It would be interesting to know where this massive bounty of 4K material is that people absolutely, positively **must** have right now. And how much they're paying for the fat pipeline to use all this video that they absolutely, positively **must** have right now as well.
They should have made it easier to charge the remote using the Apple TV.
I don't see it as a big deal. Can probably go weeks between charges and the small battery will charge quickly.
Quote:
Does the cable that is included also plug directly into the Apple TV?
No, because there is no USB-A port on the Apple TV. What we don't know is if the USB-C diagnostic port will supply power, so that those are willing to fork out for a USB-C-to-USB-A adapter on Monoprice will be able to charge via their Apple TV.
Quote:
Even better would be wireless charging by placing the remote on top of the Apple TV.
I had been hoping for inductive charging for years using the top of the device, and for those that have an Apple TV that isn't well placed for such charging or simply want something closer to their couch or side table, they could offer an inductive charging stand as an accessory purchase, which may have yielded them even more revenue and profit.
For what its worth Apple says the remote has a "Rechargeable battery providing months of battery life on a single charge (with typical daily usage)"
I agree with you and don't really see it being an issue. I bet you are right that it charges pretty quick. I wouldn't be surprised if its like the new mouse and would give something like 9 hours of use with something like 2 minutes of charge. Basically a non-issue.
I also agree that inductively charging the remote simply by placing on top of the Apple TV would have been pretty slick. Put a magnet in the remote and in the ATV so it snaps into the right place and bingo.
I don't see how a universal sign-in would even be implemented at this point.
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
HDMI 2.0 can do 4K at 60 frames per second and was seen in TV's from early 2014.
Ah so that's what Roku was referring to when comparing Amazon's "4K" box to their most recent streamer. Roku 4 then obviously uses HDMI 2.0 while Amazon is still HDMI 1.4.
it's a $149 device, Mr. 4K is 3 years away in the future in term of widely available programs. Next gen of ATV will have it. When did Apple release a product that support a limited service? I don't recall one.
I would point out the ability of displaying still photos at 4K would be nice. A 1920 x 1080 limit greatly reduces the image quality of still camera images on large screens. 4K refers to the display resolution not just video formats.
So all the devices you use Netflix on require a different ID and password? I think Apple could have worked with the content providers to come up with something that is seamless. I subscribe to DirecTV. Just give me an option in settings to put in my ID and password and then let the content providers grab that information for authentication. I'm not exactly sure how it would work technically but there's got to be some sort of solution other than what we have now. Isn't Apple supposed to be all about solving problems and providing a superior user experience? This is one area where I think they could have done that.
Netflix requires separate authentication for each device. Same with HBOGO, etc. The limitation is on the 3rd party end. If those services could be subscribed to through iTunes, then we'd be golden. But I imagine, things like HBO want to control their own app for the time being.
HDMI 2.0 can do 4K at 60 frames per second and was seen in TV's from early 2014.
Ah so that's what Roku was referring to when comparing Amazon's "4K" box to their most recent streamer. Roku 4 then obviously uses HDMI 2.0 while Amazon is still HDMI 1.4.
Please. For the love of god. No more 4K talk!
You are going to awaken the 4Kraken!
I will fully admit I am as guilty as anyone talking about 4K.
Oh crap, I said 4K a third time! The 4Kraken has been released!
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
Imagine having all your apps already authenticated and logged in. Then you put your Google Chromecast dongle in your pocket and go to you friend's house or the bar. I doubt the networks would give up such control.
All this talk of a single login is great, but I recently bought a new iPhone and despite only having to input my now iCloud account, I still had to input that damn password many times to get everything set up. Because it's Internet-facing and controls so much it's one doozy of a password. I'm not expecting Apple to make this easy when they can't even streamline it for just an iCloud account on a single device in 2015.
I don't see how a universal sign-in would even be implemented at this point.
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
What could be slick is to put a touch ID into the remote.
Imagine setting up your ATV for the first time. Enter your provider email and password info and then store that info securely with touch ID.
Then for everything that subsequently requires a provider email log-in, you just put your finger down and BOOM! Signed in.
Things like Netflix are different and would still require a separate log in I suppose. I don't use MLB so I don't know how they do it.
But maybe there is a way that touch ID could ease the pain for multiple sign in issues in the future. I don't know, just a thought.
What could be slick is to put a touch ID into the remote.
Imagine setting up your ATV for the first time. Enter your provider email and password info and then store that info securely with touch ID.
Then for everything that subsequently requires a provider email log-in, you just put your finger down and BOOM! Signed in.
Things like Netflix are different and would still require a separate log in I suppose. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I don't use MLB so I don't know how they do it.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">But maybe there is a way that touch ID could ease the pain for multiple sign in issues in the future. I don't know, just a thought.</span>
A Touch-ID-like system for the Apple TV remote has been something I've been wanting since it arrived on the iPhone, but more for convenience of switching user accounts based on who has control of the remote in the living room, more than a convenient one-time setup of usernames and passwords. The living room TV is the one device in a multi-person home that is almost always going to be used by different people, at different times, with different tastes. There will likely be some overlap in times and content, but it's more certain the times and content will also be different, too. Even the "PC," despite being designed with multiple users in mind is more likely a single-user device compared to the HEC (home entertainment center).
For logins, what I'm hoping Apple to do, is to update the Remote app so that it works more like the AirPort Utility app on iOS and Mac OS X. Basically, there is no need to have just an Apple TV Utility app just for setup and a separate Remote app, so roll it into one app. When you get to a setup for a channel the app, on the local network—via secure WiFi or BT?—the iDevice (or iTunes equipped device) will get a push for you to input your username and password, perhaps also verify the code on the screen, or just have a button that opens a link where you input the code on the screen (like what already exists for many Apple TV apps (see CBS channel app), but in a nice GUI. Regardless, use the Home Sharing setup to make it more streamlined.
I think Apple could have future proofed it a little bit by supporting 4K. I see this product as having a long tail and not something that needs to be refreshed frequently. Even if 4K content isn't widely available what's the harm in this box supporting it for when it does become more widely available? Other than marketing thinking they need a reason for people to shell out another $150 in two years. That's a shame.
HEVC licensing is not settled. HEVC is required for "mainstream" streaming of 4K via the Internet. End of story.
It would be interesting to know where this massive bounty of 4K material is that people absolutely, positively **must** have right now. And how much they're paying for the fat pipeline to use all this video that they absolutely, positively **must** have right now as well.
So why does the iPhone 6s support 4k recording then? Even if there's not a lot of 4K content right now that doesn't mean there won't be in a year or two. Perhaps people would rather not have to buy another Apple TV in two years? No one has yet given a credible technical reason Apple TV doesn't support 4K.
So what? What does that have to do with the ?TV hardware supporting 4K?
I will spell it out for you. You ask "why didn't Apple future-proof the device for 4K" in the future. Since mainstream use of 4K video streaming for a product like the Apple TV - that being streaming of 4K content to a large portion of the broadband population - will require hardware HEVC decoders, then it is required to have the licensing clearly settled before putting such hardware into a shipping product. Otherwise it is a potentially huge liability.
You seem a bit slow. I will spell it out for you. You ask "why didn't Apple future-proof the device for 4K" in the future. Since mainstream use of 4K video streaming for a product like the Apple TV - that being streaming of 4K content to a large portion of the broadband population - will require hardware HEVC decoders, then it is required to have the licensing clearly settled before putting such hardware into a shipping product. Otherwise it is a potentially huge liability.
Comprende?
1) Attack the comment, not the person.
2) Apple already used, at least, HEVC en/decoders back in 2014 for content that was going over the Internet. It's quite possible the licensing involved for FaceTime when at least one connection is over cellular and both devices support HEVC is not the same as for the Apple TV or the iPhone 6S-series for video recording and playback, but you don't address it.
2) Apple already used, at least, HEVC en/decoders back in 2014 for content that was going over the Internet. It's quite possible the licensing involved for FaceTime when at least one connection is over cellular and both devices support HEVC is not the same as for the Apple TV or the iPhone 6S-series for video recording and playback, but you don't address it.
1) That is true, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated when people spend 100% of their time commenting and none either thinking, or doing that 2 minutes of Internet search to find some answers. I have had a lot of respect for you over the years of reading AI, Soli, but even you lose your cool sometimes.
2) I don't know the HEVC licensing for a communication service like FaceTime, but what a few minutes of search does show is that HEVC licensing for media distribution services (and devices) is not even close to being settled. There are two groups, and one of them - HEVC Advance - claims to have a strong patent pool & its initial proposal for licensing was crazy (0.5% of gross revenue). It has recently stated it will reconsider the licensing, but no indications yet what that will be, or when.
Then, please, remind me of AI's primary forum rule when I do cross the line.
2) I don't know the HEVC licensing for a communication service like FaceTime, but what a few minutes of search does show is that HEVC licensing for media distribution services (and devices) is not even close to being settled. There are two groups, and one of them - HEVC Advance - claims to have a strong patent pool & its initial proposal for licensing was crazy (0.5% of gross revenue). It has recently stated it will reconsider the licensing, but no indications yet what that will be, or when.
That coincides with my hypothesis that Apple did want to have a 4K UHD Apple TV with HEVC support and 4K iTunes Store content encoded with HEVC out by this year along with the iPhone that can record in 4K UHD, but the licensing hasn't been worked out for the iTS that the rest of the dominos toppled, save for the iPhone recording in 4K, albeit in H.264. However, I was assuming it was getting rights from enough content owners for 4K distribution, not HEVC licensing.
Regardless, I hope it all gets works out sooner rather than later. Half the large screen TVs I see in CostCo are 4K UHD and at prices that are certainly feasible for an average American family.
For the zillionth time, as SolipsismY has stated, there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding h.265 streaming licensing. Why do we keep going over the same thing? There is even a possibility that it not end up as the standard for 4K streaming. Those are the facts. People who want 4K now get a Fire TV with all the problems it has or a Roku 4 or some unofficial Android TV from China. It is so darned frustrating to keep hearing the same thing over and over again. The ATV 4 does not have 4K. It does have an App Store which is a major development. Why not focus on that?
Comments
They should have made it easier to charge the remote using the Apple TV.
I don't see it as a big deal. Can probably go weeks between charges and the small battery will charge quickly.
No, because there is no USB-A port on the Apple TV. What we don't know is if the USB-C diagnostic port will supply power, so that those are willing to fork out for a USB-C-to-USB-A adapter on Monoprice will be able to charge via their Apple TV.
I had been hoping for inductive charging for years using the top of the device, and for those that have an Apple TV that isn't well placed for such charging or simply want something closer to their couch or side table, they could offer an inductive charging stand as an accessory purchase, which may have yielded them even more revenue and profit.
For what its worth Apple says the remote has a "Rechargeable battery providing months of battery life on a single charge (with typical daily usage)"
http://www.apple.com/tv/specs/
I agree with you and don't really see it being an issue. I bet you are right that it charges pretty quick. I wouldn't be surprised if its like the new mouse and would give something like 9 hours of use with something like 2 minutes of charge. Basically a non-issue.
I also agree that inductively charging the remote simply by placing on top of the Apple TV would have been pretty slick. Put a magnet in the remote and in the ATV so it snaps into the right place and bingo.
I don't see how a universal sign-in would even be implemented at this point.
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
I would point out the ability of displaying still photos at 4K would be nice. A 1920 x 1080 limit greatly reduces the image quality of still camera images on large screens. 4K refers to the display resolution not just video formats.
Meh. I have a phone on my wall. Why would I want a "smart phone" that costs thousands over 2 years?
We return you now to your 4K debate. Again.
So all the devices you use Netflix on require a different ID and password? I think Apple could have worked with the content providers to come up with something that is seamless. I subscribe to DirecTV. Just give me an option in settings to put in my ID and password and then let the content providers grab that information for authentication. I'm not exactly sure how it would work technically but there's got to be some sort of solution other than what we have now. Isn't Apple supposed to be all about solving problems and providing a superior user experience? This is one area where I think they could have done that.
Netflix requires separate authentication for each device. Same with HBOGO, etc. The limitation is on the 3rd party end. If those services could be subscribed to through iTunes, then we'd be golden. But I imagine, things like HBO want to control their own app for the time being.
HDMI 1.4 can do 4K at 30 frames per second.
HDMI 2.0 can do 4K at 60 frames per second and was seen in TV's from early 2014.
Ah so that's what Roku was referring to when comparing Amazon's "4K" box to their most recent streamer. Roku 4 then obviously uses HDMI 2.0 while Amazon is still HDMI 1.4.
Please. For the love of god. No more 4K talk!
You are going to awaken the 4Kraken!
I will fully admit I am as guilty as anyone talking about 4K.
Oh crap, I said 4K a third time! The 4Kraken has been released!
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
Imagine having all your apps already authenticated and logged in. Then you put your Google Chromecast dongle in your pocket and go to you friend's house or the bar. I doubt the networks would give up such control.
I don't see how a universal sign-in would even be implemented at this point.
Well, for cable television you could have one authentication that the cable-channel apps would refer to. I mean, for those apps now I authenticate using my cable-subscriber login. Apple could conceivably provide a way to do this, so those apps would open without needing authentication.
Though I don't know. I might be harder than it looks -- for example, I think my cable provider also checks my IP address -- I know the MLB app does that -- checks your location. Each provider probably has a different approach, and presumably makes adjustments as security concerns arise, and so on -- so it would be hard for Apple to provide that. But what could happen is your cable provider could provide an "authentication app" for that -- so you'd install their app, sign into it, and then CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc. would refer to that for authentication. So one sign-in, but not via Apple.
What could be slick is to put a touch ID into the remote.
Imagine setting up your ATV for the first time. Enter your provider email and password info and then store that info securely with touch ID.
Then for everything that subsequently requires a provider email log-in, you just put your finger down and BOOM! Signed in.
Things like Netflix are different and would still require a separate log in I suppose. I don't use MLB so I don't know how they do it.
But maybe there is a way that touch ID could ease the pain for multiple sign in issues in the future. I don't know, just a thought.
A Touch-ID-like system for the Apple TV remote has been something I've been wanting since it arrived on the iPhone, but more for convenience of switching user accounts based on who has control of the remote in the living room, more than a convenient one-time setup of usernames and passwords. The living room TV is the one device in a multi-person home that is almost always going to be used by different people, at different times, with different tastes. There will likely be some overlap in times and content, but it's more certain the times and content will also be different, too. Even the "PC," despite being designed with multiple users in mind is more likely a single-user device compared to the HEC (home entertainment center).
For logins, what I'm hoping Apple to do, is to update the Remote app so that it works more like the AirPort Utility app on iOS and Mac OS X. Basically, there is no need to have just an Apple TV Utility app just for setup and a separate Remote app, so roll it into one app. When you get to a setup for a channel the app, on the local network—via secure WiFi or BT?—the iDevice (or iTunes equipped device) will get a push for you to input your username and password, perhaps also verify the code on the screen, or just have a button that opens a link where you input the code on the screen (like what already exists for many Apple TV apps (see CBS channel app), but in a nice GUI. Regardless, use the Home Sharing setup to make it more streamlined.
I think Apple could have future proofed it a little bit by supporting 4K. I see this product as having a long tail and not something that needs to be refreshed frequently. Even if 4K content isn't widely available what's the harm in this box supporting it for when it does become more widely available? Other than marketing thinking they need a reason for people to shell out another $150 in two years. That's a shame.
HEVC licensing is not settled. HEVC is required for "mainstream" streaming of 4K via the Internet. End of story.
So why does the iPhone 6s support 4k recording then? Even if there's not a lot of 4K content right now that doesn't mean there won't be in a year or two. Perhaps people would rather not have to buy another Apple TV in two years? No one has yet given a credible technical reason Apple TV doesn't support 4K.
So what? What does that have to do with the ?TV hardware supporting 4K?
So what? What does that have to do with the ?TV hardware supporting 4K?
I will spell it out for you. You ask "why didn't Apple future-proof the device for 4K" in the future. Since mainstream use of 4K video streaming for a product like the Apple TV - that being streaming of 4K content to a large portion of the broadband population - will require hardware HEVC decoders, then it is required to have the licensing clearly settled before putting such hardware into a shipping product. Otherwise it is a potentially huge liability.
Comprende?
1) Attack the comment, not the person.
2) Apple already used, at least, HEVC en/decoders back in 2014 for content that was going over the Internet. It's quite possible the licensing involved for FaceTime when at least one connection is over cellular and both devices support HEVC is not the same as for the Apple TV or the iPhone 6S-series for video recording and playback, but you don't address it.
1) Attack the comment, not the person.
2) Apple already used, at least, HEVC en/decoders back in 2014 for content that was going over the Internet. It's quite possible the licensing involved for FaceTime when at least one connection is over cellular and both devices support HEVC is not the same as for the Apple TV or the iPhone 6S-series for video recording and playback, but you don't address it.
1) That is true, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated when people spend 100% of their time commenting and none either thinking, or doing that 2 minutes of Internet search to find some answers. I have had a lot of respect for you over the years of reading AI, Soli, but even you lose your cool sometimes.
2) I don't know the HEVC licensing for a communication service like FaceTime, but what a few minutes of search does show is that HEVC licensing for media distribution services (and devices) is not even close to being settled. There are two groups, and one of them - HEVC Advance - claims to have a strong patent pool & its initial proposal for licensing was crazy (0.5% of gross revenue). It has recently stated it will reconsider the licensing, but no indications yet what that will be, or when.
Then, please, remind me of AI's primary forum rule when I do cross the line.
That coincides with my hypothesis that Apple did want to have a 4K UHD Apple TV with HEVC support and 4K iTunes Store content encoded with HEVC out by this year along with the iPhone that can record in 4K UHD, but the licensing hasn't been worked out for the iTS that the rest of the dominos toppled, save for the iPhone recording in 4K, albeit in H.264. However, I was assuming it was getting rights from enough content owners for 4K distribution, not HEVC licensing.
Regardless, I hope it all gets works out sooner rather than later. Half the large screen TVs I see in CostCo are 4K UHD and at prices that are certainly feasible for an average American family.