I wonder if it has the same Power VR GPU as the iPhone and iPad. If it does, and having played with the very impressive Unreal Engine 3 tech demo on my iPhone 4, it's a terrible shame that the new ATV has no apps and therefore no games.
Have seen the demo, pretty sweet. I actually prefer it by margin to iD demo (Rage engine, was it?)... however, it is just the demo and we don't know how much more processing power would be required to actually put a game there (with physics, scripts, AI...). On some of those scenes one can see that hardware (of 3Gs at least) is really working overtime to keep decent frame rate (and failing to do so). I would expect it runs much better on A4, but again, question is: is there any spare power to be used for other elements of the game, or will actual game(s) have to go for simplified visuals in order to have enough power for other elements?
Nevertheless... if big-budget titles (that, likely, would be made with above mentioned engines) really start coming out in numbers, Apple should think of some sort of holster/frame/... with dedicated hardware controls. Touching analogue sticks on screen without any feedback at all is just not good enough for hardcore gaming.
Think about it. If you're renting, and streaming from your computer, why would you NEED storage?
Much as I am concerned, I don't like idea that I still need computer/media server to run with this little device in order to stream some of my existing media... in which case, I can simply keep my computer/media server connected to the TV instead.
I must admit that I didn't read carefully about all the features. Will it be able to stream from NAS? Can it stream DivX/XviD? Or do I need proper computer to act as a server and transcode DivX into format this little one can understand?
Much as I am concerned, I don't like idea that I still need computer/media server to run with this little device in order to stream some of my existing media... in which case, I can simply keep my computer/media server connected to the TV instead.
I must admit that I didn't read carefully about all the features. Will it be able to stream from NAS? Can it stream DivX/XviD? Or do I need proper computer to act as a server and transcode DivX into format this little one can understand?
The specs that Apple has in their store for this give everything that it will do as far as codecs are concerned. No, it won't do DivX, etc. I wish that had never been invented. It's inferior, and a pain in the butt. Just another proprietory format we don't need.
Nevertheless, Apple is basically supporting formats that are either open, or have been well accepted. That includes H.264, Mpeg 4, and MJpeg. About 95% of all video is in those codecs, or formats. I don't know if it will be able to stream from a NAS. It would depend on how sophisticated the NAS is. What OS it uses. There are NASs that use Windows Home Server. It might work with those as it works with a Windows machine.
How would you suggest people run media on their computers already? Streaming seems to be a good way to do it. Who would buy this if they didn't already have a computer?
I honestly don't think it would take much. The HW is the same, the OS is the same the screen resolution is different but iOS has resolution independence and would be trivial to write apps that are native for the screen. They have the distribution app store already. I really don't think it would take Apple much to create an app store for apple TV.
There's so much cool stuff they could do with an iPhone controlling apple tv apps that are on your big screen. And rumour is the device has bluetooth and so that would make the control function even better than Wifi (PS3 uses bluetooth for its controller)
Are you a developer? It always seems to be easy, but it's often not.
This device will always suck until you can pipe in ATSC high definition, DVR your NFL games, youtube the internet for HD video, HDMI-in ports, etc. THE COMPLETE PACKAGE. It's not truly "TV" until they build hardware to cater to this.
And many people are moving away from these heavy, power-consuming Television displays. Projectors are the future of home entertainment. They draw less power, project larger images than LCD displays, and projectors are portable, easier to move.
Apple TV needs to eliminate the need to have 10 devices for the home viewing experience; at present, they're adding another device that is obsolete in less than a year. Get rid of the DVR, the tuner box, the Blue Ray player...build it all into a black box this size with a projector + air play the files from a computer or air play the sound to your speakers in the living room... and then you'll have a gamer changer.
I have Direc TV that has VOD, but only if you plug in an Ethernet cable. That's going to be a pain to run across the house, so I thought maybe another Airport Express would work and I could extend my Time Capsule network and send the Ethernet into my DVR. We already do this with an X-Box in another room.
Now Apple TV comes along, I'm not blown away, but if it can extend the network like the airport express and get Internet over where the DVR and some other wired only devices are, then problem solved, it's the same price, and Apple might get some iTunes rentals out of me since it goes by the TV anyway. I'm not impressed enough to buy it without this functionality, but if it's there then I'll buy one in a heartbeat. Otherwise I'll get another Airport Express. The hardware is there. Not doing both.
That's where 1080p comes in and it should have been possible to view this kind of content in 2010.
Bandwidth is too high. Realistically, you need a 10 Mbs connection to reliably stream 1080p at a decent compression. Remember that a 10 Mbs connection is really a 5 to 7 Mbs connection, and that's only if your line is clean.
This device will always suck until you can pipe in ATSC high definition, DVR your NFL games, youtube the internet for HD video, HDMI-in ports, etc. THE COMPLETE PACKAGE. It's not truly "TV" until they build hardware to cater to this.
And many people are moving away from these heavy, power-consuming Television displays. Projectors are the future of home entertainment. They draw less power, project larger images than LCD displays, and projectors are portable, easier to move.
Apple TV needs to eliminate the need to have 10 devices for the home viewing experience; at present, they're adding another device that is obsolete in less than a year. Get rid of the DVR, the tuner box, the Blue Ray player...build it all into a black box this size with a projector + air play the files from a computer or air play the sound to your speakers in the living room... and then you'll have a gamer changer.
The type of display has little to do with it. Whether it's front or rear projection has nothing to do with the power used. To get the same size image, you need the same brightness, which means the same size projector bulb.
My rear projector uses three LEDs for illumination. It uses less power than a rear projection plasma, a front projection, or other forms of rear projection. LCd Tvs with LED backlighting also have lower power use. There are a small handful of front projectors out now that use RGB LEDs like my model, but they cost $10,000 and more. Ready to go for one now?
Is the A4 processor or its PowerVR core just not able to handle 1080p output?
On the iPhone and iPod touch, video output function is also limited to 720p. I always assumed that this was due to limited storage (1080p content takes up a lot of space) and the need to split the A4 resources for other tasks (phone, wi-fi, background multi-tasking, etc.).
But on the Apple TV, aside from the Ethernet and Wi-Fi, what else is the A4 chip doing besides audio/video???
There's no multi-tasking per se, it's not constrained by battery life or storage space, and if the A4 chip does use a Cortex A8, then I believe some iPhone competitors have already demonstrated 1080p output (I think).
So regardless of the practical arguments for 720p being indiscernible from 1080p from a specific viewing distance, my bigger question is why Apple chose NOT to implement it. And the old standby that Apple just wants to leave something for v2.0 doesn't really make sense since Steve has reaffirmed @TV as a hobby; it's just not that important. They don't even break out sales numbers of @TV in their earnings reports. The 1080p format also isn't new; it's been around for a few years now. So if not for some TECHNICAL hurdle that they couldn't overcome, what feasible, alternative explanation is there? And more importantly, is it something that can be activated via a software update since it doesn't seem like 1080p would be physically, hardware-constrained unless the A4 chip is simply not up to snuff.
Is the A4 processor or its PowerVR core just not able to handle 1080p output?
On the iPhone and iPod touch, video output function is also limited to 720p. I always assumed that this was due to limited storage (1080p content takes up a lot of space) and the need to split the A4 resources for other tasks (phone, wi-fi, background multi-tasking, etc.).
But on the Apple TV, aside from the Ethernet and Wi-Fi, what else is the A4 chip doing besides audio/video???
There's no multi-tasking per se, it's not constrained by battery life or storage space, and if the A4 chip does use a Cortex A8, then I believe some iPhone competitors have already demonstrated 1080p output (I think).
So regardless of the practical arguments for 720p being indiscernible from 1080p from a specific viewing distance, my bigger question is why Apple chose NOT to implement it. And the old standby that Apple just wants to leave something for v2.0 doesn't really make sense since Steve has reaffirmed @TV as a hobby; it's just not that important. They don't even break out sales numbers of @TV in their earnings reports. The 1080p format also isn't new; it's been around for a few years now. So if not for some TECHNICAL hurdle that they couldn't overcome, what feasible, alternative explanation is there? And more importantly, is it something that can be activated via a software update since it doesn't seem like 1080p would be physically, hardware-constrained unless the A4 chip is simply not up to snuff.
Personally, I'm a little disappointed. Only because I was mainly hoping for a software update, maybe bringing a new App Store paradigm to the Apple TV, starting a whole new market in app/game production based on a TV interface.
Hardware-wise, I personally prefer local storage, because I looked upon the Apple TV as a "TV iPod" where I didn't have to have another machine on in the house for playing music and videos through my TV. But now I can see why Apple updated the Mac mini and moved the line slightly to make it worthy as a home media unit. It's just hugely unfortunate that the price is too steep for me, especially if all I'm using it for is playing music and video through the TV/sound system.
But it's worth bearing in mind that it's very likely that the people developing the hardware and the people developing software aren't necessarily "in sync" with each other. I hold out hope that Apple are developing an OS X-based new "UI Kit" for developers to produce apps for the new device. This is where the power will lie.
I watch Apple's "hobby" project with interest, but unfortunately it's not for me yet!
Is the A4 processor or its PowerVR core just not able to handle 1080p output?
The A4 general processing core does not come even close to render 1080p in real time. That's something that's hard for a 2 GHz Core 2 processor to do.
The A4 processor have special h264 decoding provisions and it's these that render the video. It seems that Apple isn't pushing it here. It _might_ be capable, and several competing chips does support 1080p, but they have probably made a judgement call here to not offer it. I think it's perfectly reasonable as per the 720/1080 discussion in this thread.
Whether or not you can see the difference between 1080 and 720 seems like a red-herring to me. More important is the bit rate of material that will be delivered to this device. That is garaunteed to be the limiting factor for picture quality, not the resolution. If you're part of the minuscule minority tHat plans on streaming bluray rips, a $99 media extender probably might not be the right choice.
What I'm more surprised by is the framerate. Why not stream the native framerate of movies? It actually frees up bandwidth for additional detail at the same resolution. That's on top of getting more convincing motion. Granted, few people have a setup that can truly deliver 24fps, but it is a why not feature that costs nothing and has no downside. And like I said, it still delivers greater detail, even for people with no 24fps support.
The A4 general processing core does not come even close to render 1080p in real time. That's something that's hard for a 2 GHz Core 2 processor to do.
The A4 processor have special h264 decoding provisions and it's these that render the video. It seems that Apple isn't pushing it here. It _might_ be capable, and several competing chips does support 1080p, but they have probably made a judgement call here to not offer it. I think it's perfectly reasonable as per the 720/1080 discussion in this thread.
SW decoders using the CPU is highly inefficient. If that is was what needed for a Blu-ray video then we?d be talking about a $240 CPU, but it can be done with relatively inexpensive chips on slow systems.
Apple uses Imagination for their iDevice?s GPU and decoders. They have been making efficient chips that can decode high-profile 1080p that is found in Blu-ray discs for awhile now. Considering the AppleTV is not battery operated I would definitely be possible for Apple to have put in a 1080p decoder instead of just 720p.
I know it's all about streaming, but how much local storage does this thing have?
It's most certainly not zero. One suggested 16 GB but I find that very hard to believe at the 99 dollar pricepoint. 16 GB would be a massive overkill if the only purpose is to cache streamed content.
The rumor was 4 GB iirc, and that seems more reasonable given the price and purpose. That would be enough for apps too. We haven't seen apps yet but that doesn't mean that they won't come in the future. We didn't see any apps for the first iPhone either. They must build an SDK too.. and knowing Apple, an SDK will come _after_ they reveal the product it's for.
So my best guess is 4 GB.
I would also guess that the new AppleTV is quite hackable. It will be interesting to follow that development.
It's most certainly not zero. One suggested 16 GB but I find that very hard to believe at the 99 dollar pricepoint. 16 GB would be a massive overkill if the only purpose is to cache streamed content.
The rumor was 4 GB iirc, and that seems more reasonable given the price and purpose. That would be enough for apps too. We haven't seen apps yet but that doesn't mean that they won't come in the future. We didn't see any apps for the first iPhone either. They must build an SDK too.. and knowing Apple, an SDK will come _after_ they reveal the product it's for.
So my best guess is 4 GB.
I would also guess that the new AppleTV is quite hackable. It will be interesting to follow that development.
I was thinking under 2GB NAND. if it haas 4GB then i think that an SDK could be in the works, but if it has 2 or less than I would say it?s not likely for this device.
Comments
I wonder if it has the same Power VR GPU as the iPhone and iPad. If it does, and having played with the very impressive Unreal Engine 3 tech demo on my iPhone 4, it's a terrible shame that the new ATV has no apps and therefore no games.
Have seen the demo, pretty sweet. I actually prefer it by margin to iD demo (Rage engine, was it?)... however, it is just the demo and we don't know how much more processing power would be required to actually put a game there (with physics, scripts, AI...). On some of those scenes one can see that hardware (of 3Gs at least) is really working overtime to keep decent frame rate (and failing to do so). I would expect it runs much better on A4, but again, question is: is there any spare power to be used for other elements of the game, or will actual game(s) have to go for simplified visuals in order to have enough power for other elements?
Nevertheless... if big-budget titles (that, likely, would be made with above mentioned engines) really start coming out in numbers, Apple should think of some sort of holster/frame/... with dedicated hardware controls. Touching analogue sticks on screen without any feedback at all is just not good enough for hardcore gaming.
Think about it. If you're renting, and streaming from your computer, why would you NEED storage?
Much as I am concerned, I don't like idea that I still need computer/media server to run with this little device in order to stream some of my existing media... in which case, I can simply keep my computer/media server connected to the TV instead.
I must admit that I didn't read carefully about all the features. Will it be able to stream from NAS? Can it stream DivX/XviD? Or do I need proper computer to act as a server and transcode DivX into format this little one can understand?
Much as I am concerned, I don't like idea that I still need computer/media server to run with this little device in order to stream some of my existing media... in which case, I can simply keep my computer/media server connected to the TV instead.
I must admit that I didn't read carefully about all the features. Will it be able to stream from NAS? Can it stream DivX/XviD? Or do I need proper computer to act as a server and transcode DivX into format this little one can understand?
The specs that Apple has in their store for this give everything that it will do as far as codecs are concerned. No, it won't do DivX, etc. I wish that had never been invented. It's inferior, and a pain in the butt. Just another proprietory format we don't need.
Nevertheless, Apple is basically supporting formats that are either open, or have been well accepted. That includes H.264, Mpeg 4, and MJpeg. About 95% of all video is in those codecs, or formats. I don't know if it will be able to stream from a NAS. It would depend on how sophisticated the NAS is. What OS it uses. There are NASs that use Windows Home Server. It might work with those as it works with a Windows machine.
How would you suggest people run media on their computers already? Streaming seems to be a good way to do it. Who would buy this if they didn't already have a computer?
I honestly don't think it would take much. The HW is the same, the OS is the same the screen resolution is different but iOS has resolution independence and would be trivial to write apps that are native for the screen. They have the distribution app store already. I really don't think it would take Apple much to create an app store for apple TV.
There's so much cool stuff they could do with an iPhone controlling apple tv apps that are on your big screen. And rumour is the device has bluetooth and so that would make the control function even better than Wifi (PS3 uses bluetooth for its controller)
Are you a developer? It always seems to be easy, but it's often not.
Renting video content sounds so 90s.
Renting model sucks.
1080i is an interlaced picture. Bad picture, simply made larger.
That's where 1080p comes in and it should have been possible to view this kind of content in 2010.
And many people are moving away from these heavy, power-consuming Television displays. Projectors are the future of home entertainment. They draw less power, project larger images than LCD displays, and projectors are portable, easier to move.
Apple TV needs to eliminate the need to have 10 devices for the home viewing experience; at present, they're adding another device that is obsolete in less than a year. Get rid of the DVR, the tuner box, the Blue Ray player...build it all into a black box this size with a projector + air play the files from a computer or air play the sound to your speakers in the living room... and then you'll have a gamer changer.
I have Direc TV that has VOD, but only if you plug in an Ethernet cable. That's going to be a pain to run across the house, so I thought maybe another Airport Express would work and I could extend my Time Capsule network and send the Ethernet into my DVR. We already do this with an X-Box in another room.
Now Apple TV comes along, I'm not blown away, but if it can extend the network like the airport express and get Internet over where the DVR and some other wired only devices are, then problem solved, it's the same price, and Apple might get some iTunes rentals out of me since it goes by the TV anyway. I'm not impressed enough to buy it without this functionality, but if it's there then I'll buy one in a heartbeat. Otherwise I'll get another Airport Express. The hardware is there. Not doing both.
That's where 1080p comes in and it should have been possible to view this kind of content in 2010.
Bandwidth is too high. Realistically, you need a 10 Mbs connection to reliably stream 1080p at a decent compression. Remember that a 10 Mbs connection is really a 5 to 7 Mbs connection, and that's only if your line is clean.
This device will always suck until you can pipe in ATSC high definition, DVR your NFL games, youtube the internet for HD video, HDMI-in ports, etc. THE COMPLETE PACKAGE. It's not truly "TV" until they build hardware to cater to this.
And many people are moving away from these heavy, power-consuming Television displays. Projectors are the future of home entertainment. They draw less power, project larger images than LCD displays, and projectors are portable, easier to move.
Apple TV needs to eliminate the need to have 10 devices for the home viewing experience; at present, they're adding another device that is obsolete in less than a year. Get rid of the DVR, the tuner box, the Blue Ray player...build it all into a black box this size with a projector + air play the files from a computer or air play the sound to your speakers in the living room... and then you'll have a gamer changer.
The type of display has little to do with it. Whether it's front or rear projection has nothing to do with the power used. To get the same size image, you need the same brightness, which means the same size projector bulb.
My rear projector uses three LEDs for illumination. It uses less power than a rear projection plasma, a front projection, or other forms of rear projection. LCd Tvs with LED backlighting also have lower power use. There are a small handful of front projectors out now that use RGB LEDs like my model, but they cost $10,000 and more. Ready to go for one now?
there is no 1080 content being streamed by anyone. At all.
Great device, great price point. Continues to be ahead of it's time, but at some point the studios will come round.
It really is hilarious to see someone so specularly ill informed.
Microsoft (heard of them?) have been streaming 1080p video to the Xbox 360 for a long, long time now. And it works great. Instant on too.
On the iPhone and iPod touch, video output function is also limited to 720p. I always assumed that this was due to limited storage (1080p content takes up a lot of space) and the need to split the A4 resources for other tasks (phone, wi-fi, background multi-tasking, etc.).
But on the Apple TV, aside from the Ethernet and Wi-Fi, what else is the A4 chip doing besides audio/video???
There's no multi-tasking per se, it's not constrained by battery life or storage space, and if the A4 chip does use a Cortex A8, then I believe some iPhone competitors have already demonstrated 1080p output (I think).
So regardless of the practical arguments for 720p being indiscernible from 1080p from a specific viewing distance, my bigger question is why Apple chose NOT to implement it. And the old standby that Apple just wants to leave something for v2.0 doesn't really make sense since Steve has reaffirmed @TV as a hobby; it's just not that important. They don't even break out sales numbers of @TV in their earnings reports. The 1080p format also isn't new; it's been around for a few years now. So if not for some TECHNICAL hurdle that they couldn't overcome, what feasible, alternative explanation is there? And more importantly, is it something that can be activated via a software update since it doesn't seem like 1080p would be physically, hardware-constrained unless the A4 chip is simply not up to snuff.
It really is hilarious to see someone so specularly ill informed.
Microsoft (heard of them?) have been streaming 1080p video to the Xbox 360 for a long, long time now. And it works great. Instant on too.
No,it doesn't "work great".
Is the A4 processor or its PowerVR core just not able to handle 1080p output?
On the iPhone and iPod touch, video output function is also limited to 720p. I always assumed that this was due to limited storage (1080p content takes up a lot of space) and the need to split the A4 resources for other tasks (phone, wi-fi, background multi-tasking, etc.).
But on the Apple TV, aside from the Ethernet and Wi-Fi, what else is the A4 chip doing besides audio/video???
There's no multi-tasking per se, it's not constrained by battery life or storage space, and if the A4 chip does use a Cortex A8, then I believe some iPhone competitors have already demonstrated 1080p output (I think).
So regardless of the practical arguments for 720p being indiscernible from 1080p from a specific viewing distance, my bigger question is why Apple chose NOT to implement it. And the old standby that Apple just wants to leave something for v2.0 doesn't really make sense since Steve has reaffirmed @TV as a hobby; it's just not that important. They don't even break out sales numbers of @TV in their earnings reports. The 1080p format also isn't new; it's been around for a few years now. So if not for some TECHNICAL hurdle that they couldn't overcome, what feasible, alternative explanation is there? And more importantly, is it something that can be activated via a software update since it doesn't seem like 1080p would be physically, hardware-constrained unless the A4 chip is simply not up to snuff.
It does handle it.
Hardware-wise, I personally prefer local storage, because I looked upon the Apple TV as a "TV iPod" where I didn't have to have another machine on in the house for playing music and videos through my TV. But now I can see why Apple updated the Mac mini and moved the line slightly to make it worthy as a home media unit. It's just hugely unfortunate that the price is too steep for me, especially if all I'm using it for is playing music and video through the TV/sound system.
But it's worth bearing in mind that it's very likely that the people developing the hardware and the people developing software aren't necessarily "in sync" with each other. I hold out hope that Apple are developing an OS X-based new "UI Kit" for developers to produce apps for the new device. This is where the power will lie.
I watch Apple's "hobby" project with interest, but unfortunately it's not for me yet!
Is the A4 processor or its PowerVR core just not able to handle 1080p output?
The A4 general processing core does not come even close to render 1080p in real time. That's something that's hard for a 2 GHz Core 2 processor to do.
The A4 processor have special h264 decoding provisions and it's these that render the video. It seems that Apple isn't pushing it here. It _might_ be capable, and several competing chips does support 1080p, but they have probably made a judgement call here to not offer it. I think it's perfectly reasonable as per the 720/1080 discussion in this thread.
What I'm more surprised by is the framerate. Why not stream the native framerate of movies? It actually frees up bandwidth for additional detail at the same resolution. That's on top of getting more convincing motion. Granted, few people have a setup that can truly deliver 24fps, but it is a why not feature that costs nothing and has no downside. And like I said, it still delivers greater detail, even for people with no 24fps support.
Come on whiners, get your priorities right!
The A4 general processing core does not come even close to render 1080p in real time. That's something that's hard for a 2 GHz Core 2 processor to do.
The A4 processor have special h264 decoding provisions and it's these that render the video. It seems that Apple isn't pushing it here. It _might_ be capable, and several competing chips does support 1080p, but they have probably made a judgement call here to not offer it. I think it's perfectly reasonable as per the 720/1080 discussion in this thread.
SW decoders using the CPU is highly inefficient. If that is was what needed for a Blu-ray video then we?d be talking about a $240 CPU, but it can be done with relatively inexpensive chips on slow systems.
Apple uses Imagination for their iDevice?s GPU and decoders. They have been making efficient chips that can decode high-profile 1080p that is found in Blu-ray discs for awhile now. Considering the AppleTV is not battery operated I would definitely be possible for Apple to have put in a 1080p decoder instead of just 720p.
I know it's all about streaming, but how much local storage does this thing have?
It's most certainly not zero. One suggested 16 GB but I find that very hard to believe at the 99 dollar pricepoint. 16 GB would be a massive overkill if the only purpose is to cache streamed content.
The rumor was 4 GB iirc, and that seems more reasonable given the price and purpose. That would be enough for apps too. We haven't seen apps yet but that doesn't mean that they won't come in the future. We didn't see any apps for the first iPhone either. They must build an SDK too.. and knowing Apple, an SDK will come _after_ they reveal the product it's for.
So my best guess is 4 GB.
I would also guess that the new AppleTV is quite hackable. It will be interesting to follow that development.
It's most certainly not zero. One suggested 16 GB but I find that very hard to believe at the 99 dollar pricepoint. 16 GB would be a massive overkill if the only purpose is to cache streamed content.
The rumor was 4 GB iirc, and that seems more reasonable given the price and purpose. That would be enough for apps too. We haven't seen apps yet but that doesn't mean that they won't come in the future. We didn't see any apps for the first iPhone either. They must build an SDK too.. and knowing Apple, an SDK will come _after_ they reveal the product it's for.
So my best guess is 4 GB.
I would also guess that the new AppleTV is quite hackable. It will be interesting to follow that development.
I was thinking under 2GB NAND. if it haas 4GB then i think that an SDK could be in the works, but if it has 2 or less than I would say it?s not likely for this device.