How come I cannot stream audio from Apple Watch to my Apple TV, 4K version or older?! Dumb.
I can't even fathom a non-bizarre use case for this. What did you have in mind?
Just tried to play audio from watchOS 4.1 beta and the ONLY output possible is to bluetooth earbuds, no AirPlay or BT to ATV (nor Mac or iPhone either)! Makes no sense.
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What use case is there for doing this, other than "because I can?" How would you not be better served by using Apple Music on the television directly or similar with your iPhone?
I'm "all in" with the Apple eco-system. I don't have cable TV, only AppleTV and iTunes. I'd rather rent a movie and watch it at home with my GF than go to a noisy, smelly, expensive movie theater. I will be upgrading my 50" TV to 4k +65" pretty soon. Haven't watched a DVD in years! Have HBO Now, which I cancel every time Bill Maher goes on vacation and Fareed Zakaria's GPS. Also, I'll just buy Ken burns, Viet Nam as an example.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
US content providers continue to be crap. 4K has tested and run OTA in Japan for a few years, now. In the UK, you can be in your 2nd season with the Premier League via PPV, 4K.
I'm still happy with uprezzing on my 1st gen 4K-Vizio; but, I'm not buying new for HDR until a fair piece of day-to-day content is available in 4K. C'mon, folks! Recover some of those wasted 3D production dollar$ and give us something that works on all the sets now being bought.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
Why does one Blu-Ray player cost $70 and the other $170? Why does one set of headphones cost $70 and the other costs $170? People are making a big deal about a pricing issue that is seen ALL THE TIME in the electronics market. Fire TV does not actually provide hardware that is as good or software access that is as good. The functionality is not even close to being as varied as the ATV. Charging a premium for that is not unique to Apple specifically or electronics in general.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
How'd Apple screw up input switching? HDMI CEC 2.0 should handle this just fine with most UHD sets.
I think the entire Television industry need to generate a robust control mechanism.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
Of all the products Apple has introduced this year the new Apple TV 4K was the most justifiable piece of HW for my needs. I no have to use my TV's UI and apps for getting 4K content from Netflix (and soon to be Amazon), it's very inexpensive for an Apple product and the spec bumps across the board make it a great update as well as one that will likely last as long as I have my current TV as well as likely be a great addition to someone's home if and when I finally upgrade to a 6th or 7th gen many years from now.
But with Apple TV, I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in the Apple ecosystem — people who own MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones — who just don’t want to spend $200 for an Apple TV when they can get a Roku or Fire TV for a lot less. The primary selling point of an Apple TV over these devices is iTunes. I love iTunes — I’ve bought hundreds of movies and TV series from iTunes over the years, knowing full well these purchases would be locked to the Apple ecosystem. I feel like my loyalty to iTunes is being rewarded now that I can get 4K versions of the movies I’ve already bought without paying another dime. No one sent me Blu-ray versions of the many movies I purchased on DVDs back in the day.
But for people who don’t buy movies from iTunes — and generally don’t buy movies period, choosing only to stream from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Prime, etc. (and/or to assemble their home movie collection from copies that fall off trucks) — what does Apple TV offer to justify costing over twice as much? The computing power of the device and the popularity of iOS for gaming make Apple TV a decent casual gaming device, but it doesn’t ship with a gaming controller and even Apple describes Apple TV as a video platform first, gaming platform second.
I like Apple TV a lot, but I think Apple is ceding marketshare by not having a box that competes on price. I think there are a lot of people who look at iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks and see them as “expensive but worth it” but who look at Apple TV and see it as “ridiculously overpriced”.
Paying $80 more for a device you use everyday for hours a day for 2 or 3 years?
That's literally pennies a day.
Don't forget the competition such as Roku/Amazon fire are littered with ADS. And also are data mining our activity. That alone is worth the extra money.
And where is Gruber getting $200? The ATV4 cost only $149.
He’s referring to the newest TV that supports 4K. You of all people should be clamoring for Apple to sell a cheaper TV. It’s about getting more people into the ecosystem, right? And people don’t give a shit about data mining. I’ll bet a lot of people use Netflix app on TV? You think Netflix isn’t data mining to try and provide a better experience? Because at the end of the day that’s what data mining is all about. Just because Apple might not be as good at it as others doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
Why does one Blu-Ray player cost $70 and the other $170? Why does one set of headphones cost $70 and the other costs $170? People are making a big deal about a pricing issue that is seen ALL THE TIME in the electronics market. Fire TV does not actually provide hardware that is as good or software access that is as good. The functionality is not even close to being as varied as the ATV. Charging a premium for that is not unique to Apple specifically or electronics in general.
Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.
I saw a typical YouTube review ignoring lack of Dolby Vision in the Shield because “most TVs don’t support it.” But a minute later criticize Apple TV for not supporting Dolby Atmos. A feature that has even LESS support and LESS products in the wild. Heck you need a TV before a surround system and the feature is coming anyway. Hypocrisy.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
What makes it worth $100 more?
1. No ads on AppleTV. Fire TV is loaded with ads on the home screen. It sucks to have a Trojan Condom ad on your home screen when you just want to watch Netflix.
2. More internal storage. AppleTV has 32 GB. Fire TV has only 8GB.
3. Way faster CPU. A10X is at least 90% faster than the CPU in the FireTV. May not seem like much but the faster chip allows for a super smooth experience instead of lag and stuttering on the Fire.
4. Way faster GPU. The FireTV actual has a worse GPU than last years Fire TV. Pathetic. Games isn't huge on AppleTV but its still MUCH better than on Fire TV.
5. Access to all Apple services. iTunes, Photo's, Mac home sharing, Apple Music, ect
6. Free 4k upgrades to movies
7. Homekit automation.
8. Privacy. FireTV is collecting data on you.
I mean why spend THOUSANDS on a TV and sound system and then cheap out on a streaming box? Makes ZERO sense.
$100 spread over 2 or 3 years is basicially nothing.
Not this shit again. Why do people think if Apple sold a $50 crap box it will solve all problems? These are the same idiots who bitch if a leading edge technology isn’t available on launch day.(Atmos)
I believe the Apple TV is too cheap. I’d much prefer an Apple TV with a custom gaming chip faster than A11, AR features and a Siri remote with M-processor, 3D Touch and Taptic Engine for $249-$299.
Imagine a keynote for that! ”Streaming boxes are good for streaming but are terrible for gaming. As a matter of fact most are dropping gaming all together! Gaming consoles are great for gaming but the controls and apps for streaming are tedious. Neither consoles nor streamers are great at delivering useful apps...... well today.... we present a device that can do all 3 really well!”
How come I cannot stream audio from Apple Watch to my Apple TV, 4K version or older?! Dumb.
I can't even fathom a non-bizarre use case for this. What did you have in mind?
Just tried to play audio from watchOS 4.1 beta and the ONLY output possible is to bluetooth earbuds, no AirPlay or BT to ATV (nor Mac or iPhone either)! Makes no sense.
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What use case is there for doing this, other than "because I can?" How would you not be better served by using Apple Music on the television directly or similar with your iPhone?
The bluetooth connectivity options are too limited, whatever room I am in, I should be able to connect to any audio targets available, and not allowing AirPlay audio is plain ridiculous. I own no stereo bt earphones currently, so I am left with NO options to output audio. Even the internal speaker on A Watch is not allowed. Silly. Apple plays this game that only THEY should decide which audio targets I am allowed to connect to with the device I bought. Tired of it.
US content providers continue to be crap. 4K has tested and run OTA in Japan for a few years, now. In the UK, you can be in your 2nd season with the Premier League via PPV, 4K.
I'm still happy with uprezzing on my 1st gen 4K-Vizio; but, I'm not buying new for HDR until a fair piece of day-to-day content is available in 4K. C'mon, folks! Recover some of those wasted 3D production dollar$ and give us something that works on all the sets now being bought.
Still waiting to see if (unlikely) Apple supports the US OTA 4K HDR standard due this year in shipping gear, ATSC 3.0 in ATV! http://atsc.org
US content providers continue to be crap. 4K has tested and run OTA in Japan for a few years, now. In the UK, you can be in your 2nd season with the Premier League via PPV, 4K.
I'm still happy with uprezzing on my 1st gen 4K-Vizio; but, I'm not buying new for HDR until a fair piece of day-to-day content is available in 4K. C'mon, folks! Recover some of those wasted 3D production dollar$ and give us something that works on all the sets now being bought.
Not true at all. DirecTV has been airing 4K content for a while. I've been watching Premier League games in 4K for free on DirecTV the last two seasons. DirecTV also airs NBA, MLB, college football, golf, plus more in 4K.
EDIT: Forgot to add DirecTV does have a full time 4K channel that airs great programming. The other full time 4K channel is PPV movies. The third 4K channel is for live sporting events and concerts.
The 4K ATV does handle HDR and Dolby Vision so why does the article say it does not? The only problem I found with the unit is the failed Dolby Vision Test which crashes when invoked. I then simply selected Dolby Vision 30 Hz refresh from the Audio/Video menu and all of the ATV output is generated at that resolution. The cable test passes just fine with my 20’ Monoprice Active High speed Premium HDMI cable. I am very happy with the unit working with my LG OLED 65E7P beautiful TV.
It says nothing of the sort. It does say that it doesn't support HDR10+ -- which as I'm sure you're aware isn't the same.
I thought HDR is generic for higher dynamic range of colors. I thought HDR10 or 10+ were a particular implementation of the HDR concept. Am I wrong?
HDR10 and 10+ are two different standards based off the same core. HDR10+ is Samsung's particular implementation, and is more like Dolby Vision than HDR10, providing color table data as needed, instead of (grossly simplified) all at once.
When Apple says HDR, they mean it in a "kleenex meaning all nasal tissue" way as encompassing HDR10 or Dolby Vision.
So, how does one best dump 4k video from iPhone in h.265 to Apple TV? Stream on Airplay or upload to iCloud and then download to Apple TV, or better, can I upload to Apple TV directly over the network?
My 2015 Samsung TV seems to do a good job of up scaling to 4K. Am I better off using the TV or the Apple TV for the upscaling? How would I set it up? Mark
My 2015 Samsung TV seems to do a good job of up scaling to 4K. Am I better off using the TV or the Apple TV for the upscaling? How would I set it up? Mark
The first device in the stream does the upscaling -- in the normal case, the Apple TV. If the TV is already getting 4K resolution, it won't apply additional upscaling to it.
You could always set the Apple TV resolution to a lower one, say, 1080p, and see how the television does on its own, and compare. Might be subjective.
But, we couldn't generate a H.265 file that would be recognized on the Apple TV. The file will load into iTunes, but Home Sharing just won't pick it up. This same file loaded into VLC plays fine, and isn't transcoded to a lower resolution.
So, the lack of Home Sharing picking up the file isn't a technical limitation of the Apple TV 4K, and appears at this point to be a choice that someone made along the way to actively prevent this kind of thing.
As someone waiting on the iPhone X -- to record 4K home videos of my 4 year old -- does this apply to iPhone or iMovie content as well? In other words, does the "Edit With... iTunes" function work with HEVC content that has captured on an iPhone & imported to Photos on High Sierra?
As far as upscaling goes, the ATV 4K does that automatically, no way to change it, you can manually change to 1080p output if you so choose, of course no HDR that way. Most people are complaining the ATV 4K does not change modes on the fly, but picks the “best” setting for your TV, at 60Hz, then upscales both resultion, and SDR to HDR/DV if your TV is compatible, with results that are mixed, sometimes good sometimes not. People in home theater forums are returning these for this alone, because it requires you to change modes manually depending on what content you’re playing, unlike UHD blu-ray players or other 4K set tops, also giving Apple feedback, which I recommend...they need to get this right, things are not simple with UHD, like it or not, and I do think Apple could give us the option to auto change modes depending on content.
HEVC/H.265 streaming...HEVC/H.265 is new to all apple products, and not yet fully implemented. AirPlay 2 was pulled during the beta process and Apple says its coming in a future OS update. They pulled any info. on it, but, I’m 99% sure AirPlay 2 will handle HEVC/H.265 streaming from iOS devices and High Sierra (and video in iCloud), once implemented. So, it’s not that ATV 4K won’t, but, it will in the (unknown timeframe) future. For now it seems to be working for iTunes and Netflix (with 4K/UHD Premium subscription), VUDU has not yet been updated, Amazon Prime should come with 4K HDR, (sometime between now and dec. 31st). ...iMovie update has already been pushed out with HEVC compatibility the 25th for High Sierra, Photos app in High Sierra also, but, again I think waiting on AirPlay 2 to be implemented for streaming to other Apple devices.
I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR.
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
Why does one Blu-Ray player cost $70 and the other $170? Why does one set of headphones cost $70 and the other costs $170? People are making a big deal about a pricing issue that is seen ALL THE TIME in the electronics market. Fire TV does not actually provide hardware that is as good or software access that is as good. The functionality is not even close to being as varied as the ATV. Charging a premium for that is not unique to Apple specifically or electronics in general.
Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.
The 4K ATV does handle HDR and Dolby Vision so why does the article say it does not? The only problem I found with the unit is the failed Dolby Vision Test which crashes when invoked. I then simply selected Dolby Vision 30 Hz refresh from the Audio/Video menu and all of the ATV output is generated at that resolution. The cable test passes just fine with my 20’ Monoprice Active High speed Premium HDMI cable. I am very happy with the unit working with my LG OLED 65E7P beautiful TV.
It says nothing of the sort. It does say that it doesn't support HDR10+ -- which as I'm sure you're aware isn't the same.
I thought HDR is generic for higher dynamic range of colors. I thought HDR10 or 10+ were a particular implementation of the HDR concept. Am I wrong?
HDR is generic for high dynamic range, but when it comes to TV's, there are 3 HDR standards right now. HDR10, Dolby Vision, and Samsung's HDR10 plus. The new Samsung standard (HDR10 plus) is essentially copying Dolby Vision as it uses dynamic metadata compared to static metadata HDR10 uses. What that means is dynamic metadata can dynamically alter the brightness in scenes you are watching on your TV. I haven't seen any HDR10 plus demos, but right now, Dolby Vision is the best standard.
But with Apple TV, I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in the Apple ecosystem — people who own MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones — who just don’t want to spend $200 for an Apple TV when they can get a Roku or Fire TV for a lot less. The primary selling point of an Apple TV over these devices is iTunes. I love iTunes — I’ve bought hundreds of movies and TV series from iTunes over the years, knowing full well these purchases would be locked to the Apple ecosystem. I feel like my loyalty to iTunes is being rewarded now that I can get 4K versions of the movies I’ve already bought without paying another dime. No one sent me Blu-ray versions of the many movies I purchased on DVDs back in the day.
But for people who don’t buy movies from iTunes — and generally don’t buy movies period, choosing only to stream from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Prime, etc. (and/or to assemble their home movie collection from copies that fall off trucks) — what does Apple TV offer to justify costing over twice as much? The computing power of the device and the popularity of iOS for gaming make Apple TV a decent casual gaming device, but it doesn’t ship with a gaming controller and even Apple describes Apple TV as a video platform first, gaming platform second.
I like Apple TV a lot, but I think Apple is ceding marketshare by not having a box that competes on price. I think there are a lot of people who look at iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks and see them as “expensive but worth it” but who look at Apple TV and see it as “ridiculously overpriced”.
Paying $80 more for a device you use everyday for hours a day for 2 or 3 years?
That's literally pennies a day.
Don't forget the competition such as Roku/Amazon fire are littered with ADS. And also are data mining our activity. That alone is worth the extra money.
And where is Gruber getting $200? The ATV4 cost only $149.
He’s referring to the newest TV that supports 4K. You of all people should be clamoring for Apple to sell a cheaper TV. It’s about getting more people into the ecosystem, right? And people don’t give a shit about data mining. I’ll bet a lot of people use Netflix app on TV? You think Netflix isn’t data mining to try and provide a better experience? Because at the end of the day that’s what data mining is all about. Just because Apple might not be as good at it as others doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
No.
ATV4 cost $149 not $200. Not everyone has a 4k TV.
Stopping moving the goal post like Gruber. Comparing Apple's most expensive ATV with Amazon's cheapest.
Amazon just released a new Fire TV which supports 4K, HDR, Dolby Atmos and has Alexa integration. It’s basically a little box that plugs in to the HDMI port on your TV. It’s $70. What makes TV $109 better? iTunes content? Seriously?
Comments
Best
What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it.
I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review.
I'm still happy with uprezzing on my 1st gen 4K-Vizio; but, I'm not buying new for HDR until a fair piece of day-to-day content is available in 4K. C'mon, folks! Recover some of those wasted 3D production dollar$ and give us something that works on all the sets now being bought.
I think the entire Television industry need to generate a robust control mechanism.
Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.
Not this shit again. Why do people think if Apple sold a $50 crap box it will solve all problems? These are the same idiots who bitch if a leading edge technology isn’t available on launch day.(Atmos)
I believe the Apple TV is too cheap.
I’d much prefer an Apple TV with a custom gaming chip faster than A11, AR features and a Siri remote with M-processor, 3D Touch and Taptic Engine for $249-$299.
Imagine a keynote for that!
”Streaming boxes are good for streaming but are terrible for gaming. As a matter of fact most are dropping gaming all together! Gaming consoles are great for gaming but the controls and apps for streaming are tedious. Neither consoles nor streamers are great at delivering useful apps...... well today.... we present a device that can do all 3 really well!”
Still waiting to see if (unlikely) Apple supports the US OTA 4K HDR standard due this year in shipping gear, ATSC 3.0 in ATV!
http://atsc.org
EDIT: Forgot to add DirecTV does have a full time 4K channel that airs great programming. The other full time 4K channel is PPV movies. The third 4K channel is for live sporting events and concerts.
When Apple says HDR, they mean it in a "kleenex meaning all nasal tissue" way as encompassing HDR10 or Dolby Vision.
HEVC/H.265 streaming...HEVC/H.265 is new to all apple products, and not yet fully implemented. AirPlay 2 was pulled during the beta process and Apple says its coming in a future OS update. They pulled any info. on it, but, I’m 99% sure AirPlay 2 will handle HEVC/H.265 streaming from iOS devices and High Sierra (and video in iCloud), once implemented. So, it’s not that ATV 4K won’t, but, it will in the (unknown timeframe) future. For now it seems to be working for iTunes and Netflix (with 4K/UHD Premium subscription), VUDU has not yet been updated, Amazon Prime should come with 4K HDR, (sometime between now and dec. 31st). ...iMovie update has already been pushed out with HEVC compatibility the 25th for High Sierra, Photos app in High Sierra also, but, again I think waiting on AirPlay 2 to be implemented for streaming to other Apple devices.