Is it just me or does anyone else find it cumbersome that you have to plug the remote in using a thunderbolt cable? Couldn't hey have created a stand for it to recharge or even better, have it recharge wirelessly somehow just by placing it on a recharging pad?
It charges using a Apple Lighting Cable!!! Also once it's charged, it supposedly has a 3 month life before needing another charge. It's not like my Harmony Remote that will only last around 3 days before I have to drop it back into it's charging station.
I would assume some 3rd party solutions will pop up for the remote. I really don't see it has a huge deal. Hell I have 3 AppleTV 3's and i don't think I even have a Apple Remote for any of them. They all use the Harmony Remotes that I own. This new one has built in IR, and so at least for the most part the Harmony Remote would still be used, other then times you would want to game or use Siri, then you'd have to use the Apple Remote.
ATV4 is huge, folks. This article touches on a number of fronts, but future iterations of tvOS will also include a fleshed out HomeKit, allowing the ATV4 to be a "hub" for all HomeKit devices. Imagine being able to lower lights in a room when a movie starts playing, or getting notifications from HomeKit devices on your TV while you use it. Very cool.
Now that Plex is CONFIRMED on ATV4, I'm getting one of these the day they ship.
1) Your incoming link speed isn't really a big deal if the end-to-end throughput is faster than your streaming content will need. Remember this is technically a stream, not a local download where you might require it to finish completely before you execute an install, edit a file, or need to move the physical data elsewhere. In terms of video, t's only there for local playback so I don't think it's going to affect any play back, but what about with Apple TV App Store app? I think the limiting facto there will still be its source, plus there is only a 200MiB limit on apps at this point. That said, I am surprised and hope this is changed by the time it's updated to support 4K UHD content, even if the file sizes will be no more than 2x their current size.
2) If you want the fastest connection to the Apple TV you can always use 802.11ac. My router is right next to my Apple TV but I'll still use a wired connection simply because I don't want another device on WiFi and because of point one, above.
It's kind of funny Apple only using 10/100 Ethernet. Like, is that Apple going out of it's way to find someone who still only makes a 10/100 only chip? I know Gigabit is really kind of pointless on AppleTV, but it just seems silly at this point in time. my house is wired up with Cat6. In the end, it's really pointless. But it's something for people to nick pick over. Wifi being faster is kind of funny but you'll never use that top Wifi speed either. There's not going to be 4K on this thing, not even on a future software update. Ethernet would still be fast enough, but there's only HDMI 1.4 being used, and 4K really needs HDMI 2.0!!! You really need the extra bandwidth there. Especially the Dynamic 4K. Also would the A8 processor support it? I don't think so. It should have gotten the A9 processor. This AppleTV seems llike it should have come out a year ago. Maybe has been in development for a couple years. It's already kind of behind the times in some area's. It's kind of strange the new iPhone's support 4K Recording for example, and yet you Can't Airplay 4K to a new AppleTV to watch that content?!?!?! Talking about a missed opportunity!!!!
4K streaming is a joke. It's so compressed it's laughable. You're not even getting real 1080P streaming. It's not Blu-Ray quality. Just like 4K streaming isn't anywhere near what Ultra Blu-Ray quality will look like when that starts coming out early next year. Still, not being able to watch your 4K movies on your AppleTV? I mean really Apple!!!!
Also the 200 Meg Limit for Apps on AppleTV. The Minimum storage size is 32 Gig's. Someone can do the math, but WHY? That's like being able to install 300+ Apps onto the smallest AppleTV and 600+ on the larger one for $50 more. Plus now you're also forced to download a large amount of content over and over and over and over and over again every time to play the same game or whatever. It just seems way to small of a size limit.
4K won't be coming to these AppleTV's!!! I can be 99.9999% sure of that!!! I'm still buying one of course! I still think 4K is pointless unless you have a 150" screen in your house! 4K is what you're seeing going to a Movie Theater and watching on a HUGE screen.
Your network speed determines the max speed through that network. 100Mbps, minus network overhead results in a max of 90Mbps through that network.
There is no speed that your streaming needs when there is more than one person in the house. So it depends on what everyone is doing at the time. 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. From what you're saying, no one should want a really fast connection.
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.
I wired my house with Cat6 Ethernet when I got it. it's the best thing ever. I have a 24-port Gigabit Switch in my closet. I currently get 105Mbps service from Comcast. Still, 10/100 on the AppleTV is just fine for streaming. game downloading?!?! Wait and see. Downloading a large game over and over and over again every time I want to play is sucky as it is!!!
I don't think it's a HUGE deal. But it kind of looks like this AppleTV should have been released a year ago!!! These should have had the A9 processor, and then Supported 4K, so people could Airplay 4K to their AppleTV's. Plus supported HDML2.0 Not just 1.4, which is really going to keep this one from ever seeing 4K in a software update. Gigabit Ethernet would have been nice. It's also like Apple had to go out of their way to find someone who still sold 10/100 chips ONLY because most everything made now has Gigabit. it just seems still to not have it at this point in time.
It'll be a couple more years and then a new AppleTV that supports 4K with a 10/100/1000 Ethernet port.
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 get it also, but he has a point. For streaming content the Ethernet port is fast enough!!! For gaming, maybe not so much!!! Because of what is really a TINY size limit of 200 Megs. That just seems strange for a Device that's 32 Gig's in size at minimum to 64 Gig's!! That's Hundreds of Apps and games on the smallest one. it also means you will be having to download a lot of game content on the fly. The faster it loads, the better the gameplay!!!
It's also like Apple went out of their way to find someone who still only sold a 10/100 Ethernet chip.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it cumbersome that you have to plug the remote in using a thunderbolt cable? Couldn't hey have created a stand for it to recharge or even better, have it recharge wirelessly somehow just by placing it on a recharging pad?
Not at all. This way it can still be used while charging. BTW - It's Lightning not Thunderbolt.
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.
I've stood right next to my ASUS Router and the max my iPhone 6 seemed to get with my Internet connection was like 47Mbps!!! While my Wired Windows PC is showing me 126Mbps for my 105Mbps Comcast service!!!!
So point blank range for Wifi was less then half wired speed!!!! I'm sure it's really not much different with the AppleTV. The Odds of being point blank range of your Wifi Router, Slim. Speed drops off fast. A few walls and it'll start crawling. Wifi has it's place for things that move from place to place. Cell Phone, Tablet, laptop, etc. Things that just sit there always should be WIRED if at all possible. To me, Wifi is of last resort. Wired is still Far, Far faster, even at distances and far more reliable. Wifi works, but I have much better results wiring it up!!!
At work, I'm on my iPad trying to stream Netflix, and there's a choice of a couple of different Wifi routers I have access do a wall or so away. I have Streaming issues with Netflix that are really Annoying at times to almost be unusable, even though there's FAST Internet service!!! I was doing the whole Media Center thing. PC running Media Center and then Xbox 360's as Extenders. While there was a LIMIT of 1 Media Center Extender at once streaming HD content over Wifi, You can do 4-5 with a WIRED connection. I've now moved to a Tivo Setup, using a Tivo Roamio OTA and a couple Tivo Mini's The Mini's won't even work with Wifi, Only wired Networks, Ethernet or Coax cable you may already have running in your house. If you want a good experience, Wifi is not it.
Wifi Works alright. It's getting better, but it's no replacement for a wired Network. If you're around a area with a bunch of others Apartments, Houses with Wifi Networks also, it can really get bad. Getting on 5Ghz helps from 2.4, but that's not going to last either as 5Ghz gets saturated.
The PS4 has been on the market for almost two years. At this point in its life cycle, it's already sold 50% more than the PS2 had at the two year mark. The PS2 was the most successful console of all time. The Xbox One is also performing far better than the Xbox 360 was at the two year mark. So traditional games consoles are in rude health.
Gaming on the new Apple TV is, to be frank, a joke. The GPU is comically weak, far weaker than what was found in the 10 year old Xbox 360 and PS3. Whilst it's true that Apple's GPUs get quicker each year, there's no guarantee that the Apple TV will get the new chips (that it's launching with an already antiquated chip is telling), the gulf between anything Apple offer and the GPUs in the XO and PS4 are gigantic.
Then there are other factors, such as RAM (PS4 and XO have 8gb), storage (500gb hard drives and blu-ray discs, vs 32gb and an utterly bizarre 200mb app size limit), and controllers (a standard, included in the box pad with all the required buttons and sticks, vs an even worse than the WiiMote remote with optional third party pads which will get little dev support).
Even if the GPU wasn't so underpowered, the issue of storage alone is a game killer. Many big console titles are open world, and so need access to the entire map on demand. Apple's idea of streaming in levels in a linear fashion is fundamentally incompatible with open world games. The Witcher 3 for example requires 40gb of instant access storage. So don't expect anything like Metal Gear Solid V, The Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, The Division, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, or any other big game on the ATV, ever. Not that any of those would ever run on such a basic low end GPU with 2gb of RAM anyway of course.
The lack of an included controller is another dead end for gaming. If it's an optional extra, it will get next to no support. That's been true in gaming since the beginning, and it will never change. So all games will be written to work on the remote control (a remote control FFS!). Watching that plastic toy third person shooter shown the AI video was hilarious. A shooter with no strafing! What a farce.
This may well end up as a nice streaming box, well, if it gets apps which aren't exclusively US centric this time, but as a gaming device, it will do about as well as the Fire TV and the Ouya.
You really don't seem to get it at all do you?!?!?! Look, I have 4 Xbox 360's, a Xbox One, a PS3 and a Wii, and I think I do more gaming on my iPad!!! The Fire TV and the OUYA doesn't even remotely compare to Apple's iOS App Eco System!!! Game Consoles are generally for Hard core gamer's. I can tell you right now, there's far, far, far more Casual gamer's out there then Hard core gamer's. All then game's being played on Smartphones and Tablets, that casual gaming at that blows away gaming being done on consoles. The number of Smartphones alone in the market to Game consoles isn't even remotely close.
How many would like to continue a game their playing on their Smartphone onto the AppleTV? Maybe it's a All in one game that works on the iPhone, iPad and AppleTV. One LOW price works on 3 systems. I have fun on these simpler games. Sometimes having a bunch of buttons is just to much. Sometimes I miss the days of the Atari 2600. A basic stick and a single button.
The Apple TV is NOT competing against a High end game Console and it has no need to. Apple is not trying to get into that market where you sell at a loss and make up for it with game sales. Apple makes a PROFIT on the hardware right off the bat, like Nintendo, and takes their 30% cut for any game sales. Instead of paying $60+ for Xbox or Playstaion games, 99 Cents, to maybe $9.99. Sounds like a winner to me. Trying to compare Apple's Eco system to that of a Fire TV, OUYA, or even a ROKU which yes has some games and a motion controller, is just laughable.
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.
So you have a Box that is limiting Apps to 200 Megs, yet it can store at the smallest size 32 Gig's!!! What does that work out to? 300+ Apps you can install on the Apple TV if they were all MAX in size!!! 600+ Apps on the 64 Gig version.
So every time you play a game, you're downloading 1 Gig of Data maybe? Over and Over and Over again?
And this is why I can't understand why Apple didn't go with gigabit ethernet. The difference in cost is vanishingly small so why not?
Ya, I don't get this. It's like Apple had to go out of there way to find someone who still sold 10/100 chips because pretty much everything now is 10/100/1000 Ethernet. It's been around for a number of years now. it's not some new thing a year or so old. It's like Apple is trying to make 1 penny more in profit per device!!! Sure it add's up with millions sold, but really?
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.
So you have a Box that is limiting Apps to 200 Megs, yet it can store at the smallest size 32 Gig's!!! What does that work out to? 300+ Apps you can install on the Apple TV if they were all MAX in size!!! 600+ Apps on the 64 Gig version.
So every time you play a game, you're downloading 1 Gig of Data maybe? Over and Over and Over again?
The 1GB of data stays of course. A lot of it is data generated by the user whilst playing the game.
Thank you for the intro-to-computers lesson. Now maybe you can spend more than 2 sec to comprehend why there is no measurable way to benefit from Gigabit Ethernet on an AppleTV.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
Its not rocket science. It just takes a few seconds of critical thinking, and not being a complete ass.
200 Megs is the App size limit on the AppleTV. You already downloaded the 200 megs. What about maybe the other 1 Gig of the App you need to actually play the game? Every time you go to play that games you have to download 1 gig of Data. you already have that 200 megs. Big deal. A 1 Gig game is not that large. There's larger games then that on iOS!!!
So you need to adjust your times. 200 Loads up fast, it's the Level Loading and whatnot you'll be waiting around for as it's downloaded. You're also NOT going to get that Max 100 over Ethernet. if only,.... How much will this effect games? Maybe with Gigabit the game would load up in 10 Seconds instead of 30 seconds or longer. It just seems weak to not just have Gigabit. The cost would have been almost nothing. It's like Apple went out of their way to not have it. it's been around for years now.
You really don't seem to get it at all do you?!?!?! Look, I have 4 Xbox 360's, a Xbox One, a PS3 and a Wii, and I think I do more gaming on my iPad!!! The Fire TV and the OUYA doesn't even remotely compare to Apple's iOS App Eco System!!! Game Consoles are generally for Hard core gamer's. I can tell you right now, there's far, far, far more Casual gamer's out there then Hard core gamer's. All then game's being played on Smartphones and Tablets, that casual gaming at that blows away gaming being done on consoles. The number of Smartphones alone in the market to Game consoles isn't even remotely close.
How many would like to continue a game their playing on their Smartphone onto the AppleTV? Maybe it's a All in one game that works on the iPhone, iPad and AppleTV. One LOW price works on 3 systems. I have fun on these simpler games. Sometimes having a bunch of buttons is just to much. Sometimes I miss the days of the Atari 2600. A basic stick and a single button.
The Apple TV is NOT competing against a High end game Console and it has no need to. Apple is not trying to get into that market where you sell at a loss and make up for it with game sales. Apple makes a PROFIT on the hardware right off the bat, like Nintendo, and takes their 30% cut for any game sales. Instead of paying $60+ for Xbox or Playstaion games, 99 Cents, to maybe $9.99. Sounds like a winner to me. Trying to compare Apple's Eco system to that of a Fire TV, OUYA, or even a ROKU which yes has some games and a motion controller, is just laughable.
Calm down you angry man. My original post, if you bothered to read it, was to point out the absurdity of the original fanboy authored AI article, which explicitly compared the ATV to real game consoles.
So cool down and engage your brain before you pound out another infantile, ill educated rant. Oh and learn to spell too.
I'm personally really excited for the new Apple TV. The demo they showed at the conference showed a huge increase in functionality over the current model. I wonder if developers will experiment with adding more complex games though.
The point that many of us are trying to make is that there is *NO* service streaming/broadcasting uncompressed HD video - anywhere in the world. Uncompressed only lives in the studio production houses & dedicated high-speed links connecting that ecosystem.
The best consumer quality today for HD is Blu-Ray (of course delivered on disc), and it is simply "less compressed" compared with HD over the air/sat/cable/streaming. BR content, if "streamed", would be in the range from low 20 - mid 30 Mbps (H.264 most often) based on sources I have read. Which is about 2-3 higher bitrate than the best aforementioned cable/sat/streaming sources. That is why BR looks so much better - less compression artefacts.
So your contention that 100Mbps is still an issue for "uncompressed" streams is completely a red herring.
Comments
Is it just me or does anyone else find it cumbersome that you have to plug the remote in using a thunderbolt cable? Couldn't hey have created a stand for it to recharge or even better, have it recharge wirelessly somehow just by placing it on a recharging pad?
It charges using a Apple Lighting Cable!!! Also once it's charged, it supposedly has a 3 month life before needing another charge. It's not like my Harmony Remote that will only last around 3 days before I have to drop it back into it's charging station.
I would assume some 3rd party solutions will pop up for the remote. I really don't see it has a huge deal. Hell I have 3 AppleTV 3's and i don't think I even have a Apple Remote for any of them. They all use the Harmony Remotes that I own. This new one has built in IR, and so at least for the most part the Harmony Remote would still be used, other then times you would want to game or use Siri, then you'd have to use the Apple Remote.
ATV4 is huge, folks. This article touches on a number of fronts, but future iterations of tvOS will also include a fleshed out HomeKit, allowing the ATV4 to be a "hub" for all HomeKit devices. Imagine being able to lower lights in a room when a movie starts playing, or getting notifications from HomeKit devices on your TV while you use it. Very cool.
Now that Plex is CONFIRMED on ATV4, I'm getting one of these the day they ship.
1) Your incoming link speed isn't really a big deal if the end-to-end throughput is faster than your streaming content will need. Remember this is technically a stream, not a local download where you might require it to finish completely before you execute an install, edit a file, or need to move the physical data elsewhere. In terms of video, t's only there for local playback so I don't think it's going to affect any play back, but what about with Apple TV App Store app? I think the limiting facto there will still be its source, plus there is only a 200MiB limit on apps at this point. That said, I am surprised and hope this is changed by the time it's updated to support 4K UHD content, even if the file sizes will be no more than 2x their current size.
2) If you want the fastest connection to the Apple TV you can always use 802.11ac. My router is right next to my Apple TV but I'll still use a wired connection simply because I don't want another device on WiFi and because of point one, above.
It's kind of funny Apple only using 10/100 Ethernet. Like, is that Apple going out of it's way to find someone who still only makes a 10/100 only chip? I know Gigabit is really kind of pointless on AppleTV, but it just seems silly at this point in time. my house is wired up with Cat6. In the end, it's really pointless. But it's something for people to nick pick over. Wifi being faster is kind of funny but you'll never use that top Wifi speed either. There's not going to be 4K on this thing, not even on a future software update. Ethernet would still be fast enough, but there's only HDMI 1.4 being used, and 4K really needs HDMI 2.0!!! You really need the extra bandwidth there. Especially the Dynamic 4K. Also would the A8 processor support it? I don't think so. It should have gotten the A9 processor. This AppleTV seems llike it should have come out a year ago. Maybe has been in development for a couple years. It's already kind of behind the times in some area's. It's kind of strange the new iPhone's support 4K Recording for example, and yet you Can't Airplay 4K to a new AppleTV to watch that content?!?!?! Talking about a missed opportunity!!!!
4K streaming is a joke. It's so compressed it's laughable. You're not even getting real 1080P streaming. It's not Blu-Ray quality. Just like 4K streaming isn't anywhere near what Ultra Blu-Ray quality will look like when that starts coming out early next year. Still, not being able to watch your 4K movies on your AppleTV? I mean really Apple!!!!
Also the 200 Meg Limit for Apps on AppleTV. The Minimum storage size is 32 Gig's. Someone can do the math, but WHY? That's like being able to install 300+ Apps onto the smallest AppleTV and 600+ on the larger one for $50 more. Plus now you're also forced to download a large amount of content over and over and over and over and over again every time to play the same game or whatever. It just seems way to small of a size limit.
4K won't be coming to these AppleTV's!!! I can be 99.9999% sure of that!!! I'm still buying one of course! I still think 4K is pointless unless you have a 150" screen in your house! 4K is what you're seeing going to a Movie Theater and watching on a HUGE screen.
Your network speed determines the max speed through that network. 100Mbps, minus network overhead results in a max of 90Mbps through that network.
There is no speed that your streaming needs when there is more than one person in the house. So it depends on what everyone is doing at the time. 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. From what you're saying, no one should want a really fast connection.
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.
I wired my house with Cat6 Ethernet when I got it. it's the best thing ever. I have a 24-port Gigabit Switch in my closet. I currently get 105Mbps service from Comcast. Still, 10/100 on the AppleTV is just fine for streaming. game downloading?!?! Wait and see. Downloading a large game over and over and over again every time I want to play is sucky as it is!!!
I don't think it's a HUGE deal. But it kind of looks like this AppleTV should have been released a year ago!!! These should have had the A9 processor, and then Supported 4K, so people could Airplay 4K to their AppleTV's. Plus supported HDML2.0 Not just 1.4, which is really going to keep this one from ever seeing 4K in a software update. Gigabit Ethernet would have been nice. It's also like Apple had to go out of their way to find someone who still sold 10/100 chips ONLY because most everything made now has Gigabit. it just seems still to not have it at this point in time.
It'll be a couple more years and then a new AppleTV that supports 4K with a 10/100/1000 Ethernet port.
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 get it also, but he has a point. For streaming content the Ethernet port is fast enough!!! For gaming, maybe not so much!!! Because of what is really a TINY size limit of 200 Megs. That just seems strange for a Device that's 32 Gig's in size at minimum to 64 Gig's!! That's Hundreds of Apps and games on the smallest one. it also means you will be having to download a lot of game content on the fly. The faster it loads, the better the gameplay!!!
It's also like Apple went out of their way to find someone who still only sold a 10/100 Ethernet chip.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it cumbersome that you have to plug the remote in using a thunderbolt cable? Couldn't hey have created a stand for it to recharge or even better, have it recharge wirelessly somehow just by placing it on a recharging pad?
Not at all. This way it can still be used while charging. BTW - It's Lightning not Thunderbolt.
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.
I've stood right next to my ASUS Router and the max my iPhone 6 seemed to get with my Internet connection was like 47Mbps!!! While my Wired Windows PC is showing me 126Mbps for my 105Mbps Comcast service!!!!
So point blank range for Wifi was less then half wired speed!!!! I'm sure it's really not much different with the AppleTV. The Odds of being point blank range of your Wifi Router, Slim. Speed drops off fast. A few walls and it'll start crawling. Wifi has it's place for things that move from place to place. Cell Phone, Tablet, laptop, etc. Things that just sit there always should be WIRED if at all possible. To me, Wifi is of last resort. Wired is still Far, Far faster, even at distances and far more reliable. Wifi works, but I have much better results wiring it up!!!
At work, I'm on my iPad trying to stream Netflix, and there's a choice of a couple of different Wifi routers I have access do a wall or so away. I have Streaming issues with Netflix that are really Annoying at times to almost be unusable, even though there's FAST Internet service!!! I was doing the whole Media Center thing. PC running Media Center and then Xbox 360's as Extenders. While there was a LIMIT of 1 Media Center Extender at once streaming HD content over Wifi, You can do 4-5 with a WIRED connection. I've now moved to a Tivo Setup, using a Tivo Roamio OTA and a couple Tivo Mini's The Mini's won't even work with Wifi, Only wired Networks, Ethernet or Coax cable you may already have running in your house. If you want a good experience, Wifi is not it.
Wifi Works alright. It's getting better, but it's no replacement for a wired Network. If you're around a area with a bunch of others Apartments, Houses with Wifi Networks also, it can really get bad. Getting on 5Ghz helps from 2.4, but that's not going to last either as 5Ghz gets saturated.
The PS4 has been on the market for almost two years. At this point in its life cycle, it's already sold 50% more than the PS2 had at the two year mark. The PS2 was the most successful console of all time. The Xbox One is also performing far better than the Xbox 360 was at the two year mark. So traditional games consoles are in rude health.
Gaming on the new Apple TV is, to be frank, a joke. The GPU is comically weak, far weaker than what was found in the 10 year old Xbox 360 and PS3. Whilst it's true that Apple's GPUs get quicker each year, there's no guarantee that the Apple TV will get the new chips (that it's launching with an already antiquated chip is telling), the gulf between anything Apple offer and the GPUs in the XO and PS4 are gigantic.
Then there are other factors, such as RAM (PS4 and XO have 8gb), storage (500gb hard drives and blu-ray discs, vs 32gb and an utterly bizarre 200mb app size limit), and controllers (a standard, included in the box pad with all the required buttons and sticks, vs an even worse than the WiiMote remote with optional third party pads which will get little dev support).
Even if the GPU wasn't so underpowered, the issue of storage alone is a game killer. Many big console titles are open world, and so need access to the entire map on demand. Apple's idea of streaming in levels in a linear fashion is fundamentally incompatible with open world games. The Witcher 3 for example requires 40gb of instant access storage. So don't expect anything like Metal Gear Solid V, The Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, The Division, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, or any other big game on the ATV, ever. Not that any of those would ever run on such a basic low end GPU with 2gb of RAM anyway of course.
The lack of an included controller is another dead end for gaming. If it's an optional extra, it will get next to no support. That's been true in gaming since the beginning, and it will never change. So all games will be written to work on the remote control (a remote control FFS!). Watching that plastic toy third person shooter shown the AI video was hilarious. A shooter with no strafing! What a farce.
This may well end up as a nice streaming box, well, if it gets apps which aren't exclusively US centric this time, but as a gaming device, it will do about as well as the Fire TV and the Ouya.
You really don't seem to get it at all do you?!?!?! Look, I have 4 Xbox 360's, a Xbox One, a PS3 and a Wii, and I think I do more gaming on my iPad!!! The Fire TV and the OUYA doesn't even remotely compare to Apple's iOS App Eco System!!! Game Consoles are generally for Hard core gamer's. I can tell you right now, there's far, far, far more Casual gamer's out there then Hard core gamer's. All then game's being played on Smartphones and Tablets, that casual gaming at that blows away gaming being done on consoles. The number of Smartphones alone in the market to Game consoles isn't even remotely close.
How many would like to continue a game their playing on their Smartphone onto the AppleTV? Maybe it's a All in one game that works on the iPhone, iPad and AppleTV. One LOW price works on 3 systems. I have fun on these simpler games. Sometimes having a bunch of buttons is just to much. Sometimes I miss the days of the Atari 2600. A basic stick and a single button.
The Apple TV is NOT competing against a High end game Console and it has no need to. Apple is not trying to get into that market where you sell at a loss and make up for it with game sales. Apple makes a PROFIT on the hardware right off the bat, like Nintendo, and takes their 30% cut for any game sales. Instead of paying $60+ for Xbox or Playstaion games, 99 Cents, to maybe $9.99. Sounds like a winner to me. Trying to compare Apple's Eco system to that of a Fire TV, OUYA, or even a ROKU which yes has some games and a motion controller, is just laughable.
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.
So you have a Box that is limiting Apps to 200 Megs, yet it can store at the smallest size 32 Gig's!!! What does that work out to? 300+ Apps you can install on the Apple TV if they were all MAX in size!!! 600+ Apps on the 64 Gig version.
So every time you play a game, you're downloading 1 Gig of Data maybe? Over and Over and Over again?
And this is why I can't understand why Apple didn't go with gigabit ethernet. The difference in cost is vanishingly small so why not?
Ya, I don't get this. It's like Apple had to go out of there way to find someone who still sold 10/100 chips because pretty much everything now is 10/100/1000 Ethernet. It's been around for a number of years now. it's not some new thing a year or so old. It's like Apple is trying to make 1 penny more in profit per device!!! Sure it add's up with millions sold, but really?
The 1GB of data stays of course. A lot of it is data generated by the user whilst playing the game.
Thank you for the intro-to-computers lesson. Now maybe you can spend more than 2 sec to comprehend why there is no measurable way to benefit from Gigabit Ethernet on an AppleTV.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
Its not rocket science. It just takes a few seconds of critical thinking, and not being a complete ass.
200 Megs is the App size limit on the AppleTV. You already downloaded the 200 megs. What about maybe the other 1 Gig of the App you need to actually play the game? Every time you go to play that games you have to download 1 gig of Data. you already have that 200 megs. Big deal. A 1 Gig game is not that large. There's larger games then that on iOS!!!
So you need to adjust your times. 200 Loads up fast, it's the Level Loading and whatnot you'll be waiting around for as it's downloaded. You're also NOT going to get that Max 100 over Ethernet. if only,.... How much will this effect games? Maybe with Gigabit the game would load up in 10 Seconds instead of 30 seconds or longer. It just seems weak to not just have Gigabit. The cost would have been almost nothing. It's like Apple went out of their way to not have it. it's been around for years now.
Calm down you angry man. My original post, if you bothered to read it, was to point out the absurdity of the original fanboy authored AI article, which explicitly compared the ATV to real game consoles.
So cool down and engage your brain before you pound out another infantile, ill educated rant. Oh and learn to spell too.
Thanks for the correction. I can never remember the connector name...
Wasn't aware that the charge would last 3 months. If that's the case then there's no issue with having it charge via cable instead of a nice cradle...
One of the biggest games that will help sell the Apple TV as a gaming console will come from Microsoft.
Minecraft.
FOR uncompressed. For anything else it’s fine.
Heaven’s sake.
Again, you're not getting it. Apps are limited to 200 MB.
Is that specific to the Apple TV? Because it’s not true anywhere else.
FOR uncompressed. For anything else it’s fine.
Watch a lot of uncompressed video on your Apple TV, do you?
FOR uncompressed. For anything else it’s fine.
The point that many of us are trying to make is that there is *NO* service streaming/broadcasting uncompressed HD video - anywhere in the world. Uncompressed only lives in the studio production houses & dedicated high-speed links connecting that ecosystem.
The best consumer quality today for HD is Blu-Ray (of course delivered on disc), and it is simply "less compressed" compared with HD over the air/sat/cable/streaming. BR content, if "streamed", would be in the range from low 20 - mid 30 Mbps (H.264 most often) based on sources I have read. Which is about 2-3 higher bitrate than the best aforementioned cable/sat/streaming sources. That is why BR looks so much better - less compression artefacts.
So your contention that 100Mbps is still an issue for "uncompressed" streams is completely a red herring.