The first AppleTV will be seized by the kids and parents will have to buy a second one for their own watching pleasure.
Actually what is called "game console" is nothing more than an expensive bluray drive serving to dad's bluray phantasmagoria. Kids barely get two or three games in a year. Store shelves are full of unsold console game boxes...
Your network speed determines the max speed through that network. 100Mbps, minus network overhead results in a max of 90Mbps through that network.
Only from node-to-node. You're 150Mibps FIOS isn't going to drop to your 90Mibps max simply because the Apple TV is one device pulling data over Ethernet from your Switch. You'll still get that full 150Mibps from your modem onto Verizon's last mile node.
There is no speed that your streaming needs when there is more than one person in the house.
I don't know what that means.
And who says that I'm just talking about watching a movie? If I'm downloading a large game, I also want that down as fast as possible.
1) Sure, but is drop from 150Mibps to 100Mibps a dealbreaker for you? It isn't to me, just a head scratcher, especially when they moved to USB-C for the diagnostic port and WiFi is many times faster even in real world performance.
2) Then why not use WiFi so you're besting the capabilities of the Ethernet so you can grab those games a couple extra seconds faster? Since I don't 200MiB App Store apps being a huge concern for me I'm going to leave it on Ethernet.
From what you're saying, no one should want a really fast connection.
Is that really what you think I'm saying? :no:
Unfortunately, WiFi isn't as reliable as Ethernet. I've described my house before. It's from 1925. It has brick internal walls, with both wood and metal mesh behind mortar and plaster walls and ceilings. It's like a faraday cage. It's difficult to get full WiFi speeds, so I have four routers in different places. It's complex. The best thing is that I wired gigabit ethernet years ago throughout the house.
You're only thinking about multiple room WiFi. if you truly wanted the fastest speed you could use a wired GigE connection to, say, an AirPort Express that is connected to the 4th gen AppleTV — and only that Apple TV — which is setting right next to it. The AirPort Express is only 802.11n, I think, but the real world speeds should match your FIOS connection pretty well, or you can just buy an 802.11ac router so you can be sure it's faster than your FIOS network. There is, of course, overhead involved but the real world speeds would be higher than what 100BASE-T could offer. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and money for something that will have, at most, a marginal effect on your usage. Perhaps if 4K UHD, the ability to play across other Apple TVs in a LAN or WAN environment will that extra speed be something that is required for typical usability.
Anyone aware of a feature called "HDMI-CEC" that might enable the new AppleTV remote control input switching, volume control etc. on one's TV?
Specifically, any insights on how to activate and implement that feature on a Panasonic Viera TV will be useful for me.
HDMI-CEC Trade Names
You often won’t see “HDMI-CEC” printed on a specifications list. Instead, you’ll see a branded “trade name.” These names all refer to HDMI-CEC, so they really exist only to confuse customers. If your TV has any of these features, it supports HDMI-CEC. You’ll need to know the name your TV’s manufacturer uses so you can hunt down and enable the disguised HDMI-CEC option on your TV.
Apple has been selling its Apple TV as long as iPhone, but the set top box has neither sold in similar quantities nor earned even a significant fraction as much money for the company. While neither of those facts are likely to change, the new 2015 Apple TV is poised to radically change the TV
What's holding this back is obviously the paradigm. Its easy for the top 1% of techies to understand streamed media, and even find a way to rely on it solely.
There is still a HUGE MASSIVE GINORMOUS segment of the iPhone-owning market that does not have any sort of streamer, and their TVs are fed perpetually by a rented cable box.
The change that could take the AppleTV from hobby to money-maker is the licensing deals and subscription services. You have to draw the cable zombies away from their comfort zone, but still offer them something safe to lean on.
When I tell a cable zombie in conversation that I don't pay for cable and don't have a rented box at all...just an AppleTV, I get these horrified shocked reactions...as if they themselves are trying to imagine life without the idiot box. If you thought the "idiot box" was the TV...guess again, its actually the cable box. You're never going to get some people to part with their mindless TV-in-the-background or channel surfing lifestyles, so you have to (unfortunately) bring that kind of experience to the AppleTV itself, so that more people can get on board. I want AppleTV to start selling tens of millions per year, if not more...and a compelling subscription service to Live channels is the only thing that can get that going.
Unfortunately, WiFi isn't as reliable as Ethernet.
Rubbish. A proper setup with decent modem, routers and cabling will yield almost identical speeds to Ethernet these days. PING rate may fluctuate more, but still.
I have 2 AirPort Extremes 802.11ac, one on each end of the house, connected via Ethernet run through the attic. Anywhere I stand in my house, even my iPhone can get 150 Mbps down.
Technically speaking, your experience with Gigabit vs. Megabit Ethernet with this product would not change. You're not downloading files (except Apps, which are limited to 200 MB). For streaming 1080p content, the performance threshold is rather low...you can achieve the best possible performance with far less than what Megabit Ethernet even supports.
Again, you're not getting it. Apps are limited to 200 MB. All other content is streamed. This is not a PC. You can't measurably improve your experience from Megabit to Gigabit Ethernet.
Trust me, I understand what you're getting at, but in terms of real world, you're wrong.
I am getting it. That 200MBbundle isn't the max that can be downloaded. Developers just need to configure their apps in seperate bundles, and they can download a lot more. Believe me, I understand this pretty well.
Something else that you don't understand is that having a 100mbps device hanging off a gigabit network switch affects everything on that switch, to a certain extent. Not as much as it affected the old hubs. I've measured differences in data flow.
So yes, it bothers me, and it should bother you, because gigabit Ethernet costs about the same to implement as 10/100.
I'm amazed at how people can find excuses for something that shouldn't have been done.
Something else that you don't understand is that having a 100mbps device hanging off a gigabit network switch affects everything on that switch, to a certain extent. Not as much as it affected the old hubs. I've measured differences in data flow.
1) Hubs work at the physical layer, as in OSI layer 1. All they do is send everything out all the ports, save for input port. It's that simple. Switches (and bridges) use the datalink layer, as in OSI layer 2. This will look at the destination MAC address. If you only have one node at the end of a switch port then your link speed is your link speed. Having other devices on other switch ports that isn't going to affect throughput because it will send the data only to the ports that should get it. If you're concerned that other active devices are swamping the processor of the switch, thereby slowly down its abilities to route data effectively then you need a better switch.
2) Does your FIOS guarantee you a minimum of 150MiBps down? I ask because my cable only offers a maximum throughput but doesn't guarantee the performance will always be at that level. Also, is your FIOS full-duplex?
Only from node-to-node. You're 150Mibps FIOS isn't going to drop to your 90Mibps max simply because the Apple TV is one device pulling data over Ethernet from your Switch. You'll still get that full 150Mibps from your modem onto Verizon's last mile node.
I don't know what that means.
1) Sure, but is drop from 150Mibps to 100Mibps a dealbreaker for you? It isn't to me, just a head scratcher, especially when they moved to USB-C for the diagnostic port and WiFi is many times faster even in real world performance.
2) Then why not use WiFi so you're besting the capabilities of the Ethernet so you can grab those games a couple extra seconds faster? Since I don't 200MiB App Store apps being a huge concern for me I'm going to leave it on Ethernet.
Is that really what you think I'm saying? :no:
You're only thinking about multiple room WiFi. if you truly wanted the fastest speed you could use a wired GigE connection to, say, an AirPort Express that is connected to the 4th gen AppleTV — and only that Apple TV — which is setting right next to it. The AirPort Express is only 802.11n, I think, but the real world speeds should match your FIOS connection pretty well, or you can just buy an 802.11ac router so you can be sure it's faster than your FIOS network. There is, of course, overhead involved but the real world speeds would be higher than what 100BASE-T could offer. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and money for something that will have, at most, a marginal effect on your usage. Perhaps if 4K UHD, the ability to play across other Apple TVs in a LAN or WAN environment will that extra speed be something that is required for typical usability.
What? Node to node? Did you look that phrase up? The only thing that matters in a network is the speed of the network, minus network talk. If your device can push more through the network than the network can pass, then you won't get that speed. It's pretty straight forwards.
Is it a deal breaker? No, as I'm going to buy it as soon as it's available. But it's annoying.
I already said why WiFi is problematical here. A problem is that the only router that can work with higher speed FIOS doesn't handle WiFi network extenders properly. I can only use one directly connected WiFi router to the FIOS router or to the 16 port Hp switch coming off it.
So for reasons to complicated to present here, I only can get about 50Mbps WiFi to my ATv. On a good day.
Rubbish. A proper setup with decent modem, routers and cabling will yield almost identical speeds to Ethernet these days. PING rate may fluctuate more, but still.
I have 2 AirPort Extremes 802.11ac, one on each end of the house, connected via Ethernet run through the attic. Anywhere I stand in my house, even my iPhone can get 150 Mbps down.
That gaming controller is HURRENDOUS!! If you need to buy a separate controller for gaming, you blew it!
Why on Earth did Apple deny its own A9x chip for AppleTV? This alone would have got a ton of gamers on board. Now it's being seen as a streaming box with optional gaming in the gamer community (IE not for games)
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9. iPad Pro: No 3D touch. iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices. This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
1) Hubs work at the physical layer, as in OSI layer 1. All they do is send everything out all the ports, save for input port. It's that simple. Switches (and bridges) use the datalink layer, as in OSI layer 2. This will look at the destination MAC address. If you only have one node at the end of a switch port then your link speed is your link speed. Having other devices on other switch ports that isn't going to affect throughput because it will send the data only to the ports that should get it. If you're concerned that other active devices are swamping the processor of the switch, thereby slowly down its abilities to route data effectively then you need a better switch.
2) Does your FIOS guarantee you a minimum of 150MiBps down? I ask because my cable only offers a maximum throughput but doesn't guarantee the performance will always be at that level. Also, is your FIOS full-duplex?
I kind of understand how it works. Nevertheless, you need to measure throughput. If you do, you'll see what I mean. FIOS is much better than other technologies. I always get at least 145/145. Normally I get an average of 160/165.
What? Node to node? Did you look that phrase up? The only thing that matters in a network is the speed of the network, minus network talk. If your device can push more through the network than the network can pass, then you won't get that speed. It's pretty straight forwards.
1) Did I look up the term node? :roll eyes: You know that's a very common term to refer to devices in a network, right?
2) In networking, a network is a little different than your colloquial use which seems to be only using it to define your end-to-end transmission of networked devices.
I already said why WiFi is problematical here. A problem is that the only router that can work with higher speed FIOS doesn't handle WiFi network extenders properly. I can only use one directly connected WiFi router to the FIOS router or to the 16 port Hp switch coming off it.
FIOS would have no idea what you're doing on other networks. As I stated, you can run GigE to that room, which is plugged into an 802.11ac router that connects to your Apple TV to faster performance than over 100BASE-T. Your Faraday and FIOS concerns need not apply.
So for reasons to complicated to present here, I only can get about 50Mbps WiFi to my ATv. On a good day.
How have you tested the throughput? The only way I can think of is by using a network analyzer, which typically means a WinPC, on that end and trying your best to match the location, band, channel used by the Apple TV.
I have a very large iTunes library. How does the new Apple TV handle a local library? Will Siri search it? What does the interface to the local library look like? Thanks!
Every article just regurgitates the same crap we saw in the Keynote demo and nobody seems willing to answer the questions people are actually asking.
That gaming controller is HURRENDOUS!! If you need to buy a separate controller for gaming, you blew it!
Why on Earth did Apple deny its own A9x chip for AppleTV? This alone would have got a ton of gamers on board. Now it's being seen as a streaming box with optional gaming in the gamer community (IE not for games)
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID
iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9.
iPad Pro: No 3D touch.
iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices.
This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
It can be used as a gaming controller, and it's designed to be used for that as well as a tv controller. But the Wii controller was thought to be a bad idea, and terribly uncomfortable—at first. But it helped to make the Wii the most popular of that generation.
But, any controller that meets Apple's APIs for iOS will work. I have two, and both will work.
All Apple has to do is put bid everyone else for the NFL game package when it comes available, and put it at a bargain price exclusively on Apple TV. The masses will come.
1) Did I look up the term node? :roll eyes: You know that's a very common term to refer to devices in a network, right?
2) In networking, a network is a little different than your colloquial use which seems to be only using it to define your end-to-end transmission of networked devices.
FIOS would have no idea what you're doing on other networks. As I stated, you can run GigE to that room, which is plugged into an 802.11ac router that connects to your Apple TV to faster performance than over 100BASE-T. Your Faraday and FIOS concerns need not apply.
How have you tested the throughput? The only way I can think of is by using a network analyzer, which typically means a WinPC, on that end and trying your best to match the location, band, channel used by the Apple TV.
I'm trying to avoid getting technical here. There's no need for it. Some things are simple enough to understand without that, and some people may not be able to follow a technical discussion.
We all know what a node is. I was really wondering why that phrase, as it didn't really have to do with the discussion of max speed through the network.
Again, whay are you bringing up whether FIOS would "know" what's happening on other networks? We're talking about one network, overall. Do you mean Ethernet vs WiFi?
Even with your configuration which is similar to what I've got it doesn't work well, because of the problem with the FIOS router. All the other router extenders, which are Airport Extremes, must work off WiFi themselves. The wired connection needs to be somewhere else. So the extender in the living room must get its own signal through the WiFi signal, thus, giving me a lower speed. As I said, it's complex.
Comments
The first AppleTV will be seized by the kids and parents will have to buy a second one for their own watching pleasure.
Actually what is called "game console" is nothing more than an expensive bluray drive serving to dad's bluray phantasmagoria. Kids barely get two or three games in a year. Store shelves are full of unsold console game boxes...
Specifically, any insights on how to activate and implement that feature on a Panasonic Viera TV will be useful for me.
Only from node-to-node. You're 150Mibps FIOS isn't going to drop to your 90Mibps max simply because the Apple TV is one device pulling data over Ethernet from your Switch. You'll still get that full 150Mibps from your modem onto Verizon's last mile node.
I don't know what that means.
1) Sure, but is drop from 150Mibps to 100Mibps a dealbreaker for you? It isn't to me, just a head scratcher, especially when they moved to USB-C for the diagnostic port and WiFi is many times faster even in real world performance.
2) Then why not use WiFi so you're besting the capabilities of the Ethernet so you can grab those games a couple extra seconds faster? Since I don't 200MiB App Store apps being a huge concern for me I'm going to leave it on Ethernet.
Is that really what you think I'm saying? :no:
You're only thinking about multiple room WiFi. if you truly wanted the fastest speed you could use a wired GigE connection to, say, an AirPort Express that is connected to the 4th gen AppleTV — and only that Apple TV — which is setting right next to it. The AirPort Express is only 802.11n, I think, but the real world speeds should match your FIOS connection pretty well, or you can just buy an 802.11ac router so you can be sure it's faster than your FIOS network. There is, of course, overhead involved but the real world speeds would be higher than what 100BASE-T could offer. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and money for something that will have, at most, a marginal effect on your usage. Perhaps if 4K UHD, the ability to play across other Apple TVs in a LAN or WAN environment will that extra speed be something that is required for typical usability.
You often won’t see “HDMI-CEC” printed on a specifications list. Instead, you’ll see a branded “trade name.” These names all refer to HDMI-CEC, so they really exist only to confuse customers. If your TV has any of these features, it supports HDMI-CEC. You’ll need to know the name your TV’s manufacturer uses so you can hunt down and enable the disguised HDMI-CEC option on your TV.
Anyone aware of a feature called "HDMI-CEC" that might enable the new AppleTV remote control input switching, volume control etc. on one's TV?
Specifically, any insights on how to activate and implement that feature on a Panasonic Viera TV will be useful for me.
It doesn't have any input switching, but does support volume control of your TV via CEC. Should just work.
It, as in the Siri Remote? I could have sworn input switching for TVs was one of the features noted during the presentation, along with volume.
Apple has been selling its Apple TV as long as iPhone, but the set top box has neither sold in similar quantities nor earned even a significant fraction as much money for the company. While neither of those facts are likely to change, the new 2015 Apple TV is poised to radically change the TV
What's holding this back is obviously the paradigm. Its easy for the top 1% of techies to understand streamed media, and even find a way to rely on it solely.
There is still a HUGE MASSIVE GINORMOUS segment of the iPhone-owning market that does not have any sort of streamer, and their TVs are fed perpetually by a rented cable box.
The change that could take the AppleTV from hobby to money-maker is the licensing deals and subscription services. You have to draw the cable zombies away from their comfort zone, but still offer them something safe to lean on.
When I tell a cable zombie in conversation that I don't pay for cable and don't have a rented box at all...just an AppleTV, I get these horrified shocked reactions...as if they themselves are trying to imagine life without the idiot box. If you thought the "idiot box" was the TV...guess again, its actually the cable box. You're never going to get some people to part with their mindless TV-in-the-background or channel surfing lifestyles, so you have to (unfortunately) bring that kind of experience to the AppleTV itself, so that more people can get on board. I want AppleTV to start selling tens of millions per year, if not more...and a compelling subscription service to Live channels is the only thing that can get that going.
Unfortunately, WiFi isn't as reliable as Ethernet.
Rubbish. A proper setup with decent modem, routers and cabling will yield almost identical speeds to Ethernet these days. PING rate may fluctuate more, but still.
I have 2 AirPort Extremes 802.11ac, one on each end of the house, connected via Ethernet run through the attic. Anywhere I stand in my house, even my iPhone can get 150 Mbps down.
I am getting it. That 200MBbundle isn't the max that can be downloaded. Developers just need to configure their apps in seperate bundles, and they can download a lot more. Believe me, I understand this pretty well.
Something else that you don't understand is that having a 100mbps device hanging off a gigabit network switch affects everything on that switch, to a certain extent. Not as much as it affected the old hubs. I've measured differences in data flow.
So yes, it bothers me, and it should bother you, because gigabit Ethernet costs about the same to implement as 10/100.
I'm amazed at how people can find excuses for something that shouldn't have been done.
1) Hubs work at the physical layer, as in OSI layer 1. All they do is send everything out all the ports, save for input port. It's that simple. Switches (and bridges) use the datalink layer, as in OSI layer 2. This will look at the destination MAC address. If you only have one node at the end of a switch port then your link speed is your link speed. Having other devices on other switch ports that isn't going to affect throughput because it will send the data only to the ports that should get it. If you're concerned that other active devices are swamping the processor of the switch, thereby slowly down its abilities to route data effectively then you need a better switch.
2) Does your FIOS guarantee you a minimum of 150MiBps down? I ask because my cable only offers a maximum throughput but doesn't guarantee the performance will always be at that level. Also, is your FIOS full-duplex?
What? Node to node? Did you look that phrase up? The only thing that matters in a network is the speed of the network, minus network talk. If your device can push more through the network than the network can pass, then you won't get that speed. It's pretty straight forwards.
Is it a deal breaker? No, as I'm going to buy it as soon as it's available. But it's annoying.
I already said why WiFi is problematical here. A problem is that the only router that can work with higher speed FIOS doesn't handle WiFi network extenders properly. I can only use one directly connected WiFi router to the FIOS router or to the 16 port Hp switch coming off it.
So for reasons to complicated to present here, I only can get about 50Mbps WiFi to my ATv. On a good day.
Great. Try that in my house, and you'll fail.
Why on Earth did Apple deny its own A9x chip for AppleTV? This alone would have got a ton of gamers on board. Now it's being seen as a streaming box with optional gaming in the gamer community (IE not for games)
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID
iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9.
iPad Pro: No 3D touch.
iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices.
This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
I kind of understand how it works. Nevertheless, you need to measure throughput. If you do, you'll see what I mean. FIOS is much better than other technologies. I always get at least 145/145. Normally I get an average of 160/165.
1) Did I look up the term node? :roll eyes: You know that's a very common term to refer to devices in a network, right?
2) In networking, a network is a little different than your colloquial use which seems to be only using it to define your end-to-end transmission of networked devices.
FIOS would have no idea what you're doing on other networks. As I stated, you can run GigE to that room, which is plugged into an 802.11ac router that connects to your Apple TV to faster performance than over 100BASE-T. Your Faraday and FIOS concerns need not apply.
How have you tested the throughput? The only way I can think of is by using a network analyzer, which typically means a WinPC, on that end and trying your best to match the location, band, channel used by the Apple TV.
I have a very large iTunes library. How does the new Apple TV handle a local library? Will Siri search it? What does the interface to the local library look like? Thanks!
Every article just regurgitates the same crap we saw in the Keynote demo and nobody seems willing to answer the questions people are actually asking.
It can be used as a gaming controller, and it's designed to be used for that as well as a tv controller. But the Wii controller was thought to be a bad idea, and terribly uncomfortable—at first. But it helped to make the Wii the most popular of that generation.
But, any controller that meets Apple's APIs for iOS will work. I have two, and both will work.
Again, you're not getting it. Apps are limited to 200 MB. All other content is streamed.
Only the apps themselves are limited to 200 MB. There is no published limit on content that can be dowloaded by the app after it's installed.
I'm trying to avoid getting technical here. There's no need for it. Some things are simple enough to understand without that, and some people may not be able to follow a technical discussion.
We all know what a node is. I was really wondering why that phrase, as it didn't really have to do with the discussion of max speed through the network.
Again, whay are you bringing up whether FIOS would "know" what's happening on other networks? We're talking about one network, overall. Do you mean Ethernet vs WiFi?
Even with your configuration which is similar to what I've got it doesn't work well, because of the problem with the FIOS router. All the other router extenders, which are Airport Extremes, must work off WiFi themselves. The wired connection needs to be somewhere else. So the extender in the living room must get its own signal through the WiFi signal, thus, giving me a lower speed. As I said, it's complex.
I have a network analyzer from Tectronix.