content on-demand as optional (as only a small amount of 4K is available). Hard to say - targeting a small niche (those with 4K TVs and with enough Internet b/w to support streaming it - even with HEVC) - is not Apple's normal approach, but the people in that small niche are also in the higher income brackets that are Apple's target.
To address the widest target market, Apple would need to offer 1080p (with H.264 codec). That is compatible with all gen3 Apple TVs as well as iPhone/iPad devices for last few years. They might also offer the streams in 720p as well, to enable broader support for older gen2 Apple TVs, but I think that is less than 50% likely (generally Apple likes to keep it simple, and that is a driver for upgrades). It is important to remember that *vast majority* of current HD television services (cable, satellite, IPTV like U-Verse, terrestrial broadcast) are not in 1080p - they are either 1080i or 720p. So an Apple TV service in 1080p would already be better resolution than majority of live TV services. Note: Netflix, Amazon, and iTunes content are often 1080p, but that is on-demand file-based, not live TV.
I also believe that Apple would offer HEVC/H.265 codec streams in 1080p, and these would be compatible with A8(x) devices, including this new rumoured Apple TV. This would enable a significant reduction in bandwidth requirements per stream, or improved quality (less compression), or combination thereof. That would be a leader in its field today. If the Apple television service is very compelling, it would help drive the adoption of the new ?TV unit for this reason - more streams per home - serving homes with slower broadband access, etc.