Only months after launch, 'Disney Infinity' ditches support for Apple TV

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 109
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,208moderator
    sog35 said:
    Strange move by Disney

    Glad I didn't buy it.  This may be a sign the AppleTV isn't doing to well for gaming. Apple needs to lift the limitation that all games need to work with the Siri remote. That really limits the types of games that can be made on the device.
    I really wonder how many people are using TV for games. My guess is not many. Serious gamers would be using a console or gaming PC and everyone else is probably just playing games on their iPad or iPhone. If Apple really wanted TV to be a gaming platform they would have made a controller for it and included it in the box. 
    The TV has only been out for 6 months. Even if they managed 5 million units in that time (which would be about 25% growth at a 50% higher price point) and had 1/2 using it for games, that's 2.5 million gamers tops. The consoles are at 240 million units (including compatible last-gen models). TV needs time to build up a user-base, unit volume won't be significant enough until the 2nd or 3rd year.

    However, this game is on iOS, not just the TV:

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disney-infinity-toy-box-3.0/id963447224?mt=8

    That's part of the benefit of basing TV on iOS and it should always be considered an extension of the iOS ecosystem. Mobile gamers combined exceed console gamers. That app was last updated in December. Looking at Disney's recent filings:

    https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy16-earnings.pdf

    "At Games, growth was due to higher licensing revenue from the success of Star Wars: Battlefront, partially offset by lower Disney Infinity results. The decrease from Disney Infinity was due to higher inventory reserves and lower unit sales volume."

    Some Disney expansions are to be console-exclusives so this affects more platforms than just TV, it affects all TV gaming boxes, all mobile devices and the PC platform:

    https://infinity.disney.com/community/forums/281-disney-infinity-3-0-edition/topics/13260-cap-american-vision-antman-and-black-panther-where
    https://infinity.disney.com/community/forums/264-pc-online/topics/13102-marvel-battleground-on-pc

    Sometimes the console manufacturers pay for exclusive content, sometimes developers will target different demographics, which vary by platform, sometimes it's about features, one factor with this update seems to be multiplayer.

    These are expansion packs with new maps and character models that have to be bought separately. There's going to be Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan and Finding Dory characters later this year. They could always bring some updates to other platforms if they see an increase in revenue. Given that sales have been slowing down on this franchise for Disney, they might focus development effort on the highest-earning platforms. I would have expected that they'd have designed the game to allow for expansions like this without significant development but obviously not. They'd have to optimize the character models per platform but they should have a workflow for doing this.

    These developments are often outsourced or dealt with by a subsidiary. Disney Infinity is handled by the following Disney subsidiary:

    http://www.ign.com/companies/avalanche-software-usa

    Console gamers have to deal with this sort of exclusivity too. The PS4 version of Rise of the Tomb Raider won't be available until late 2016 while XBox and PC users had it months ago. Some individual consoles get exclusive content packs. You can't win by sticking with any one platform.
  • Reply 42 of 109
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Funny watching all these people agree that AppleTV fell short when it was announced people were flaming ME for expecting more. Excuses I got were "but it doesn't NEED that" and "Those features would make AppleTV too expensive!" Suddenly Apple was a cheap budget brand.

    So I will say it again,
    Out the box it should have included:

    Touch ID. For a catered and curated experience. Place the sensor on the touch pad for simple integration and experience.

    A9X. No need to explain. Developers throw tantrums over power limitations.

    Magnometer and M-series chip in Siri Remote. I was VERY disappointed when I found out the Siri remote was just a rehash of the Wii's 2006 remote. Imagine how pisses developers were?
    Bye-bye serious games and fitness apps.

    Taptic Engine. Apple has the most advanced force feedback tech in the industry and they're not using it???

    4K streaming. Why not take advantage of Netflix's little options and the iPhones 4K capabilities?
    "Sorry family but we need to buy an iMac to enjoy our family videos in full resolution."

    theres just so much that was overlooked. I don't care if this would have made the AppleTV $400 bucks. The damn PS4 costed that much and Microsoft's offering costed more.

    I think requiring the Siri remote for games is GREAT, the problem is the remote itself. That little lightning port under the remote could make for some awesome accessories.

    it goes even deeper. iTunes not offering 3D and UHD options and ultraviolet just kicking Apple's ass in retail movies. C'mon Apple, you can't beat WAL MART????

    and PLEASE fix Siri she's more frustrating that she's worth. I find myself manually doing things because she's so stupid.
  • Reply 43 of 109
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 434member
    sog35 said:
    Strange move by Disney

    Glad I didn't buy it.  This may be a sign the AppleTV isn't doing to well for gaming. Apple needs to lift the limitation that all games need to work with the Siri remote. That really limits the types of games that can be made on the device.
    I really wonder how many people are using TV for games. My guess is not many. Serious gamers would be using a console or gaming PC and everyone else is probably just playing games on their iPad or iPhone. If Apple really wanted TV to be a gaming platform they would have made a controller for it and included it in the box. 
    Games is one of the primary reasons I bought one.  I like the games I've seen in the ATV store, although the lack of major/well known titles is pretty glaring.  I like the whole App/Store metaphor (just like iDevices) instead of predetermined "channels," although many of the streaming apps really suck, like the latest version of the Vevo app - it's so bad I just abandoned them and deleted the app.  

    At first I liked the idea of forcing the use of the Apple remote, but now having spent some time with it, games are terrible with it - a true game controller is really needed (glad I bought one).
    williamlondon
  • Reply 44 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,974member
    sog35 said:

    auxio said:
    And speaking as someone with extensive experience in graphics application development (i.e. working knowledge and not just talking out of my ass based on a few minutes of reading articles designed for people who have the attention span of a hamster), I can tell you that running interactive apps & games at 4K smoothly just isn't possible on anything but very high-end (re. expensive) computers.  But please, continue to vehemently defend a position based on ZERO knowledge.

    Now, whether or not Apple should have put very limited 4K support in (only for playing/streaming prerecorded 4K video) and had that lovely "video mode-switching" effect you see on the Playstation (and other devices) + had the world of Internet haters complaining on every social media channel they can find that it's not true 4K, is the only matter up for debate. 
    I'm not really talking about 4k video games.

    I'm talking about playing 4k video or at least viewing your pictures in 4k resolutions.
    I mean one of the big features of the 6s and iPadPro is 4k pictures/video!!!

    So I go through all the trouble of taking 4k video and I can't even see it on my AppleTV?  I mean WTF!!!  
    You do realize that the main app selection screen is interactive right (i.e. you can scroll it, choose apps, etc)?  So that part wouldn't work well at 4K.

    Thus, you'd need to be running 1080p on the app selection screen to have a smooth experience.  Then, when you go into the Photos app, it still needs to be interactive (again, scrolling and choosing), so that would be need to 1080p for a smooth experience as well.  Then, finally, when you choose your photo/video, it could switch to 4K (causing that lovely video mode switch pause/flicker).  Then, when you popped back out to the chooser again, it would flicker back to 1080p.

    Repeat that same experience ad nauseum for most apps, and it becomes clear why Apple held off on 4K until the hardware which can support it throughout the entire AppleTV user interface comes down in price.

    Trust me: I'm driving a 4K display with a Mac Mini here (in order to test on low-end 4K hardware) and it's not a good experience whatsoever.  Other companies simply want to add "4K" to their feature checklist no matter how poorly it works (or how limited it is).  I'm personally glad Apple didn't go that route.
    edited March 2016 brucemcpropod
  • Reply 45 of 109
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member
    sog35 said:

    muppetry said:
    Is that your purchasing strategy - just buy one of everything to see what it does?
    If you watched the AppleTV event reveal you would be disappointed also.
    Tim Cook said the AppleTV4 would change TV and is the future of TV.

    perfect example of over promising and under delivering.


    That is not the issue. I was questioning why anyone would buy one without first figuring out what it can and cannot do, and then complain that it lacks functionality.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 46 of 109
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    sog35 said:

    Tim Cook is too concerned about Wall STreet and quarterly numbers.

    WAIT. W..T..F????

    thats all you've wanted him to do for the past year!! Saying he didn't care enough.

    auxio said:
    This is not a terribly useful response. Of course anyone can do that.

    It really would be more helpful, in terms of advancing the discussion, if you could rebut his points. Unless, of course, you don't really wish to advance the discussion.
    I'm willing to put as much thought into my answers as sog is.  I just posted one small in-depth discussion on 4K -- we'll see if sog is willing to move beyond simply foaming at the mouth and advance some arguments based on actual research and critical thought.
    I'm sure he meant 4K streaming like the crappy $99 Fire does.



    afrodripalominepscooter63
  • Reply 47 of 109
    jdmac29jdmac29 Posts: 32member
    I can see why Disney will not support the Infinity series on apple tv any longer. I have the new playset Marvel Battlegrounds and on my xbox 360 it is very slow to load even after after each battle to go to the next one. The 360 is old but I am sure with the way the apple tv has to download the information each time like it does for Star Wars the experience would be terrible. I do feel sorry for those who purchased the Star Wars set and less than 6 months later it will no longer be supported that is not good business. Disney has also stated they would be bringing several more 3.0 playsets the rest of this year that will only work on consoles. 
  • Reply 48 of 109
    auxio said:
    sog35 said:

    I'm not really talking about 4k video games.

    I'm talking about playing 4k video or at least viewing your pictures in 4k resolutions.
    I mean one of the big features of the 6s and iPadPro is 4k pictures/video!!!

    So I go through all the trouble of taking 4k video and I can't even see it on my AppleTV?  I mean WTF!!!  
    You do realize that the main app selection screen is interactive right (i.e. you can scroll it, choose apps, etc)?  So that part wouldn't work well at 4K.

    Thus, you'd need to be running 1080p on the app selection screen to have a smooth experience.  Then, when you go into the Photos app, it still needs to be interactive (again, scrolling and choosing), so that would be need to 1080p for a smooth experience as well.  Then, finally, when you choose your photo/video, it could switch to 4K (causing that lovely video mode switch pause/flicker).  Then, when you popped back out to the chooser again, it would flicker back to 1080p.

    Repeat that same experience ad nauseum for most apps, and it becomes clear why Apple held off on 4K until the hardware which can support it throughout the entire AppleTV user interface comes down in price.

    Trust me: I'm driving a 4K display with a Mac Mini here (in order to test on low-end 4K hardware) and it's not a good experience whatsoever.  Other companies simply want to add "4K" to their feature checklist no matter how poorly it works (or how limited it is).  I'm personally glad Apple didn't go that route.
    I appreciate your level headed and informative responses. Some people just don't understand how things work but demand the world anyway.
    edited March 2016 brucemcpalomine
  • Reply 49 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,974member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    You do realize that the main app selection screen is interactive right (i.e. you can scroll it, choose apps, etc)?  So that part wouldn't work well at 4K.

    Thus, you'd need to be running 1080p on the app selection screen to have a smooth experience.  Then, when you go into the Photos app, it still needs to be interactive (again, scrolling and choosing), so that would be need to 1080p for a smooth experience as well.  Then, finally, when you choose your photo/video, it could switch to 4K (causing that lovely video mode switch pause/flicker).  Then, when you popped back out to the chooser again, it would flicker back to 1080p.

    Repeat that same experience ad nauseum for most apps, and it becomes clear why Apple held off on 4K until the hardware which can support it throughout the entire AppleTV user interface comes down in price.

    Trust me: I'm driving a 4K display with a Mac Mini here (in order to test on low-end 4K hardware) and it's not a good experience whatsoever.  Other companies simply want to add "4K" to their feature checklist no matter how poorly it works (or how limited it is).  I'm personally glad Apple didn't go that route.
    Give me a break.

    $99 Roku/Amazon Fire devices have figured out this 4k thing. No excuse for Apple's $199 devices can't delivery this.
    Do those devices have interactive applications, or do they just stream/play 4K content?  If it's the latter, then it's very easy.  If it's the former, then I'd be willing to bet that they're either relying on companion devices for the interactive parts, or they've dumbed them down enough that poor 4K interaction performance is tolerable.  It's simply not possible to make a device that cheap which has good 4K interactive performance.  Playing 4K videos yes, but not interaction.  Take the time to truly analyze the details and you'll see it.

    So you buy a 4K Roku/Amazon Fire and you essentially have a dedicated Blu-Ray player with streaming.  You buy an AppleTV and you have something closer to a computer where you can use it in whatever ways app developers can dream up.  The apps may not be as mature yet as they are on computers, but it took time with computers (and iPhones, and iPads) too.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 50 of 109

    drewyboy said:
    I find it interesting that many are writing off Sog. Yes, they are being a little dramatic, but their underlining question is completely valid. Oh, and someone on here used the horrible "they're making billions" rebuttal. 

    Sog brings up a good point that Apple hasn't released anything amazing lately. iPhone gets thinner every year and adopts the best of what other phones have. It's really not that hard to know pretty much what they'll turn out. I will give them though, the 64 Bit ARM. That was really amazing, but from a users perspective, we don't see a night and day difference. I mean really, many here hooped and hollered about it yet many Apple folks are so quick to point out "oh it's just a spec, user experience is what matters". Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

    iPad... oh iPad. You've never really had a home. You showed lots of potential yet you continue to drag along being "just" relevant enough. Sure, it's good for people who don't do much. I've actually recommended it to some folks who I know it would be more than sufficient for their needs. But it has yet to fulfill it's promise of being a "game changer" in the medical and educational industries.

    As for the Apple watch, I will hold judgement for another year or so. It's a new category and rightfully should be given time to expand and see its potential.

    AppleTV, as far as I see, it's an utter fail. Apple has had YEARS to do something and have fallen flat on their face with it. Overpriced video streamer. Does it have potential? Maybe, but that's what we've been sold on for the last 5 years or so. No live tv? That's Apple's fault. No other company that wanted live tv seemed to have a problem obtaining it. Apps, that would have been "revolutionary" 3 years ago. They fell behind completely on that one. The thing is, developers have options now. And on devices that are in far many more homes than an AppleTV.

    And lastly... oh mac oh mac oh mac. Do they still make those anymore? Jokes aside, there isn't going to be much going on here for any manufacturer. Market is matured. Now Apple just goes stingy on ram & ssd. They've always been stingy on ram, only difference is that now I can't put in my better and cheaper RAM on my own. Same with SSD.

    Apple is no longer the company that wows. It has become a "life style" brand and that is why it sells billions. So the guy that used that as an argument, the only person that wins are investors. If you are not, I don't know why you're celebrating because Apple has yet to do anything fruit full, strictly from a customers perspective, with those billions. Billions for Beats? Fashion. Hermes band? Fashion. New store layouts? Fashion. iPhone? Sacrificing function for fashion.

    I've personally started to re-integrate other companies into my life because Apple just doesn't cut it anymore. I'll always have a Mac and probably an iPhone but everything else... there's something better. Better watch, better router, better video streamer, better headphones, etc. Take a minute to actually look at things objectively and you'll see that too. Apple has lost its shine.
    Please tell me what amazing product another company has released and what amazing product Apple should be releasing? Everyone always expects Apple to bring out some visionary product but can't ever say what that product is, what it should do or how it should come to be? It's a BS line of thinking.
    How about being the first to actually include something for once. Lately it's been a picking up best bits from other companies products and include. The last two things you could say apple went ballsy on was USB C, well that was one laptop and one port, and Force Touch, which from what I've heard many people aren't using and developers aren't integrating. You could say maybe dropping the CD/DVD drive.

    I use to be able to overlook this in saying "they're late to the party because they're doing it right the first time." That no longer seems to apply. They arrive late and it either doesn't work, iCloud, it's been stripped of features, iWork, or they just put out a me too, AppleTV.
  • Reply 51 of 109
    sog35 said:

    drewyboy said:
    For my watch, I'm going to be getting Fitbit. I need to be very honest here, I have not own an Apple Watch, I do ask my coworkers quite a few question about it, but still, have not used. I will probably get V2 to finally have a hands on say, so my opinion on the watch is from a non-owner but researching perspective. I understand the when it comes down to personal use, it varies wildly, but for me, it seems a basic Fitbit will accomplish all that I NEED a watch to do. When AppleWatch V2 comes out, it'll experience the what it "can" do on top of my needs.

    For streamer, Roku hands down. Only thing I miss from my now sold AppleTV, is the screen mirroring. I hardly used it, but it was very handy when I did.

    Apple really has started to lose favor with me. Maybe it's because Jobs was really good at creating the "distortion field", maybe it was because they really did great things, but regardless, I no longer am wowed by most things Apple puts out. If I was an investor, I'm not sure how I'd feel, probably torn like you, but since I'm strictly a consumer, I'm looking elsewhere for things.
    Fitbit is the better pure activity tracking device hands down. Much better battery life also. I own an AppleWatch and think its a decent device. I wear it every day but not sure its worth the $250 I paid for it.

    What makes Roku better than AppleTV? 

    If Jobs was alive I have no doubt the Watch and AppleTV would be much better than it is today.
    1. 4k
    2. Apps for eons & with Amazon Video
    3. Cheaper
    4. Gig ethernet
    5. Remote w/ headphone jack. (Seriously, how hard would that be for Apple to put that into the AppleTV remote app for the iPhone)
    6. Roku had the above 4 for the last 2-3 years. They actually know they need to stay ahead of the game to stay alive.
    Oh, and #7. Not trying to sell the ability to move an icon in 3D as a feature. When I saw that in the keynote I cringed. I felt bad for the gal that got that put on her bullet points of things to show off.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 52 of 109
    auxio said:
    You do realize that the main app selection screen is interactive right (i.e. you can scroll it, choose apps, etc)?  So that part wouldn't work well at 4K.

    Thus, you'd need to be running 1080p on the app selection screen to have a smooth experience.  Then, when you go into the Photos app, it still needs to be interactive (again, scrolling and choosing), so that would be need to 1080p for a smooth experience as well.  Then, finally, when you choose your photo/video, it could switch to 4K (causing that lovely video mode switch pause/flicker).  Then, when you popped back out to the chooser again, it would flicker back to 1080p.

    Repeat that same experience ad nauseum for most apps, and it becomes clear why Apple held off on 4K until the hardware which can support it throughout the entire AppleTV user interface comes down in price.

    Trust me: I'm driving a 4K display with a Mac Mini here (in order to test on low-end 4K hardware) and it's not a good experience whatsoever.  Other companies simply want to add "4K" to their feature checklist no matter how poorly it works (or how limited it is).  I'm personally glad Apple didn't go that route.
    So let me get this straight, when your iphone plays a lower resolution video, it has to switch the output resolution to the display?  Dang, yours behaves much differently than mine.  Here's the thing, they make these chips that convert 1080p,720p or anywhere inbetween to the native 4k resolution.  Since iOS already supports multiple resolutions with the interface elements staying the same size, it would be child's play to make the standard interface resolution independent(guarantee it looks the same on a 720p tv as a 1080p).  It would simply detect that its hooked up to a 4k display, and up convert any content to that resolution.  That is how the PS4/xbone handle content.  There is no switching when the games are rendered at a lower resolution, it still outputs at 1080 with a converter(and yes, those consoles don't natively render many games at 1080p.  There is basically no performance cost when properly implementing the upscaling. 
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 53 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,974member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    Do those devices have interactive applications, or do they just stream/play 4K content?  If it's the latter, then it's very easy.  If it's the former, then I'd be willing to bet that they're either relying on companion devices for the interactive parts, or they've dumbed them down enough that poor 4K interaction performance is tolerable.  It's simply not possible to make a device that cheap which has good 4K interactive performance.  Playing 4K videos yes, but not interaction.  Take the time to truly analyze the details and you'll see it.
    I don't care about interactive 4k. Even the latest console platforms struggle with that.

    All I wanted was to play 4k video I filmed on my 6s or iPad Pro. 
    Or watch 4k content on Netflix.
    So you want a device which is dedicated to one task (playing 4K video) that's also future-proof?  How future-proof were VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray players?
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 54 of 109
    sog35 said:

    I appreciate your level headed and informative responses. Some people just don't understand how things work but demand the world anyway.
    Not really that informative.

    I was asking for 4k video shot from a 6s.  There is ZERO reason why the AppleTV can't show 4k video.

    The AppleTV is literally the worst Apple device made in the last 15 years.
    Then why did you buy one? You knew before it even went on sale it wasn't going to support 4K. It's not like there's even much 4K content out there to view. If viewing some random video you shot on your phone is THAT important, then just connect the phone straight to the tv.
  • Reply 55 of 109
    jackansijackansi Posts: 116member
    I'm calling it... Sog's account must have been hacked and it is someone else behind the keyboard.

    I'd agree with 85% of what he said.  Usually it's closer to 0%.
    edited March 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 56 of 109
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    sog35 said:
    Personally I'm getting sick of the half-assed effort by Apple.

    Who is to blame?  Why did the AppleTV4 not come out with full Siri support or remote App?  Where is the liveTV package?  Even friken Dish was able to negotiate a liveTV package, so has Sony, so has Google.  Yet Apple can't?  fuking frustrating.

    Apple makes a big deal about gaming on AppleTV yet where are the big games? Total joke.  And requring all games to be playing on the Siri remote is ridiculous and dumb. They should have included a game controller. Makes me sick.

    Then no 4k when 4k is a huge feature on the iPhone/iPad. I mean WTF are these guys thinking. so sick of this shit.

    Personally I sick of this slow steady progress.  Sick of it. The competition does not do this. Why the hell does Apple have to withhold features ON PURPOSE?  So sick of this crap. Why can't Apple just give us the goods.  They are always withholding features for no other reason so we need to upgrade to AppleTV5 in year. Sick of this shit.

    I'm willing to pay top $$$ to get the best. Stop dicking around Apple.

    IMO the AppleTV4 should have included AT LAUNCH:

    1. full Siri support
    2. full universal search support
    3. Remote App/Bluetooth keyboard support
    4. Game controller included
    5. 4k support and lossless audio
    6. Live TV package availability
    7. HomeKit features - why the fuc has Apple allowed Amazon to steal mindspace with Echo? Friken AppleTV would be the perfect Homekit device. 

    Sick of Apple half-assing 

    Same thing with iPad the last couple years (until they brought out the Pro)
    Also why the hell does the 9.7 Pro only have 2GB ram? WTF.

    Every since Jobs died (oh no) wtf has Apple done?  I mean seriously wtf have they done?


    What have they done? You mean besides make billions of dollars every quarter? Maybe they should have just closed down instead.
    Yep. Exactly.
    What is the thing that Tim Cook always says? Something like... 
    "At Apple, our focus is to (not) make the best possible products for our customers. Our job is to just make billions of dollars"     /s

  • Reply 57 of 109
    sog35 said:
    Then why did you buy one? You knew before it even went on sale it wasn't going to support 4K. It's not like there's even much 4K content out there to view. If viewing some random video you shot on your phone is THAT important, then just connect the phone straight to the tv.
    I also want to watch 4k movies on Netflix. And who knows what else will be 4k in the next 2 years. Its just beyond ridiculous that Apple did not include 4k which would probably only cost $4 to add to the cost of the device.

    I bought one because I trusted Apple to delivery other features that would make the loss of 4k easier. I thought there would be much better Apps and games. But I have been super disappointed.  There was also talk that 4k video would be possible with a software update. But that does not seem likely now.

    I trusted Apple to give a product worth the $199 I spent.   I have been 100% satisfied with my iPhone, iPad, Mac, and even Watch has been good enough. But I have been really disappointed with AppleTV. 
    And how many movies is that? Best I can tell, there's about 50 things on Netflix that are available in 4K and the majority of them are tv shows and a big chunk of those are netflix exclusive shows. 4K just isn't big enough for Apple to bother with it right now. You claim that you have all of these apple devices and you're on an apple site so you should really know, that they're never going to chase features the way other companies do. They'll implement it when they can do it right and when it matters.
  • Reply 58 of 109
    SquSqu Posts: 2member
    Disney stopped updating it a while ago. Never fixing bugs on the appleTV that have been resolved for months on pc/ps4/xbox1. Part of the limitations that they are running into is the local storage requirement on games, not the Siri stuff which last I heard apple backed off of. Games can only store something like 50Mb or something locally at a time, and had to stream or swap files as needed. So large games like this with lots of playsets, characters, and expansions have issues with cohesive updates and small local storage 
  • Reply 59 of 109
     
    And how many movies is that? Best I can tell, there's about 50 things on Netflix that are available in 4K and the majority of them are tv shows and a big chunk of those are netflix exclusive shows. 4K just isn't big enough for Apple to bother with it right now. You claim that you have all of these apple devices and you're on an apple site so you should really know, that they're never going to chase features the way other companies do. They'll implement it when they can do it right and when it matters.
    So you don't think that its slightly odd that they would make a big deal about recording/editing 4k video on your iphone, but you can't view said video on their only tv interfacing device?
  • Reply 60 of 109
    sog35 said:
    I also want to watch 4k movies on Netflix. And who knows what else will be 4k in the next 2 years. Its just beyond ridiculous that Apple did not include 4k which would probably only cost $4 to add to the cost of the device.

    I bought one because I trusted Apple to delivery other features that would make the loss of 4k easier. I thought there would be much better Apps and games. But I have been super disappointed.  There was also talk that 4k video would be possible with a software update. But that does not seem likely now.

    I trusted Apple to give a product worth the $199 I spent.   I have been 100% satisfied with my iPhone, iPad, Mac, and even Watch has been good enough. But I have been really disappointed with AppleTV. 
    And how many movies is that? Best I can tell, there's about 50 things on Netflix that are available in 4K and the majority of them are tv shows and a big chunk of those are netflix exclusive shows. 4K just isn't big enough for Apple to bother with it right now. You claim that you have all of these apple devices and you're on an apple site so you should really know, that they're never going to chase features the way other companies do. They'll implement it when they can do it right and when it matters.
    "They'll implement it when they can do it right and when it matters can't milk their old products anymore."

    Sorry but that's delusional. So what's your reasoning for iCloud being subpar, iWork having featured removed (let me guess, iWork before wasn't using it right or it didn't matter), and AppleTV (other having been doing what this does years ago or did apps not matter before. Oh I know, the 3D icons on the apple tv that you move with your remote is what matters right?)
    edited March 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.