Apple did not build its computer business by licensing its OS to Dell and HP.
Apple did not build its MP3 player business by licensing its UI to Archos and Sony.
Apple did not build its mobile phone business by licensing its OS to Motorola and Samsung.
Why would Apple ditch a successful and replicable business model and start licensing to set-top box manufacturers and cable systems? They wouldn't; they're going to compete with those guys. Apple doesn't want you to use Apple TV to navigate your Comcast service; they want you to DITCH your Comcast service and use theirs instead.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.
GoogleTV is not that far away. By licensing GoogleTV to multiple manufacturers it makes it much easier for Google to sneak it into your home. You didn't intend to buy GoogleTV but your cable box or TV or Blu-ray player had it included.
Many people didn't understand the benefits of AppleTV. People here still complain about the lack of certain features (no DVR functionality etc which is kind of missing the point). Hopefully a $99 price point will make it easier for people to take the plunge and get an AppleTV. But don't ignore the threat from GoogleTV. It is a serious rival and does have an advantage using multiple hardware partners.
How fast would my home Internet need to be to download 1080p?
I was at blockbuster yesterday. Found myself thinking that if I never walked into the store again I'd be fine with that. And I don't want to buy a BR player. Give me 1080 streaming and I'm yours.
For high quality (BD level) you would need a stable 45 mbit connection. For broadcast cable HD quality, you would need 15-20 mbit. For low quality highly compressed 1080p (Xbox Live level) that would cost you around 10mbit. Current 720p iTunes streams are 5mbit, but to be frank, they look mostly awful.
Hopefully Apple will have multiple levels of quality so those with good connections can get a blu-ray quality stream, with lossless audio too. 1080p at a high bitrate is only half the story, it's essential to have DTS Master or Dolby True HD too.
5.) I doubt it will stream 1080p. That seems over the top.
6.) Will not have blue-ray. Apple will never have Blue-ray. Blue-ray is a dead medium, long term. Streaming will replace it completely in the future.
The Xbox Live Zune video marketplace has been streaming 1080p for a long time now. Plays virtually instantly and I've never had any spluttering or network issues. Quality is decent but obviously light years away from blu-ray.
As for blu-ray being dead, don't be so silly. It's just getting started. Even if a streaming service could match blu-ray quality (and so far, none have come anywhere near) there are still other huge advantages to BD, such as competition in the marketplace, the ability to lend/resell discs, hour upon hour of extras, and the ability for those with less than great connections to watch high end video.
I'm probably more into streaming than most, but there are big issues for streaming to overcome before it can rival BD, and I can't imagine them being solved for a decade or more. BD is here to stay.
Like I said, it's naive to think he wasn't, proving it in court would be another thing.
GoogleTV's top engineer was the former CTO of OpenTV, a company that does middleware for cable TV and satellite. He left for Google in 2006. So maybe the TV thing didn't come from Apple?
h.264 is now getting professional blu ray encodes down to 15 mbps or so. so figure that would give you "blu ray quality" (as if that is some standard).
1/2 that, about 7-8 mbps and you could have some really high quality streaming media.
this sounds good to me, as i just switched from verizon's crappy 3 mbps dsl+ phone for $90 a month to comcast's 20 mbps cable + comcast phone (it was required) for $55 a month - and saved myself $35 per month in the process!! (not an ad, it is just ridiculous how verizon is raping its dsl subscribers) i only switched because the "premium" 3 mbps DSL was set to go up to $119 a month (including phone) as my 12 month discount was up.
Not sure what BDs you've been watching but I watch a LOT of them and it's very rare to see the bit-rate ever drop below 35mbits (except when the screen is just displaying credits etc). A lot of BDs sustain 45mbits for lengthy periods. Plus don't forget BD's high end audio will gobble up another 3-5mbits too.
I'd love to see someone offer a truly high quality streaming solution, but very few people would be able to take advantage of it.
Apple did not build its computer business by licensing its OS to Dell and HP.
Apple did not build its MP3 player business by licensing its UI to Archos and Sony.
Apple did not build its mobile phone business by licensing its OS to Motorola and Samsung.
Why would Apple ditch a successful and replicable business model and start licensing to set-top box manufacturers and cable systems? They wouldn't; they're going to compete with those guys. Apple doesn't want you to use Apple TV to navigate your Comcast service; they want you to DITCH your Comcast service and use theirs instead.
I have never said Apple should license its software. That's what Google is doing. And I did point out the differences in the two approaches. Google is trying to do two things. They are trying to tie the web to TV for obvious reasons. Their other effort is aimed at changing the current stale cable box UI, which I think everybody can agree is crap. I personally think, they saw the trouble Apple went through with Apple TV and the content creators and decided to go a different route (ie.working with TV and cable box makers).
As for Apple's approach. We'll see how it goes. They couldn't pull it off last time. I can't see what's changed this time around on the big issue: content. The better form factor will be nice. The lower price will definitely be nice. Apps are nice too. But will it change the TV landscape? Without content that people want (ie. the latest shows at the same time as cable subscribers) probably not.
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
He probably wouldn't excuse himself from those meetings because he wouldn't want to divulge Google's secret plans for Android. Remember, Schmidt was on the board before Android came out. I have to assume he skimmed Apple for their future plans and let Google in on them. I think Schmidt is a sh*t.
GoogleTV's top engineer was the former CTO of OpenTV, a company that does middleware for cable TV and satellite. He left for Google in 2006. So maybe the TV thing didn't come from Apple?
Google TV and Apple TV are two completely different animals. The only they have in common is the final implement: the TV. So I am willing to bet that there's absolutely no relation and no advantage to any TV efforts Apple has been undertaking.
As it stands, based on what we know so far, I could see a lot of people getting both. For example, I'd rent a Google TV cable box from my cable company. And I'd get Apple TV so I can stream content from my Mac and maybe play a few games and use some Apps. Till Apple gets a content deal with content creators, that's actually competitive with cable, it's highly unlikely most of us would get rid of our cable boxes. And if you're keeping a cable box, then why not make it a Google TV box?
He probably wouldn't excuse himself from those meetings because he wouldn't want to divulge Google's secret plans for Android. Remember, Schmidt was on the board before Android came out. I have to assume he skimmed Apple for their future plans and let Google in on them. I think Schmidt is a sh*t.
ummm...probably? If he didn't excuse himself, him and Google could have faced significant liability. He can't just not excuse himself because he would have given away Google's intentions. If he did that, you can bet that Apple would have sued. Have you ever known Steve to not be in a litigious mood?
Anyway, the point is moot. It's known that he did excuse himself. And the fact that Apple hasn't sued, certainly should indicate that Apple doesn't have a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong (which if he did sit in a meeting discussing the iPhone, they most certainly would have had). Aside from that, Schmidt joined the board in 2006. Google acquired Android in 2005. Do you really think that his fellow board members didn't know he was involved with a company that was developing a mobile operating system? Do you think they would have sat there and just let him sit through any meeting he wanted fully aware that Google was developing Android?
Will completely fail because there is no tactile feedback. You do not want to take your eyes of the TV to look at the iPhone to find the Fire or Jump button.
Eh, you'll learn the layout like any other and then its muscle memory. People said the onscreen keyboard for the iphone would suck and that was obviously wrong.
At $99 and I already had two 2TB Time Capsules since Christmas! But hold up everyone the one detail that most people are overlooking is that if it's iPhone OS and it will be running Apps from the App Store then that means Safari, Mail, Calendar, Pages, Keynote, Numbers and Contacts will be running on your 1080p LCD and or LED Flat-screen TV for ONLY $99 with addition of a $69 Wireless Bluetooth Keyboard and $69 Magic Mouse. This is great!
Google TV and Apple TV are two completely different animals. The only they have in common is the final implement: the TV. So I am willing to bet that there's absolutely no relation and no advantage to any TV efforts Apple has been undertaking.
As it stands, based on what we know so far, I could see a lot of people getting both. For example, I'd rent a Google TV cable box from my cable company. And I'd get Apple TV so I can stream content from my Mac and maybe play a few games and use some Apps. Till Apple gets a content deal with content creators, that's actually competitive with cable, it's highly unlikely most of us would get rid of our cable boxes. And if you're keeping a cable box, then why not make it a Google TV box?
If it wasn't for the DRM on TV shows and Movies purchased through iTunes (which I blame on the movie studios not Apple) you'd be able to stream video directly from your Mac to your GoogleTV device and not bother with an AppleTV at all. At the Google I/O conference recently they showed off streaming music from iTunes to Android phones. Doing the same for non-DRM restricted video is pretty easy.
There is a lot of focus on content, but I think Apps are the really exciting part. For example Amazon could create GoogleTV and AppleTV apps. Now you can watch Amazon Video On Demand. ABC could create AppleTV and GoogleTV apps just like they have an iPad app. Now you have ABC without requiring cable and can pause/rewind episodes without needing a DVR. GoogleTV and AppleTV might appear to be completely different animals but add in a few apps and they quickly become very similar and also very powerful.
Eh, you'll learn the layout like any other and then its muscle memory. People said the onscreen keyboard for the iphone would suck and that was obviously wrong.
But with the iPhone screen you are looking at the same screen you are typing on. With the AppleTV you want to focus on the TV screen not at the controller.
Imagine trying to type on an iPhone or iPad without looking at the device. You will make mistakes. Traditional keyboards have tactile feedback: the edges of the keys, the ridges on the F and J keys. This enables you to type without looking at the keyboard. An iPhone does not provide this feedback so would make a poor controller for the AppleTV.
In addition, having to learn the layout and rely on muscle memory is not an Apple way of doing things. Apple makes user interfaces that are intuitive to use.
Not sure what BDs you've been watching but I watch a LOT of them and it's very rare to see the bit-rate ever drop below 35mbits (except when the screen is just displaying credits etc). A lot of BDs sustain 45mbits for lengthy periods. Plus don't forget BD's high end audio will gobble up another 3-5mbits too.
I'd love to see someone offer a truly high quality streaming solution, but very few people would be able to take advantage of it.
Good stuff. People are also forgetting the CPU component here. As far as I can tell, the A4 is absolutely not up to the challenge of streaming 1080p. It can barely handle 720p--remember the iPhone and iPad don't use true 720p, they are using a version of 720p that has a much lower bitrate and is therefore faster to decode (not to mention smaller). My 2 year old MacBook Pro can mostly keep up with rue 1080p @ 40Mb/s but even now and then it hiccups when playing a high bitrate H264 file. The A4 is literally half the processor of my Core 2 Duo too; single core and clocked at half the speed. (My MacBook can't do H264 decode in GPU, so it's actually a good test of CPU performance).
Then of course you have to have CPU power left over to process network packets; my iMac can handle around 40Mb/s with the CPU averaging 3-5%. I don't think an A4 would fare so well, though I don't have hard numbers on iPad network throughput.
Good stuff. People are also forgetting the CPU component here. As far as I can tell, the A4 is absolutely not up to the challenge of streaming 1080p. It can barely handle 720p--remember the iPhone and iPad don't use true 720p, they are using a version of 720p that has a much lower bitrate and is therefore faster to decode (not to mention smaller). My 2 year old MacBook Pro can mostly keep up with rue 1080p @ 40Mb/s but even now and then it hiccups when playing a high bitrate H264 file. The A4 is literally half the processor of my Core 2 Duo too; single core and clocked at half the speed. (My MacBook can't do H264 decode in GPU, so it's actually a good test of CPU performance).
Then of course you have to have CPU power left over to process network packets; my iMac can handle around 40Mb/s with the CPU averaging 3-5%. I don't think an A4 would fare so well, though I don't have hard numbers on iPad network throughput.
Remember, the A4 is a PoP (Package on Package) and SoC (System on Chip) also contains the RAM and PowerVR SGX 535 GPU with also contains a PowerVR VXD375 for video decoding of high-profile 1080p video.
VXD390 is capable of decoding full high-definition H.264 L4.2 (1080P60) and can decode multiple streams simultaneously to fully meet Blu-ray and other multi stream decode requirements.
While that is the 390, not the 375, I wouldn't expect there to be much difference between these Imagination products. The one in the A4 seems to be only available to Apple. Even if it can't do Blu-ray full resolution high-profile H.264 @ 60fps like the 390 it will surely do 1080p for all the content that you'll find on any legitimate download site, so yes, it is "up to the challenge".
What you might be looking at is Apple's spec sheet for the iPad or iPhone 3GS and thinking, "if it works then why don't they allow it". There are many reasons for that but for a portable device that is trying to conserve as much battery life as possible, not pointlessly allowing 1080p on a device that obviously can't benefit from 1080p on the device is silly. In contract, the TV will be plugged in and therefore not need to conserve power. Even at full tilt it will use a lot power than the current Pentium M-based TV uses with it's nearly complete version of Mac OS X "Tiger" running on it.
the more interesting thing that people aren't talking about is this... Is this a sign that Apple has some meaningful deals with the studios? Unless things have changed.... While the iTunes movie store is 'okay' its mostly filled with DVD priced offerings in 720p quality and with less than stellar audio support. Certainly no 5.1 or 7.2... It's 2010 and OS X still doesn't do acceptable HT audio.
Is this about to change? I sure hope so... because it's not like Apple (Steve) to roll out a device that supports 1080p without them having any 1080p content to offer.
I really hope there are some content deals in the wings. Some networks are offering VoD options in conjunction with their channels so perhaps that's an avenue for Apple?
Currently Apple rent most 720p videos in 5.1, not sure why you haven't found that. And I would expect 1080p support is more for future proofing, home movies, photo viewing than for rental movies (for now).
Comments
Apple did not build its computer business by licensing its OS to Dell and HP.
Apple did not build its MP3 player business by licensing its UI to Archos and Sony.
Apple did not build its mobile phone business by licensing its OS to Motorola and Samsung.
Why would Apple ditch a successful and replicable business model and start licensing to set-top box manufacturers and cable systems? They wouldn't; they're going to compete with those guys. Apple doesn't want you to use Apple TV to navigate your Comcast service; they want you to DITCH your Comcast service and use theirs instead.
But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.
GoogleTV is not that far away. By licensing GoogleTV to multiple manufacturers it makes it much easier for Google to sneak it into your home. You didn't intend to buy GoogleTV but your cable box or TV or Blu-ray player had it included.
Many people didn't understand the benefits of AppleTV. People here still complain about the lack of certain features (no DVR functionality etc which is kind of missing the point). Hopefully a $99 price point will make it easier for people to take the plunge and get an AppleTV. But don't ignore the threat from GoogleTV. It is a serious rival and does have an advantage using multiple hardware partners.
How fast would my home Internet need to be to download 1080p?
I was at blockbuster yesterday. Found myself thinking that if I never walked into the store again I'd be fine with that. And I don't want to buy a BR player. Give me 1080 streaming and I'm yours.
For high quality (BD level) you would need a stable 45 mbit connection. For broadcast cable HD quality, you would need 15-20 mbit. For low quality highly compressed 1080p (Xbox Live level) that would cost you around 10mbit. Current 720p iTunes streams are 5mbit, but to be frank, they look mostly awful.
Hopefully Apple will have multiple levels of quality so those with good connections can get a blu-ray quality stream, with lossless audio too. 1080p at a high bitrate is only half the story, it's essential to have DTS Master or Dolby True HD too.
No one but you has written that, but that he might have done other more positive things does not excuse unethical behavior.
Your constant stream of comments accusing Google of "stealing" certainly lean towards that kind of blanket mentality.
I am still curious about what you think Google "stole" from Apple, specifically when it comes to Google TV.
Just some thoughts.
5.) I doubt it will stream 1080p. That seems over the top.
6.) Will not have blue-ray. Apple will never have Blue-ray. Blue-ray is a dead medium, long term. Streaming will replace it completely in the future.
The Xbox Live Zune video marketplace has been streaming 1080p for a long time now. Plays virtually instantly and I've never had any spluttering or network issues. Quality is decent but obviously light years away from blu-ray.
As for blu-ray being dead, don't be so silly. It's just getting started. Even if a streaming service could match blu-ray quality (and so far, none have come anywhere near) there are still other huge advantages to BD, such as competition in the marketplace, the ability to lend/resell discs, hour upon hour of extras, and the ability for those with less than great connections to watch high end video.
I'm probably more into streaming than most, but there are big issues for streaming to overcome before it can rival BD, and I can't imagine them being solved for a decade or more. BD is here to stay.
Like I said, it's naive to think he wasn't, proving it in court would be another thing.
GoogleTV's top engineer was the former CTO of OpenTV, a company that does middleware for cable TV and satellite. He left for Google in 2006. So maybe the TV thing didn't come from Apple?
h.264 is now getting professional blu ray encodes down to 15 mbps or so. so figure that would give you "blu ray quality" (as if that is some standard).
1/2 that, about 7-8 mbps and you could have some really high quality streaming media.
this sounds good to me, as i just switched from verizon's crappy 3 mbps dsl+ phone for $90 a month to comcast's 20 mbps cable + comcast phone (it was required) for $55 a month - and saved myself $35 per month in the process!! (not an ad, it is just ridiculous how verizon is raping its dsl subscribers) i only switched because the "premium" 3 mbps DSL was set to go up to $119 a month (including phone) as my 12 month discount was up.
Not sure what BDs you've been watching but I watch a LOT of them and it's very rare to see the bit-rate ever drop below 35mbits (except when the screen is just displaying credits etc). A lot of BDs sustain 45mbits for lengthy periods. Plus don't forget BD's high end audio will gobble up another 3-5mbits too.
I'd love to see someone offer a truly high quality streaming solution, but very few people would be able to take advantage of it.
Apple did not build its computer business by licensing its OS to Dell and HP.
Apple did not build its MP3 player business by licensing its UI to Archos and Sony.
Apple did not build its mobile phone business by licensing its OS to Motorola and Samsung.
Why would Apple ditch a successful and replicable business model and start licensing to set-top box manufacturers and cable systems? They wouldn't; they're going to compete with those guys. Apple doesn't want you to use Apple TV to navigate your Comcast service; they want you to DITCH your Comcast service and use theirs instead.
I have never said Apple should license its software. That's what Google is doing. And I did point out the differences in the two approaches. Google is trying to do two things. They are trying to tie the web to TV for obvious reasons. Their other effort is aimed at changing the current stale cable box UI, which I think everybody can agree is crap. I personally think, they saw the trouble Apple went through with Apple TV and the content creators and decided to go a different route (ie.working with TV and cable box makers).
As for Apple's approach. We'll see how it goes. They couldn't pull it off last time. I can't see what's changed this time around on the big issue: content. The better form factor will be nice. The lower price will definitely be nice. Apps are nice too. But will it change the TV landscape? Without content that people want (ie. the latest shows at the same time as cable subscribers) probably not.
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
He probably wouldn't excuse himself from those meetings because he wouldn't want to divulge Google's secret plans for Android. Remember, Schmidt was on the board before Android came out. I have to assume he skimmed Apple for their future plans and let Google in on them. I think Schmidt is a sh*t.
GoogleTV's top engineer was the former CTO of OpenTV, a company that does middleware for cable TV and satellite. He left for Google in 2006. So maybe the TV thing didn't come from Apple?
Google TV and Apple TV are two completely different animals. The only they have in common is the final implement: the TV. So I am willing to bet that there's absolutely no relation and no advantage to any TV efforts Apple has been undertaking.
As it stands, based on what we know so far, I could see a lot of people getting both. For example, I'd rent a Google TV cable box from my cable company. And I'd get Apple TV so I can stream content from my Mac and maybe play a few games and use some Apps. Till Apple gets a content deal with content creators, that's actually competitive with cable, it's highly unlikely most of us would get rid of our cable boxes. And if you're keeping a cable box, then why not make it a Google TV box?
He probably wouldn't excuse himself from those meetings because he wouldn't want to divulge Google's secret plans for Android. Remember, Schmidt was on the board before Android came out. I have to assume he skimmed Apple for their future plans and let Google in on them. I think Schmidt is a sh*t.
ummm...probably? If he didn't excuse himself, him and Google could have faced significant liability. He can't just not excuse himself because he would have given away Google's intentions. If he did that, you can bet that Apple would have sued. Have you ever known Steve to not be in a litigious mood?
Anyway, the point is moot. It's known that he did excuse himself. And the fact that Apple hasn't sued, certainly should indicate that Apple doesn't have a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong (which if he did sit in a meeting discussing the iPhone, they most certainly would have had). Aside from that, Schmidt joined the board in 2006. Google acquired Android in 2005. Do you really think that his fellow board members didn't know he was involved with a company that was developing a mobile operating system? Do you think they would have sat there and just let him sit through any meeting he wanted fully aware that Google was developing Android?
I'm probably more into streaming than most, but there are big issues for streaming to overcome before it can rival BD...
Not in the least of which is bandwidth caps. If you are streaming 1080p all the time, there's a much higher risk of busting the cap.
Will completely fail because there is no tactile feedback. You do not want to take your eyes of the TV to look at the iPhone to find the Fire or Jump button.
Eh, you'll learn the layout like any other and then its muscle memory. People said the onscreen keyboard for the iphone would suck and that was obviously wrong.
Not in the least of which is bandwidth caps. If you are streaming 1080p all the time, there's a much higher risk of busting the cap.
True, and I really feel sorry for those in Australia who have to deal some of the worst caps in the world.
I'm lucky as my current connection (50mbit cable) is uncapped, but of course, that could change at any point.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/...473a225d_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/...e3e4e455_b.jpg
Google TV and Apple TV are two completely different animals. The only they have in common is the final implement: the TV. So I am willing to bet that there's absolutely no relation and no advantage to any TV efforts Apple has been undertaking.
As it stands, based on what we know so far, I could see a lot of people getting both. For example, I'd rent a Google TV cable box from my cable company. And I'd get Apple TV so I can stream content from my Mac and maybe play a few games and use some Apps. Till Apple gets a content deal with content creators, that's actually competitive with cable, it's highly unlikely most of us would get rid of our cable boxes. And if you're keeping a cable box, then why not make it a Google TV box?
If it wasn't for the DRM on TV shows and Movies purchased through iTunes (which I blame on the movie studios not Apple) you'd be able to stream video directly from your Mac to your GoogleTV device and not bother with an AppleTV at all. At the Google I/O conference recently they showed off streaming music from iTunes to Android phones. Doing the same for non-DRM restricted video is pretty easy.
There is a lot of focus on content, but I think Apps are the really exciting part. For example Amazon could create GoogleTV and AppleTV apps. Now you can watch Amazon Video On Demand. ABC could create AppleTV and GoogleTV apps just like they have an iPad app. Now you have ABC without requiring cable and can pause/rewind episodes without needing a DVR. GoogleTV and AppleTV might appear to be completely different animals but add in a few apps and they quickly become very similar and also very powerful.
Eh, you'll learn the layout like any other and then its muscle memory. People said the onscreen keyboard for the iphone would suck and that was obviously wrong.
But with the iPhone screen you are looking at the same screen you are typing on. With the AppleTV you want to focus on the TV screen not at the controller.
Imagine trying to type on an iPhone or iPad without looking at the device. You will make mistakes. Traditional keyboards have tactile feedback: the edges of the keys, the ridges on the F and J keys. This enables you to type without looking at the keyboard. An iPhone does not provide this feedback so would make a poor controller for the AppleTV.
In addition, having to learn the layout and rely on muscle memory is not an Apple way of doing things. Apple makes user interfaces that are intuitive to use.
Your constant stream of comments accusing Google of "stealing" certainly lean towards that kind of blanket mentality.
I am still curious about what you think Google "stole" from Apple, specifically when it comes to Google TV.
Read the article we're commenting on. It hasn't been that long since he left the board.
They are an unprincipled company with unprincipled principals.
Not sure what BDs you've been watching but I watch a LOT of them and it's very rare to see the bit-rate ever drop below 35mbits (except when the screen is just displaying credits etc). A lot of BDs sustain 45mbits for lengthy periods. Plus don't forget BD's high end audio will gobble up another 3-5mbits too.
I'd love to see someone offer a truly high quality streaming solution, but very few people would be able to take advantage of it.
Good stuff. People are also forgetting the CPU component here. As far as I can tell, the A4 is absolutely not up to the challenge of streaming 1080p. It can barely handle 720p--remember the iPhone and iPad don't use true 720p, they are using a version of 720p that has a much lower bitrate and is therefore faster to decode (not to mention smaller). My 2 year old MacBook Pro can mostly keep up with rue 1080p @ 40Mb/s but even now and then it hiccups when playing a high bitrate H264 file. The A4 is literally half the processor of my Core 2 Duo too; single core and clocked at half the speed. (My MacBook can't do H264 decode in GPU, so it's actually a good test of CPU performance).
Then of course you have to have CPU power left over to process network packets; my iMac can handle around 40Mb/s with the CPU averaging 3-5%. I don't think an A4 would fare so well, though I don't have hard numbers on iPad network throughput.
Good stuff. People are also forgetting the CPU component here. As far as I can tell, the A4 is absolutely not up to the challenge of streaming 1080p. It can barely handle 720p--remember the iPhone and iPad don't use true 720p, they are using a version of 720p that has a much lower bitrate and is therefore faster to decode (not to mention smaller). My 2 year old MacBook Pro can mostly keep up with rue 1080p @ 40Mb/s but even now and then it hiccups when playing a high bitrate H264 file. The A4 is literally half the processor of my Core 2 Duo too; single core and clocked at half the speed. (My MacBook can't do H264 decode in GPU, so it's actually a good test of CPU performance).
Then of course you have to have CPU power left over to process network packets; my iMac can handle around 40Mb/s with the CPU averaging 3-5%. I don't think an A4 would fare so well, though I don't have hard numbers on iPad network throughput.
Remember, the A4 is a PoP (Package on Package) and SoC (System on Chip) also contains the RAM and PowerVR SGX 535 GPU with also contains a PowerVR VXD375 for video decoding of high-profile 1080p video.While that is the 390, not the 375, I wouldn't expect there to be much difference between these Imagination products. The one in the A4 seems to be only available to Apple. Even if it can't do Blu-ray full resolution high-profile H.264 @ 60fps like the 390 it will surely do 1080p for all the content that you'll find on any legitimate download site, so yes, it is "up to the challenge".
What you might be looking at is Apple's spec sheet for the iPad or iPhone 3GS and thinking, "if it works then why don't they allow it". There are many reasons for that but for a portable device that is trying to conserve as much battery life as possible, not pointlessly allowing 1080p on a device that obviously can't benefit from 1080p on the device is silly. In contract, the TV will be plugged in and therefore not need to conserve power. Even at full tilt it will use a lot power than the current Pentium M-based TV uses with it's nearly complete version of Mac OS X "Tiger" running on it.
the more interesting thing that people aren't talking about is this... Is this a sign that Apple has some meaningful deals with the studios? Unless things have changed.... While the iTunes movie store is 'okay' its mostly filled with DVD priced offerings in 720p quality and with less than stellar audio support. Certainly no 5.1 or 7.2... It's 2010 and OS X still doesn't do acceptable HT audio.
Is this about to change? I sure hope so... because it's not like Apple (Steve) to roll out a device that supports 1080p without them having any 1080p content to offer.
I really hope there are some content deals in the wings. Some networks are offering VoD options in conjunction with their channels so perhaps that's an avenue for Apple?
Currently Apple rent most 720p videos in 5.1, not sure why you haven't found that. And I would expect 1080p support is more for future proofing, home movies, photo viewing than for rental movies (for now).