if that's the only reason you're hanging onto two devices, you may wanna try beaming Amazon content to ATV via AirPlay. works very well, just finished Hand of God this way.
After the great reviews of AirPlay I'll be giving it a try but not sure the wife will want to mess with it, especially if it ties up the phone.
Something it failed to mention: ISP data cap at 250-300GB is still reality crippling all of these streaming devices. 4K support? Who gives the shit at this point? After a few movies streamed, you're done for a month. Also, the internet services are not really reliable. My Comcast service was intermittently down which caused my streaming experience sucked and made me stay with Dish until now.
then again I'm uncapped with a service that rarely drops below 100Mbps. So for 4K streaming I should be ok ymmv
My guess is that instead of putting s check mark next to another feature that's not going to effect the majority of consumers, they focused on every other aspect of the device: usability.
Assuming the HDMI components are up to speed, it's probably something they can provide in an update. Remember that they want developers to produce their content before Christmas. If they had to produce 4K assets, the games could be delayed. Wait until you get market penetration and the update at WWDC.
Apple TV uses HDMI 1.4, so there are limitations on 4K output.
The new Amazon Fire TV has HDMI 2.0, but it only supports 4K @ 30fps.
The Shield TV has HDMI 2.0a and can support 4K @ 60fps with HDR.
People who bought an iPhone 6S who want to watch the 4K videos they're going to be shooting, and share them with a room full of people during the holidays and other gatherings in 4K. People who edit 4K videos on iMovie, and would like to show those to an audience in 4K.
There's no reason 4k video can't be down sampled and then sent out as a 1080p stream. This is digital content we're talking about. The A8 is more than capable of doing this in real-time.
Has anybody else looked at the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies for the Amazon Fire?
Basically, they let Amazon slurp data on literally everything you do with the device and while it has some restrictions on them sharing it, it has absolutely no restrictions about how they use it internally. If it weren't for that, it would be reasonably compelling.
As far as Apple TV goes, the lack of 4K streaming removes it as an option for me. I know Apple likes to stay off the bleeding edge on technologies that aren't core differentiators for them (4G speeds, etc.), but in this case it's just silly. The additional costs are minimal (especially in a $200 - $250 device; you don't have to game at 4K - just stream it), the technology is mature, and they just made a big deal about their premiere video capture device (the iPhone) now supporting it.
Something it failed to mention: ISP data cap at 250-300GB is still reality crippling all of these streaming devices. 4K support? Who gives the shit at this point? After a few movies streamed, you're done for a month. Also, the internet services are not really reliable. My Comcast service was intermittently down which caused my streaming experience sucked and made me stay with Dish until now.
You hit the nail on the head, 4k is nice but there is no internet connection that won't cap with a few movies, mine through centurylink is 250 gig
and I'm done. I don't think people realize just how stupid this 4k thing is. Don't even go there with netflix 4k, it is not true 4k. not even close.
The new apple tv does support 4k, it even has the hdmi 1.4 output to do so and the A8 does for sure, and the A8 also supports the HEVC codec (H.265). It is already used on the iPhone 6 for FaceTime video. All apple would have to do is turn 4k on in software. But like you said what is the point, with data caps on dsl and cable 4k streaming is a pipe dream for now.
My guess is that instead of putting s check mark next to another feature that's not going to effect the majority of consumers, they focused on every other aspect of the device: usability.
Assuming the HDMI components are up to speed, it's probably something they can provide in an update. Remember that they want developers to produce their content before Christmas. If they had to produce 4K assets, the games could be delayed. Wait until you get market penetration and the update at WWDC.
Exactly! The A8 supports 4k! It also supports HEVC (H.265). HEVC is used in FaceTime video on the iPhone 6. This is the same codec that 4k is compressed in. And will be the standard for the new HEVC blu ray players. As for the hdmi issues the new apple tv supports hdmi 1.4 which supports 4k output.
But at this point streaming 4k is not a reality. What netflix offers is not true full resolution 4k. it is garbage compared to true 4k at 3840x 2160.
All apple will have to do like you said is turn it on when the support for it is warranted and HEVC truly becomes mainstream. Which sadly to say right now it is not.
Although the A8 may be capable of showing 4K video it may not be capable of driving a 4K video game at 60 fps. We will probably see 4K video and 4K games in the next Apple TV update approx. 3 years from now which will probably have a A10 processor. By then there will be more 4K content and internet speeds will be faster. With 4K video games it will actually surpass the XboxOne and PS4 however they will be simpler games and not AAA games.
The device has already been on the market for months. Obviously it's not going to sell as much as a Roku, Fire TV or ATV, but it doesn't need to sell more to be a better device. It also has a lot to offer if the user is interested in gaming.
The Shield TV isn't so great for gaming. On paper it looks good, but developers aren't flocking to it with titles to use that power since it doesn't have the sales of another platform to match. So like the Ouya before it, it will fail as a gaming console because MOST of the games are just ports of run-of-the-mill Android games, which are inferior. There will be more Metal equipped games within a month after the ATV comes out then there will be Shield TV games after a full year.
And Nvidia is lying on their chart. They list the performance of the Shield TV compared to other devices, but they are cherry-picking certain GPU benchmarks, which is misleading since there is so little software to actually take advantage of that performance. Further, they're ignoring the CPU side where even the A8 is competitive against it. And we don't have any idea what the performance of the A8 in the ATV will be since it's not constrained by battery power or heat dissipation (like a phone would be).
They're also lying when they claim "console quality" graphics. The Shield TV does have great graphics, but like the ATV they're still far behind the latest console. And for people who only play AAA titles on the PS4 or Xbox One it doesn't matter if a competing platform has a GPU that offers 70% or 30% of the performance - it's enough to make it a non-starter for people into those things. So in the end the Shield TV will be for casual gaming just like the Apple TV, albeit with better graphics on a very small number of titles.
Apple TV uses HDMI 1.4, so there are limitations on 4K output.
The new Amazon Fire TV has HDMI 2.0, but it only supports 4K @ 30fps.
The Shield TV has HDMI 2.0a and can support 4K @ 60fps with HDR.
Apple tv is limited to 30fps on 4k too with hdmi 1.4. But most movies are 24fps. Unless your talking Ones shot with a RED camera like the hobbit series, those are full 60fps.
Although the A8 may be capable of showing 4K video it may not be capable of driving a 4K video game at 60 fps. We will probably see 4K video and 4K games in the next Apple TV update approx. 3 years from now which will probably have a A10 processor. By then there will be more 4K content and internet speeds will be faster. With 4K video games it will actually surpass the XboxOne and PS4 however they will be simpler games and not AAA games.
Its not so much faster internet it is bandwidth caps, internet providers are greedy with there pipes. I have an 80Mb connection which gets that kind of speed reliably but my download would be capped playing 4k after 4 or 5 movies. Unless ISP's loose the caps wide spread adoption is just not possible. My only alternative is to jump to an unlimited business connection for $300.00 a month and it is just not worth it to me.
I used a Roku at a Bed and Breakfast. It was very slow to change menus and Netflix app was very slow and cumbersome to browse movies. It worked best if you knew the name of the movie. Then we stayed at another bed and breakfast that had AppleTV. What a difference! That experience convinced me to get AppleTV....
This preview is missing a very important component of the future of the new Apple TV: a streaming TV service.
While Roku, Amazon and Google fight over who has the best access to Netflix, Apple will be offering access to live television and disrupt the cord cutter movement. Live TV, gaming, photos, apps, music and home automaton, all in one box. That's gonna be tough to match.
Apple tv is limited to 30fps on 4k too with hdmi 1.4. But most movies are 24fps. Unless your talking Ones shot with a RED camera like the hobbit series, those are full 60fps.
Hobbit was shot at 48 fps if I'm not mistaken. 4K HFS is not ready for primetime.
The Shield TV isn't so great for gaming. On paper it looks good, but developers aren't flocking to it with titles to use that power since it doesn't have the sales of another platform to match. So like the Ouya before it, it will fail as a gaming console because MOST of the games are just ports of run-of-the-mill Android games, which are inferior. There will be more Metal equipped games within a month after the ATV comes out then there will be Shield TV games after a full year.
And Nvidia is lying on their chart. They list the performance of the Shield TV compared to other devices, but they are cherry-picking certain GPU benchmarks, which is misleading since there is so little software to actually take advantage of that performance. Further, they're ignoring the CPU side where even the A8 is competitive against it. And we don't have any idea what the performance of the A8 in the ATV will be since it's not constrained by battery power or heat dissipation (like a phone would be).
They're also lying when they claim "console quality" graphics. The Shield TV does have great graphics, but like the ATV they're still far behind the latest console. And for people who only play AAA titles on the PS4 or Xbox One it doesn't matter if a competing platform has a GPU that offers 70% or 30% of the performance - it's enough to make it a non-starter for people into those things. So in the end the Shield TV will be for casual gaming just like the Apple TV, albeit with better graphics on a very small number of titles.
The Shield has many ports of PC titles like Half Life 2, Resident Evil 5 or Borderlands: Pre Sequel.
During the reveal, nVidia was showing Crysis 3 running on the hardware.
Native titles are likely the least appealing factor for gamers. The ability to stream titles from a PC with a GeForce GPU, or use nVidia's GRID game streaming service, are the areas where it shines. GRID's service, which doesn't require you owning a gaming PC, can run games at very high settings, much higher than a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.
As for SoC performance, the GPU's capabilities are well beyond what GFXBench 3.0 measures. It uses a Maxwell GPU which is capable of many things that Imagination's PowerVR 6XT (Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV) cannot do. CPU performance is still higher than the A8's.
As a media player? It's futureproof for the years to come. The next step up would be a HTPC.
Can anyone make any sense out of this paragraph? ----------------------- "Thanks to Apple's popularity and financial muscle, there's no shortage of third-party apps on offer %u2014 with some major exceptions though, like Amazon, Google Play, and Sling TV. People with an investment in any of those companies should probably look elsewhere. These also aren't "true" apps %u2014 Apple has to push them out itself, and you won't be playing any games or using custom media interfaces like Plex." ------------------------
"There's no shortage of third-party apps on offer with some major exceptions though, like Amazon, Google Play, and Sling TV?" Those companies are "third-part apps" ? That can't be what he wanted to say right? I can't make any sense of that whole paragraph. "These also aren't "true" apps" what apps is he referring to? Apps on the other platforms? But why does Apple then has to push them out itself? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense what so ever.
If someone can decode it please do so. I love reading about Apple TV.
Comments
for all those specs, it doesn't do my prime use cases -- iTunes content, and AirPlay. to me that makes it useless.
with AirPlay I can play back content from any provider on ATV.
It's running Android TV, so there are apps that turn the device into an AirPlay receiver.
I think the author was getting at the right thing here, despite the various devices, it really comes down to the user's needs.
The A8 processor appears to be perfectly capable of 4K video: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/21/apples-a8-soc-reportedly-capable-of-4k-video-output-may-pave-way-for-ultra-high-resolution-apple-tv
My guess is that instead of putting s check mark next to another feature that's not going to effect the majority of consumers, they focused on every other aspect of the device: usability.
Assuming the HDMI components are up to speed, it's probably something they can provide in an update. Remember that they want developers to produce their content before Christmas. If they had to produce 4K assets, the games could be delayed. Wait until you get market penetration and the update at WWDC.
Apple TV uses HDMI 1.4, so there are limitations on 4K output.
The new Amazon Fire TV has HDMI 2.0, but it only supports 4K @ 30fps.
The Shield TV has HDMI 2.0a and can support 4K @ 60fps with HDR.
If Apple wants to implement 4K video across its ecosystem of products, then 16 GB ain't gonna cut it in the iPhones. Just saying.
If Apple wants to implement 4K video across its ecosystem of products, then 16 GB ain't gonna cut it in the iPhones. Just saying.
That horse is dead, stop beating it. There are other models with more storage.
Obviously if someone plans on shooting a lot of 4k video, they are not going to buy the 16GB model.
People who bought an iPhone 6S who want to watch the 4K videos they're going to be shooting, and share them with a room full of people during the holidays and other gatherings in 4K. People who edit 4K videos on iMovie, and would like to show those to an audience in 4K.
There's no reason 4k video can't be down sampled and then sent out as a 1080p stream. This is digital content we're talking about. The A8 is more than capable of doing this in real-time.
Has anybody else looked at the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies for the Amazon Fire?
Basically, they let Amazon slurp data on literally everything you do with the device and while it has some restrictions on them sharing it, it has absolutely no restrictions about how they use it internally. If it weren't for that, it would be reasonably compelling.
As far as Apple TV goes, the lack of 4K streaming removes it as an option for me. I know Apple likes to stay off the bleeding edge on technologies that aren't core differentiators for them (4G speeds, etc.), but in this case it's just silly. The additional costs are minimal (especially in a $200 - $250 device; you don't have to game at 4K - just stream it), the technology is mature, and they just made a big deal about their premiere video capture device (the iPhone) now supporting it.
Something it failed to mention: ISP data cap at 250-300GB is still reality crippling all of these streaming devices. 4K support? Who gives the shit at this point? After a few movies streamed, you're done for a month. Also, the internet services are not really reliable. My Comcast service was intermittently down which caused my streaming experience sucked and made me stay with Dish until now.
You hit the nail on the head, 4k is nice but there is no internet connection that won't cap with a few movies, mine through centurylink is 250 gig
and I'm done. I don't think people realize just how stupid this 4k thing is. Don't even go there with netflix 4k, it is not true 4k. not even close.
The new apple tv does support 4k, it even has the hdmi 1.4 output to do so and the A8 does for sure, and the A8 also supports the HEVC codec (H.265). It is already used on the iPhone 6 for FaceTime video. All apple would have to do is turn 4k on in software. But like you said what is the point, with data caps on dsl and cable 4k streaming is a pipe dream for now.
The A8 processor appears to be perfectly capable of 4K video: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/21/apples-a8-soc-reportedly-capable-of-4k-video-output-may-pave-way-for-ultra-high-resolution-apple-tv
My guess is that instead of putting s check mark next to another feature that's not going to effect the majority of consumers, they focused on every other aspect of the device: usability.
Assuming the HDMI components are up to speed, it's probably something they can provide in an update. Remember that they want developers to produce their content before Christmas. If they had to produce 4K assets, the games could be delayed. Wait until you get market penetration and the update at WWDC.
Exactly! The A8 supports 4k! It also supports HEVC (H.265). HEVC is used in FaceTime video on the iPhone 6. This is the same codec that 4k is compressed in. And will be the standard for the new HEVC blu ray players. As for the hdmi issues the new apple tv supports hdmi 1.4 which supports 4k output.
But at this point streaming 4k is not a reality. What netflix offers is not true full resolution 4k. it is garbage compared to true 4k at 3840x 2160.
All apple will have to do like you said is turn it on when the support for it is warranted and HEVC truly becomes mainstream. Which sadly to say right now it is not.
then again I'm uncapped with a service that rarely drops below 100Mbps. So for 4K streaming I should be ok ymmv
Your lucky to have that kind of connection but I would say that 80% of the world does not.
Although the A8 may be capable of showing 4K video it may not be capable of driving a 4K video game at 60 fps. We will probably see 4K video and 4K games in the next Apple TV update approx. 3 years from now which will probably have a A10 processor. By then there will be more 4K content and internet speeds will be faster. With 4K video games it will actually surpass the XboxOne and PS4 however they will be simpler games and not AAA games.
The device has already been on the market for months. Obviously it's not going to sell as much as a Roku, Fire TV or ATV, but it doesn't need to sell more to be a better device. It also has a lot to offer if the user is interested in gaming.
The Shield TV isn't so great for gaming. On paper it looks good, but developers aren't flocking to it with titles to use that power since it doesn't have the sales of another platform to match. So like the Ouya before it, it will fail as a gaming console because MOST of the games are just ports of run-of-the-mill Android games, which are inferior. There will be more Metal equipped games within a month after the ATV comes out then there will be Shield TV games after a full year.
And Nvidia is lying on their chart. They list the performance of the Shield TV compared to other devices, but they are cherry-picking certain GPU benchmarks, which is misleading since there is so little software to actually take advantage of that performance. Further, they're ignoring the CPU side where even the A8 is competitive against it. And we don't have any idea what the performance of the A8 in the ATV will be since it's not constrained by battery power or heat dissipation (like a phone would be).
They're also lying when they claim "console quality" graphics. The Shield TV does have great graphics, but like the ATV they're still far behind the latest console. And for people who only play AAA titles on the PS4 or Xbox One it doesn't matter if a competing platform has a GPU that offers 70% or 30% of the performance - it's enough to make it a non-starter for people into those things. So in the end the Shield TV will be for casual gaming just like the Apple TV, albeit with better graphics on a very small number of titles.
Apple TV uses HDMI 1.4, so there are limitations on 4K output.
The new Amazon Fire TV has HDMI 2.0, but it only supports 4K @ 30fps.
The Shield TV has HDMI 2.0a and can support 4K @ 60fps with HDR.
Apple tv is limited to 30fps on 4k too with hdmi 1.4. But most movies are 24fps. Unless your talking Ones shot with a RED camera like the hobbit series, those are full 60fps.
Although the A8 may be capable of showing 4K video it may not be capable of driving a 4K video game at 60 fps. We will probably see 4K video and 4K games in the next Apple TV update approx. 3 years from now which will probably have a A10 processor. By then there will be more 4K content and internet speeds will be faster. With 4K video games it will actually surpass the XboxOne and PS4 however they will be simpler games and not AAA games.
Its not so much faster internet it is bandwidth caps, internet providers are greedy with there pipes. I have an 80Mb connection which gets that kind of speed reliably but my download would be capped playing 4k after 4 or 5 movies. Unless ISP's loose the caps wide spread adoption is just not possible. My only alternative is to jump to an unlimited business connection for $300.00 a month and it is just not worth it to me.
I used a Roku at a Bed and Breakfast. It was very slow to change menus and Netflix app was very slow and cumbersome to browse movies. It worked best if you knew the name of the movie. Then we stayed at another bed and breakfast that had AppleTV. What a difference! That experience convinced me to get AppleTV....
While Roku, Amazon and Google fight over who has the best access to Netflix, Apple will be offering access to live television and disrupt the cord cutter movement.
Live TV, gaming, photos, apps, music and home automaton, all in one box. That's gonna be tough to match.
Apple tv is limited to 30fps on 4k too with hdmi 1.4. But most movies are 24fps. Unless your talking Ones shot with a RED camera like the hobbit series, those are full 60fps.
Hobbit was shot at 48 fps if I'm not mistaken. 4K HFS is not ready for primetime.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/11/the-reason-why-many-found-the-hobbit-at-48-fps-an-unexpectedly-painful-journey/
The Shield TV isn't so great for gaming. On paper it looks good, but developers aren't flocking to it with titles to use that power since it doesn't have the sales of another platform to match. So like the Ouya before it, it will fail as a gaming console because MOST of the games are just ports of run-of-the-mill Android games, which are inferior. There will be more Metal equipped games within a month after the ATV comes out then there will be Shield TV games after a full year.
And Nvidia is lying on their chart. They list the performance of the Shield TV compared to other devices, but they are cherry-picking certain GPU benchmarks, which is misleading since there is so little software to actually take advantage of that performance. Further, they're ignoring the CPU side where even the A8 is competitive against it. And we don't have any idea what the performance of the A8 in the ATV will be since it's not constrained by battery power or heat dissipation (like a phone would be).
They're also lying when they claim "console quality" graphics. The Shield TV does have great graphics, but like the ATV they're still far behind the latest console. And for people who only play AAA titles on the PS4 or Xbox One it doesn't matter if a competing platform has a GPU that offers 70% or 30% of the performance - it's enough to make it a non-starter for people into those things. So in the end the Shield TV will be for casual gaming just like the Apple TV, albeit with better graphics on a very small number of titles.
The Shield has many ports of PC titles like Half Life 2, Resident Evil 5 or Borderlands: Pre Sequel.
During the reveal, nVidia was showing Crysis 3 running on the hardware.
Native titles are likely the least appealing factor for gamers. The ability to stream titles from a PC with a GeForce GPU, or use nVidia's GRID game streaming service, are the areas where it shines. GRID's service, which doesn't require you owning a gaming PC, can run games at very high settings, much higher than a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.
As for SoC performance, the GPU's capabilities are well beyond what GFXBench 3.0 measures. It uses a Maxwell GPU which is capable of many things that Imagination's PowerVR 6XT (Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV) cannot do. CPU performance is still higher than the A8's.
As a media player? It's futureproof for the years to come. The next step up would be a HTPC.
-----------------------
"Thanks to Apple's popularity and financial muscle, there's no shortage of third-party apps on offer %u2014 with some major exceptions though, like Amazon, Google Play, and Sling TV. People with an investment in any of those companies should probably look elsewhere. These also aren't "true" apps %u2014 Apple has to push them out itself, and you won't be playing any games or using custom media interfaces like Plex."
------------------------
"There's no shortage of third-party apps on offer with some major exceptions though, like Amazon, Google Play, and Sling TV?" Those companies are "third-part apps" ? That can't be what he wanted to say right? I can't make any sense of that whole paragraph.
"These also aren't "true" apps" what apps is he referring to? Apps on the other platforms? But why does Apple then has to push them out itself? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense what so ever.
If someone can decode it please do so. I love reading about Apple TV.