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.
If it doesn't meet you needs for the price IT IS NOT A BETTER DEVICE. Got that.
Better than native, worse than real. Just like the upconverter DVD players for 480 to 1080 and just like we’ll have to deal with for the next few years until 2160 is more widespread. What more to be said.
Well, it's not "all the same", because our eyes haven't been upgraded...
I have a first gen Chromecast and am finding it pretty useless for most purposes. It often stutters badly on playback - and if it loses touch with a program, has to start from the beginning with no way to go back to where it crapped out.
And scrubbing in general is often either lacking or frustrating.
Further, if I switch to other apps and then back to the one I'm casting from, I often have lost the ability to stop or change the content running on the cast. Meaning I have to sometimes reboot the TV to regain control of the screen.
Guess I got my $35 worth, but I'm using it less and less as time goes on. So since this ?TV seems like the best one we're going to get for likely two years or so and now that I've been a cord cutter for over a year, seems like a no-brainer....
This all assumes you are viewing the same size screen in all cases. 4K makes larger screens work better. 4K also allows for a wider color space and better dynamic range. 4K is a step on the way to 8K, 8K is IMAX quality. Here is a better comparison
Unless your telling me your going to get a streamed very lightly compressed 4K off the net (you're not), that difference right now is pretty close to zero (to negative); streamed 4K vs off the air (OTA) 1080P is not looking any better at all.
If you see it off the disk (or hard disk), yeah. better with a GOOD 4K high gamut, high dynamic range, high contrast set, which most cheap 4K set are not.
So your 2 device solution is another 2 device solution?
incorrect. one device on my tv. one iPad on the coffee table per usual. so if you count that as a device the in your scenario it's three devices. mine is still better since its one less and no dicking around with inputs.
You really believe it's going to be an Apple exclusive? The live TV providers are going to want to be on all the streamers/platforms to maximize revenue.
I agree that major streamers will all eventually have some kind of live TV streaming. I'm not sure in what form as live TV does not have a whole lot to offer. Apart from sports, special events and news is there any reason why scheduled delivery of shows is required? Any reason to have 30% of the time interrupted by commercials! There are really fine TV shows at this time. If the cable providers just vanished people might really enjoy TV.
Who knows, maybe Apple will come up with an Apple Video service based on the iTunes Store video offerings. Apple is probably the only one in a position to really disrupt the way we watch TV.
The TV networks probably have a strong hand now. It will only diminish with time. People put up with TV. There's no great love for the current delivery process. It's kind of ridiculous.
So far the Fall lineup looks interesting. What I hate about the networks is how quickly they'll cancel a really good show. Sometimes it takes a while before a show builds a devout following. If you're going to have a police show then give it a twist like Public Morals on TNT, quite frankly I'm tired of the multiple Law and Orders, and the CSIs. That's just being lazy, and playing it safe, but we as viewers suffer.
Yeah, the reason I'm not getting an ATV 3 is that tying up my iPhone or iPad with Airplay does not sound appealing, and for streaming I need Ethernet these days.
have you ever even used an iOS device? beaming a video to ATV doesn't "tie up" the iPad. you're free to use it however you wish as it streams.
try harder, guys.
I've yet to hear any other solution that allows all content sources -- i.e., iTunes content on, say, a Firestick or whatever.
You really believe it's going to be an Apple exclusive? The live TV providers are going to want to be on all the streamers/platforms to maximize revenue.
And yet it’ll be Apple’s deal, negotiated by Apple alone. Apple’s the only one that would get them meaningful revenue, anyway.
It’s not like the record companies copied the iTunes deal terms over to other companies.
It will probably use the same unified search technique available in iOS 9 so app developers are free to implement it. So right now search works with the apps Eddy Cue mentioned, but by the end of the year you will find more support.
again that's conjecture stated as fact. hopefully it will be the case, but that wasn't presented as such in the keynote. he just said more coming. the original statement published as fact isn't accurate -- it's not known that simply having an app on ATV = unified search results.
I really like the new Apple TV but having an Xbox One that pretty much does everything that it can, sans AirPlay and Siri and things that it can't do like control my entire entertainment center and live TV which as a cable cutter the OTA antenna works well to pick up the local stations and doesn't cost a dime monthly except the cost to purchase the antenna and adapter which is 100 bucks, but it's a 600 dollar setup since I have a Kinect with mine and as history has shown gamers want consoles to play games mainly which is why Kinect is no longer bundled together.
I hope that a new iteration of the Apple TV has an Ethernet port and HDMI in with an consistent UI that can control my entire entertainment center and tv experience and keep the price at 150. That I think will be the death kneel for every other streaming box, because right now it has nothing that truly stands out imo.
That's true but tell me this: for anyone who championed 4K in this thread.. what TV do you have? How big the screen? How far away from the screen you sit?
You really believe it's going to be an Apple exclusive? The live TV providers are going to want to be on all the streamers/platforms to maximize revenue.
Well, since Sony has a TV streaming service that's exclusive to the PS4, yes, I believe the streaming service Apple is working on will be exclusive to Apple TV.
Another piece of SNAFU tech from Apple. With Steve gone, Apple are now just retreading historical blind paths. Not a whiff of innovative thinking from the current hardware and software teams. Worse, a fragmenting product range with no overview.
nonsense. another traveler from a parallel dimension, one where Apple isn't leading the entire PC and mobile industries with its innovative hardware and software.
if you think Apple doesn't have a product road map ("overview"), then you haven't been paying attention long enough.
at least you have the word "trollin" in your username.
That's true but tell me this: for anyone who championed 4K in this thread.. what TV do you have? How big the screen? How far away from the screen you sit?
Without this data it's all pointless.
My screen is a12 foot wide front projector. And, again, it's not just the added pixels, it's the improved picture made possible by HDR video. This is what the picture I posted earlier demonstrates.
This site is funny sometimes. So many people arguing against UHD-TV because the new AppleTV doesn't support it. Apple, the same company who is pushing retina displays across it's entire product line and has a 5K iMac. I will be shocked if Apple doesn't have a UHD Apple TV by next christmas.
My screen is a12 foot wide front projector. And, again, it's not just the added pixels, it's the improved picture made possible by HDR video. This is what the picture I posted earlier demonstrates.
At this point in time, and for quite some time into the future, streaming sources that provide 4k and HDR aren't going to be widely available. Most of the available 4k content will be delivered over compressed, so at the minimum, you will be missing HDR, and it may likely be worse than that. Many have made note that upscaled 1080P streamed content won't look decidedly different than currently available 4K streamed content, i.e., it isn't a big negative to Apple if they don't support 4k output at this time. Your mileage may vary obviously.
Your comparison photos are based on the best case, not the likely case, of source material. I too would have like to have a "future proof" AppleTV, but for $150 dollars, there's enough value to purchase now, and repurchase when Apple does offer 4K output, It is interesting to note that most people will never purchase UHD BD's, and will be satisfied with lesser quality source material, just as they are now with 1080P sources.
In the meantime, I'll wait for the market to settle out to the basic 4k feature set with HDR, and continue using my 1080P television.
Better than native, worse than real. Just like the upconverter DVD players for 480 to 1080 and just like we’ll have to deal with for the next few years until 2160 is more widespread. What more to be said.
There's a slight difference going from SD -> HD (6x increase) vs HD -> UHD (4x for 4K, 16x for 8K). It's like with game graphics, you get diminishing returns on the increase in quality. Being able to see hair and trees and other finer details sharply is beneficial, being able to clearly see individual eyelashes, nose hairs and skin pores is less important. It brings it closer to the real world though and at TV viewing distances, UHD is pretty much the limit of what people can see in the real world at that distance.
This all assumes you are viewing the same size screen in all cases. 4K makes larger screens work better. 4K also allows for a wider color space and better dynamic range.
4K is just a resolution, you can have higher bit depth (HDR) 1080p:
The higher resolution benefits the larger TVs - if you have a 100" TV then you need 4K for it to look the same quality as 1080p on a 50" just like how you needed 1080p on a 60" to look the same as SD on a 30" - but most TVs sold just now are under 60", there were some stats on size online where the combined amount under 60" was over 90%:
This site is funny sometimes. So many people arguing against UHD-TV because the new AppleTV doesn't support it. Apple, the same company who is pushing retina displays across it's entire product line and has a 5K iMac. I will be shocked if Apple doesn't have a UHD Apple TV by next christmas.
This is mixing up hardware and software. Retina displays are hardware but the TV box is for content. You can have a 4K display with 1080p (including HDR) movies just like a Retina iPad or Mac with HD content.
It's not that people are against something that is clearly better, it's weighing up how important these things are. Even when Apple made Retina displays, there were people here who would have preferred higher bit-depth displays or lower glare. Ideally we'd get everything: high bit depth, resolution, refresh rate, 3D, low glare etc.
If Apple had included it, it probably would have helped drive UHD adoption but they might have different plans. They typically like to control the whole experience and with a box, they drive sales of other manufacturers' TVs, which have complex remotes and UIs. If their ultimate plan is to make the TV then they'd wait for UHD panels to hit a certain price point.
I think they'd sell quite well if they eventually sold an OLED UHD TV under $2k that was very light and thin that connected magnetically to a frame and only had that simple touch remote. They could have a single cable coming out of it with HDMI plugs on the other end. Manufacturers always put the HDMI ports on the TV so you end up having to feed dozens of wires into the back. Putting the ports near the wall means it's a lot easier to plug in devices like consoles, cable boxes, Blu-Ray players, internet etc and the TV unit stays very minimal looking.
A lack of 4K just now isn't going to hold back very many sales of the ?TV box. By 2016, there will be a lot more units out there. HDTVs were selling over 200m units per year and there are most likely over 1 billion units out there that can support 1080p vs under 20 million UHD. Apple can sell maybe 10-15 million boxes of the current model with most units still being the $69 model and then the same or more in a year or two with 4K where they would be able to appeal to over 60 million UHD TV owners or as I say, compete with a TV unit.
Apple's employees all go home to a TV that will be bought from a competitor like Samsung, LG, Sony. I doubt that they like having to use products like that and the associated UI, knowing how well they can design those kind of products.
Comments
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.
If it doesn't meet you needs for the price IT IS NOT A BETTER DEVICE. Got that.
Man, how is that so god damn hard to understand.
Better than native, worse than real. Just like the upconverter DVD players for 480 to 1080 and just like we’ll have to deal with for the next few years until 2160 is more widespread. What more to be said.
Well, it's not "all the same", because our eyes haven't been upgraded...
I have a first gen Chromecast and am finding it pretty useless for most purposes. It often stutters badly on playback - and if it loses touch with a program, has to start from the beginning with no way to go back to where it crapped out.
And scrubbing in general is often either lacking or frustrating.
Further, if I switch to other apps and then back to the one I'm casting from, I often have lost the ability to stop or change the content running on the cast. Meaning I have to sometimes reboot the TV to regain control of the screen.
Guess I got my $35 worth, but I'm using it less and less as time goes on. So since this ?TV seems like the best one we're going to get for likely two years or so and now that I've been a cord cutter for over a year, seems like a no-brainer....
This all assumes you are viewing the same size screen in all cases. 4K makes larger screens work better. 4K also allows for a wider color space and better dynamic range. 4K is a step on the way to 8K, 8K is IMAX quality. Here is a better comparison
Unless your telling me your going to get a streamed very lightly compressed 4K off the net (you're not), that difference right now is pretty close to zero (to negative); streamed 4K vs off the air (OTA) 1080P is not looking any better at all.
If you see it off the disk (or hard disk), yeah. better with a GOOD 4K high gamut, high dynamic range, high contrast set, which most cheap 4K set are not.
incorrect. one device on my tv. one iPad on the coffee table per usual. so if you count that as a device the in your scenario it's three devices. mine is still better since its one less and no dicking around with inputs.
put you already knew all that.
So far the Fall lineup looks interesting. What I hate about the networks is how quickly they'll cancel a really good show. Sometimes it takes a while before a show builds a devout following. If you're going to have a police show then give it a twist like Public Morals on TNT, quite frankly I'm tired of the multiple Law and Orders, and the CSIs. That's just being lazy, and playing it safe, but we as viewers suffer.
have you ever even used an iOS device? beaming a video to ATV doesn't "tie up" the iPad. you're free to use it however you wish as it streams.
try harder, guys.
I've yet to hear any other solution that allows all content sources -- i.e., iTunes content on, say, a Firestick or whatever.
And yet it’ll be Apple’s deal, negotiated by Apple alone. Apple’s the only one that would get them meaningful revenue, anyway.
It’s not like the record companies copied the iTunes deal terms over to other companies.
again that's conjecture stated as fact. hopefully it will be the case, but that wasn't presented as such in the keynote. he just said more coming. the original statement published as fact isn't accurate -- it's not known that simply having an app on ATV = unified search results.
I hope that a new iteration of the Apple TV has an Ethernet port and HDMI in with an consistent UI that can control my entire entertainment center and tv experience and keep the price at 150. That I think will be the death kneel for every other streaming box, because right now it has nothing that truly stands out imo.
4K makes larger screens work better.
That's true but tell me this: for anyone who championed 4K in this thread.. what TV do you have? How big the screen? How far away from the screen you sit?
Without this data it's all pointless.
Just because 16GB isn't enough for some users doesn't mean it isn't enough for any users.
http://dailytc.blogspot.com/2015/09/iphone6-review-best-deals.html
You really believe it's going to be an Apple exclusive? The live TV providers are going to want to be on all the streamers/platforms to maximize revenue.
Well, since Sony has a TV streaming service that's exclusive to the PS4, yes, I believe the streaming service Apple is working on will be exclusive to Apple TV.
nonsense. another traveler from a parallel dimension, one where Apple isn't leading the entire PC and mobile industries with its innovative hardware and software.
if you think Apple doesn't have a product road map ("overview"), then you haven't been paying attention long enough.
at least you have the word "trollin" in your username.
That's true but tell me this: for anyone who championed 4K in this thread.. what TV do you have? How big the screen? How far away from the screen you sit?
Without this data it's all pointless.
My screen is a12 foot wide front projector. And, again, it's not just the added pixels, it's the improved picture made possible by HDR video. This is what the picture I posted earlier demonstrates.
My screen is a12 foot wide front projector. And, again, it's not just the added pixels, it's the improved picture made possible by HDR video. This is what the picture I posted earlier demonstrates.
At this point in time, and for quite some time into the future, streaming sources that provide 4k and HDR aren't going to be widely available. Most of the available 4k content will be delivered over compressed, so at the minimum, you will be missing HDR, and it may likely be worse than that. Many have made note that upscaled 1080P streamed content won't look decidedly different than currently available 4K streamed content, i.e., it isn't a big negative to Apple if they don't support 4k output at this time. Your mileage may vary obviously.
Your comparison photos are based on the best case, not the likely case, of source material. I too would have like to have a "future proof" AppleTV, but for $150 dollars, there's enough value to purchase now, and repurchase when Apple does offer 4K output, It is interesting to note that most people will never purchase UHD BD's, and will be satisfied with lesser quality source material, just as they are now with 1080P sources.
In the meantime, I'll wait for the market to settle out to the basic 4k feature set with HDR, and continue using my 1080P television.
There's a slight difference going from SD -> HD (6x increase) vs HD -> UHD (4x for 4K, 16x for 8K). It's like with game graphics, you get diminishing returns on the increase in quality. Being able to see hair and trees and other finer details sharply is beneficial, being able to clearly see individual eyelashes, nose hairs and skin pores is less important. It brings it closer to the real world though and at TV viewing distances, UHD is pretty much the limit of what people can see in the real world at that distance.
4K is just a resolution, you can have higher bit depth (HDR) 1080p:
http://www.stuff.tv/news/amazon-primes-hdr-shows-are-available-stream-right-now
The higher resolution benefits the larger TVs - if you have a 100" TV then you need 4K for it to look the same quality as 1080p on a 50" just like how you needed 1080p on a 60" to look the same as SD on a 30" - but most TVs sold just now are under 60", there were some stats on size online where the combined amount under 60" was over 90%:
http://4k.com/news/most-4k-tvs-shipped-in-2014-to-be-smaller-models-4030/
This is mixing up hardware and software. Retina displays are hardware but the TV box is for content. You can have a 4K display with 1080p (including HDR) movies just like a Retina iPad or Mac with HD content.
It's not that people are against something that is clearly better, it's weighing up how important these things are. Even when Apple made Retina displays, there were people here who would have preferred higher bit-depth displays or lower glare. Ideally we'd get everything: high bit depth, resolution, refresh rate, 3D, low glare etc.
If Apple had included it, it probably would have helped drive UHD adoption but they might have different plans. They typically like to control the whole experience and with a box, they drive sales of other manufacturers' TVs, which have complex remotes and UIs. If their ultimate plan is to make the TV then they'd wait for UHD panels to hit a certain price point.
I think they'd sell quite well if they eventually sold an OLED UHD TV under $2k that was very light and thin that connected magnetically to a frame and only had that simple touch remote. They could have a single cable coming out of it with HDMI plugs on the other end. Manufacturers always put the HDMI ports on the TV so you end up having to feed dozens of wires into the back. Putting the ports near the wall means it's a lot easier to plug in devices like consoles, cable boxes, Blu-Ray players, internet etc and the TV unit stays very minimal looking.
A lack of 4K just now isn't going to hold back very many sales of the ?TV box. By 2016, there will be a lot more units out there. HDTVs were selling over 200m units per year and there are most likely over 1 billion units out there that can support 1080p vs under 20 million UHD. Apple can sell maybe 10-15 million boxes of the current model with most units still being the $69 model and then the same or more in a year or two with 4K where they would be able to appeal to over 60 million UHD TV owners or as I say, compete with a TV unit.
Apple's employees all go home to a TV that will be bought from a competitor like Samsung, LG, Sony. I doubt that they like having to use products like that and the associated UI, knowing how well they can design those kind of products.