The ATV is a personal computer. It runs a real OS. It can run any iOS app that a developer decides to make available for it. That's what you're getting for the extra $100. The Fire TV doesn't have anything remotely similar in capability. Think about it: the current ATV has the same processing ability as an iPad Pro...for $179. Why do you think Apple is doing that now? They must have a specific reason, and it has nothing to do with Fire TV.
The ATV is a personal computer. It runs a real OS. It can run any iOS app that a developer decides to make available for it. That's what you're getting for the extra $100. The Fire TV doesn't have anything remotely similar in capability. Think about it: the current ATV has the same processing ability as an iPad Pro...for $179. Why do you think Apple is doing that now? They must have a specific reason, and it has nothing to do with Fire TV.
Your observation that the ATV is actually a little computer is an interesting way of looking at it. In that light it seems like an incredible value. The question for me is whether that capability yields any actual benefit in my day-to-day use. I don't need a full-blown computer just to watch movies. Besides games, is there anything the Apple TV does that a Fire or Roku doesn't?
In one way that matters in our house, Apple's little TV computer is actually LESS capable than at least some of the less expensive options. Our Apple TVs are used to watch our library of movies and TV shows. To do that we have to either buy 100% of our content on the iTunes Store so that it exists in the cloud (which means no home movies or DVD/Blu-Ray rips), or we have to dedicate a device like a Mac to being the "server" for local content. With a Roku, I could just plug in a drive directly.
I'm just not seeing how the power provided by the little TV computer improves my use experience. I could drive to the store in a bulldozer instead of a car, but what's the point of paying more for the extra power when it doesn't contribute anything useful to the intended application?
The ATV is a personal computer. It runs a real OS. It can run any iOS app that a developer decides to make available for it. That's what you're getting for the extra $100. The Fire TV doesn't have anything remotely similar in capability. Think about it: the current ATV has the same processing ability as an iPad Pro...for $179. Why do you think Apple is doing that now? They must have a specific reason, and it has nothing to do with Fire TV.
It’s not a personal computer. Even Apple isn’t pretending that.
The ATV is a personal computer. It runs a real OS. It can run any iOS app that a developer decides to make available for it. That's what you're getting for the extra $100. The Fire TV doesn't have anything remotely similar in capability. Think about it: the current ATV has the same processing ability as an iPad Pro...for $179. Why do you think Apple is doing that now? They must have a specific reason, and it has nothing to do with Fire TV.
Your observation that the ATV is actually a little computer is an interesting way of looking at it. In that light it seems like an incredible value. The question for me is whether that capability yields any actual benefit in my day-to-day use. I don't need a full-blown computer just to watch movies. Besides games, is there anything the Apple TV does that a Fire or Roku doesn't?
In one way that matters in our house, Apple's little TV computer is actually LESS capable than at least some of the less expensive options. Our Apple TVs are used to watch our library of movies and TV shows. To do that we have to either buy 100% of our content on the iTunes Store so that it exists in the cloud (which means no home movies or DVD/Blu-Ray rips), or we have to dedicate a device like a Mac to being the "server" for local content. With a Roku, I could just plug in a drive directly.
I'm just not seeing how the power provided by the little TV computer improves my use experience. I could drive to the store in a bulldozer instead of a car, but what's the point of paying more for the extra power when it doesn't contribute anything useful to the intended application?
If the desire is to play from files locally then you are correct. The Roku is better if you have unprotected media. However, if that's the criteria the nVidea Shield is better than the Roku because it does have more CPU power and handles more file types than the Roku.
The new aTV will be "snappier" than the older 4 for most tasks and as the app ecosystem grows the 5 will be able to handle more as time goes on.
Do you really think Apple overbuilt the aTV 5 without any thought as to what to do with the extra processing power?
Here's a hint:
Graphics and Games
New in tvOS 11.0 - SceneKit and SpriteKit focus support.
Use the UIKit focus-related APIs to control animations, play custom sounds, and receive focus update notifications for SceneKit and SpriteKit nodes.
New in tvOS 11.0 - Lightweight render destination.
Added CIRenderDestination, an object for creating renderers that return to the caller after the work has been issued. You can specify all the destination attributes of the renderer for different destinations, including a surface (IOSurface), Core Video pixel buffer (CVPixelBuffer), GL textures, Metal textures, and memory.
Added new Core Image filters CITextImageGenerator, CIColorCurves, CILabDeltaE, CIBokehBlur, CIMinMaxRed, and CIBicubicScaleTransform.
nht said: [...] as the app ecosystem grows the 5 will be able to handle more as time goes on.
Perhaps then something will come along in the future that makes it more attractive and compelling to our family. So far there doesn't seem to be any particular reason for all that power. All dressed up with nowhere to go.
nht said: Do you really think Apple overbuilt the aTV 5 without any thought as to what to do with the extra processing power?
Nope, but neither am I seeing it being applied in a way that matters. There's nothing wrong with it having that power, I just don't see how it makes any difference, Maybe it will in the future, and then maybe I'll buy a couple. For now, that power doesn't seem to provide anything that isn't also available from a much less expensive device.
At this point the Apple TV seems to occupy an odd space in the market hierarchy. It's doesn't offer any significant advantage over competing devices but costs way more, making it less attractive to casual users. I bought a 3rd gen on a whim for my daughter for a single application because at 85 bucks it wasn't a big deal. At over $200 I'd think twice.
It also doesn't seem to be a particularly attractive option for power users because the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" interface makes it inconvenient to manually adjust advanced settings and there's no way to make them automatic. Since there isn't yet much if anything in the way of content that uses the advanced processor to provide something competing device don't, there's not much there to persuade even advanced users that the extra cost is justified.
I think it's a great device, I just think it's too expensive. Of course we're only talking about a difference of under a hundred bucks so it's not like it's going to matter enough to alter the choices of those of us who are invested in the Apple ecosystem. I paid over a thousand bucks to upgrade the storage in my laptop so talking about an extra $80 for an Apple-optimized streamer seems silly. On the other hand, I see all my coworkers buying the base configuration of the iPhone 8 because the upgrade is "too expensive" and wonder how many people are making similar decisions about the Apple TV.
So, Amazon has released the new Fire TV as of yesterday, and Apple still hasn't released the Dolby Atmosphere update, nor do we have an Amazon Video app. This is starting to get ridiculous.
Comments
In one way that matters in our house, Apple's little TV computer is actually LESS capable than at least some of the less expensive options. Our Apple TVs are used to watch our library of movies and TV shows. To do that we have to either buy 100% of our content on the iTunes Store so that it exists in the cloud (which means no home movies or DVD/Blu-Ray rips), or we have to dedicate a device like a Mac to being the "server" for local content. With a Roku, I could just plug in a drive directly.
I'm just not seeing how the power provided by the little TV computer improves my use experience. I could drive to the store in a bulldozer instead of a car, but what's the point of paying more for the extra power when it doesn't contribute anything useful to the intended application?
The new aTV will be "snappier" than the older 4 for most tasks and as the app ecosystem grows the 5 will be able to handle more as time goes on.
Do you really think Apple overbuilt the aTV 5 without any thought as to what to do with the extra processing power?
Here's a hint:
Graphics and Games
New in tvOS 11.0 - SceneKit and SpriteKit focus support.
Use the UIKit focus-related APIs to control animations, play custom sounds, and receive focus update notifications for SceneKit and SpriteKit nodes.
Added
SCNNode.focusBehaviorandSKNode.focusBehaviorto enable focus for node.New in tvOS 11.0 - High performance image analysis.
Added the Vision framework for detecting faces, bar codes, text, image horizon, and rectangular regions.
Provided support for integrating the Vision framework with Core ML to run custom models on images.
Added object-tracking in video.
Added support for image registration.
New in tvOS 11.0 - Ability to write custom image blending kernels for Core Image.
Added
CIBlendKernel, a special type ofCIColorKernelto blend two images (supported byCIRenderDestinationandCIImageAccumulator).Added
init(functionName:fromMetalLibraryData:)toCIKernelfor writing kernels using Metal to benefit from the improved language features and the reduced compile time.New in tvOS 11.0 - Lightweight render destination.
Added
CIRenderDestination, an object for creating renderers that return to the caller after the work has been issued. You can specify all the destination attributes of the renderer for different destinations, including a surface (IOSurface), Core Video pixel buffer (CVPixelBuffer), GL textures, Metal textures, and memory.Added new Core Image filters
CITextImageGenerator,CIColorCurves,CILabDeltaE,CIBokehBlur,CIMinMaxRed, andCIBicubicScaleTransform.Extended the ReplayKit framework.
RPScreenRecorderfor screen capture and back camera support.Nope, but neither am I seeing it being applied in a way that matters. There's nothing wrong with it having that power, I just don't see how it makes any difference, Maybe it will in the future, and then maybe I'll buy a couple. For now, that power doesn't seem to provide anything that isn't also available from a much less expensive device.
At this point the Apple TV seems to occupy an odd space in the market hierarchy. It's doesn't offer any significant advantage over competing devices but costs way more, making it less attractive to casual users. I bought a 3rd gen on a whim for my daughter for a single application because at 85 bucks it wasn't a big deal. At over $200 I'd think twice.
It also doesn't seem to be a particularly attractive option for power users because the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" interface makes it inconvenient to manually adjust advanced settings and there's no way to make them automatic. Since there isn't yet much if anything in the way of content that uses the advanced processor to provide something competing device don't, there's not much there to persuade even advanced users that the extra cost is justified.
I think it's a great device, I just think it's too expensive. Of course we're only talking about a difference of under a hundred bucks so it's not like it's going to matter enough to alter the choices of those of us who are invested in the Apple ecosystem. I paid over a thousand bucks to upgrade the storage in my laptop so talking about an extra $80 for an Apple-optimized streamer seems silly. On the other hand, I see all my coworkers buying the base configuration of the iPhone 8 because the upgrade is "too expensive" and wonder how many people are making similar decisions about the Apple TV.