@herbapou, That is definitely one of the big reasons.
@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesn?t support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet it?s still so prolific. I really don?t know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.
@herbapou, That is definitely one of the big reasons.
@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesn?t support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet it?s still so prolific. I really don?t know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.
The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.
Everyone seems to assume that iTV will be the same old box with new guts. But if it is true that App Store games are to be a factor, maybe this new device will be a specialized version of the iPad--the iPadTV. This solves the the gaming touch control issue, the accelerometer issue, and is reinforced by the rumor that it will have no hard drive. It also consolidates the iPod's role as the "preferred" remote for your home media devices.
The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.
m4v can hold AC3 in iTunes has long has you put a 2 channels AAC audio on first audio slot. This what I do, I put english AAC 1st audio, then AC3 2nd, then french AC3 has 3rd.
Current AppleTV supports AC3 passthru and audio track selection.
An updated device that no one wanted in the first place, ie an iPod for the TV.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.
An updated device that no one wanted in the first place, ie an iPod for the TV.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.
Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions
iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768
TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080
Make it just 720p, the new Apple TV has been rumored to not do 1080p, just like the current ATV doesn't. So maybe 640*480 as well to cover 480p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The Magic Trackpad doesn’t resolve this issue as it’s still not a direct input to what’s on the screen. I doubt user’s are going to want to see a white dot representing their finger tips on the screen when using this trackpad whilst on their couch. We’re talking about adding a mouse pointer to an OS that so far has never had one. I just don’t see it.
What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
I think the point of the 99cent tv rentals is not to replace your cable box but to provide a different service altogether. Missed last nights favourite tv show? Download it to your iPod/iPhone/iPad and watch it on the bus/train, etc. This would simply be another differentiator for iOS devices versus Android, etc. Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes, it's simply there to stimulate demand for iOS hardware.
On the control front if we have an iDevice (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad or even Trackpad) with our fingers on it then why would the new Apple TV not show the finger positions as translucent overlaps on the TV screen. When using a first person shooter my actual fingers are over the on-screen controls anyway so a translucent version wouldn't be an issue. Just an extra API to support this kind of use. This way I would be holding my iDevice controller but looking at the TV all the time.
And on what to call this new iDevice what about iPlay (keeps with the others all having a P word) or AppTV - like AppleTV but now focused on Apps.
I think the point of the 99cent tv rentals is not to replace your cable box but to provide a different service altogether. Missed last nights favourite tv show? Download it to your iPod/iPhone/iPad and watch it on the bus/train, etc. This would simply be another differentiator for iOS devices versus Android, etc. Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes, it's simply there to stimulate demand for iOS hardware.
and lets not forget the App part of this is going to be the real deal, this is going to be a game console / internet browser also.
What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
I?ve thought about this and I can?t see one having the same display on both screens in real time with no delay, but having to look at the lower screen, while expecting this to work out well. While I think some developers can pull it off, this isn?t something Apple would incorporate as the primary way to use iPhone and iPad apps on a large, landscape mounted widescreen HDTV.
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.
Everyone seems to assume that iTV will be the same old box with new guts. But if it is true that App Store games are to be a factor, maybe this new device will be a specialized version of the iPad--the iPadTV. This solves the the gaming touch control issue, the accelerometer issue, and is reinforced by the rumor that it will have no hard drive. It also consolidates the iPod's role as the "preferred" remote for your home media devices.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
On the other hand, the current Apple TV can be controled through the remote App on the iPad/iPhone/iPad touch, or by the included remote. I'd expect the same to apply for the new Apple TV, with possibly increased interactivity like the things you suggested.
A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?
But the final price isn't really what martters most. With cable, you are forced to subscribe to huge amounts of channels that you never watch. That is just pure waste.
With Steve, you pay ONLY for what you watch, so it is much thriftier.
That way, even if you might pay a couple of dollars more, it is still better because you only pay for exactly what you want to watch.
If nothing else lets at least hope that we can playback other formats unlike the current AppleTV.
.mkv etc.
But im guessing that would be more likely an iTunes update before device update.
I think it would be best if it only played the codecs that Steve gives us in the iTunes store. Otherwise, it is needlessly complex with no real benefit to the vast majority of users.
Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.
Yeah, and I was suggesting that that could be the control method for the new device. It pushes more Apple product and allows you to do what you need on the small screen, selecting things on the iDevice, but people watching the TV will see the same changes you do on your small device.
I can picture the iPad edition of Scrabble working well with this kind of setup. I can also imagine iTV based games that allow you to select different controller configurations and while it opens the game on your TV, it transmits a controller config to your iDevice. Now you have the gamepad and buttons and such on your iDevice and use it as the controller.
Comments
@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesn?t support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet it?s still so prolific. I really don?t know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.
@herbapou, That is definitely one of the big reasons.
@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesn?t support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet it?s still so prolific. I really don?t know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.
The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.
Next Biggest: FaceTime?
I'd love to see FaceTime on this. It would be so cool to be able to make video calls that way.
I've actually been a little surprised they have not pushed FaceTime on other devices yet - the Mac would seem to be an obvious target.
The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.
m4v can hold AC3 in iTunes has long has you put a 2 channels AAC audio on first audio slot. This what I do, I put english AAC 1st audio, then AC3 2nd, then french AC3 has 3rd.
Current AppleTV supports AC3 passthru and audio track selection.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.
An updated device that no one wanted in the first place, ie an iPod for the TV.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.
Probably best you don't buy one then.
Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions
iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768
TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080
Make it just 720p, the new Apple TV has been rumored to not do 1080p, just like the current ATV doesn't. So maybe 640*480 as well to cover 480p.
The Magic Trackpad doesn’t resolve this issue as it’s still not a direct input to what’s on the screen. I doubt user’s are going to want to see a white dot representing their finger tips on the screen when using this trackpad whilst on their couch. We’re talking about adding a mouse pointer to an OS that so far has never had one. I just don’t see it.
What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
And on what to call this new iDevice what about iPlay (keeps with the others all having a P word) or AppTV - like AppleTV but now focused on Apps.
I think the point of the 99cent tv rentals is not to replace your cable box but to provide a different service altogether. Missed last nights favourite tv show? Download it to your iPod/iPhone/iPad and watch it on the bus/train, etc. This would simply be another differentiator for iOS devices versus Android, etc. Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes, it's simply there to stimulate demand for iOS hardware.
and lets not forget the App part of this is going to be the real deal, this is going to be a game console / internet browser also.
What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
I?ve thought about this and I can?t see one having the same display on both screens in real time with no delay, but having to look at the lower screen, while expecting this to work out well. While I think some developers can pull it off, this isn?t something Apple would incorporate as the primary way to use iPhone and iPad apps on a large, landscape mounted widescreen HDTV.
* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.
Everyone seems to assume that iTV will be the same old box with new guts. But if it is true that App Store games are to be a factor, maybe this new device will be a specialized version of the iPad--the iPadTV. This solves the the gaming touch control issue, the accelerometer issue, and is reinforced by the rumor that it will have no hard drive. It also consolidates the iPod's role as the "preferred" remote for your home media devices.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
On the other hand, the current Apple TV can be controled through the remote App on the iPad/iPhone/iPad touch, or by the included remote. I'd expect the same to apply for the new Apple TV, with possibly increased interactivity like the things you suggested.
Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions
iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768
TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080
Most likely the TV industry will standardize onto the iP4 resolution so there going to be compatible.
A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?
But the final price isn't really what martters most. With cable, you are forced to subscribe to huge amounts of channels that you never watch. That is just pure waste.
With Steve, you pay ONLY for what you watch, so it is much thriftier.
That way, even if you might pay a couple of dollars more, it is still better because you only pay for exactly what you want to watch.
If nothing else lets at least hope that we can playback other formats unlike the current AppleTV.
.mkv etc.
But im guessing that would be more likely an iTunes update before device update.
I think it would be best if it only played the codecs that Steve gives us in the iTunes store. Otherwise, it is needlessly complex with no real benefit to the vast majority of users.
Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.
Yeah, and I was suggesting that that could be the control method for the new device. It pushes more Apple product and allows you to do what you need on the small screen, selecting things on the iDevice, but people watching the TV will see the same changes you do on your small device.
I can picture the iPad edition of Scrabble working well with this kind of setup. I can also imagine iTV based games that allow you to select different controller configurations and while it opens the game on your TV, it transmits a controller config to your iDevice. Now you have the gamepad and buttons and such on your iDevice and use it as the controller.