I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
Do you really want to use an iPad for all apps on the AppleTV?
Not necessarily an iPad but an iOS device for sure, at least for almost all apps.
Quote:
Imagine if there was no native Netflix app but you had to mirror from your iPad to get Netflix to work. Besides now costing at least 6x as much as just an AppleTV you have a more complex setup that requires two devices when you just wanted to use one device.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
And the rest of us have 1080p content that we've downloaded or ripped ourselves and would like to play back on our 1080p televisions that everyone sells and has sold for half a decade.
It's obvious that content providers want ATV to fail because, like the short-sighted music industry, they fear Apple's volume over cost-per-unit business model. The only sure solution I can see is for Apple to buy a media company (other than ABC and Fox). Then they can do what is being done to them--deny content access to their competitors.
Apple doesn't "do" content creation, so they won't be buying any studios or networks anytime soon (or ever, I believe). What Apple does "do" however, is content distribution. Yes it's tough to get deals done right now, but the upcoming Airplay mirroring is a step to circumvent that. Every network has (or will have) an iPad app (either a Hulu-type service or apps for individual networks). Since there will be no way to prevent users from streaming it to their Apple TV, apple just instantly made all their content viewable on ATV without requiring any licensing deals. It's not ideal, but it works.
The thing preventing true cord-cutting is the simple fact that if I drop Comcast Cable i'm still reliant on Comcast internet. My view is that Apple should/could/would buy 4G spectrum for their devices to access. Thereby, I can now access all of my streaming services and not depend on Comcast for anything. This is EXACTLY why Comcast bought NBC, so that they don't become a dumbpipe transmitter.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
Except I have my iPad with me when I go out or maybe I'm in the other room using a different app so now no one else would be able to use the AppleTV. Using an iPad to control the AppleTV works well but you really need an alternative method for when the iPad is not available.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
Then use the Remote app over the included remote, but to suggest that mirroring your content between both devices makes the more sense is silly. The AppleTV needs to interact in the HEC the way a HEC works, not the way the iPad works. They are different devices with different uses.
And what if you don't have an iPad or your iPad, being the mobile device that it is, is not there. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't have access to their AppleTV apps without their $500+ remote controller? Again, Netflix and MLB seem to work pretty well as native apps.
Does anybody know if AirPlay would allow, say an iPad game to both stream to a TV and show separate video on the device itself ? not just mirror the video from the iPad? (The result would be something akin to the WiiU's dual screen, which I think could allow for some very interesting ideas with apps/games.
Definitely. Why Apple hasn't opened up the AppleTV to iOS devs is beyond me. The iPhone didn't become "The iPhone" (as we know it) until they opened it up to developers. The hardware is good! The software is just too limited as is. (Without jailbreaking.)
The key point is that apps on the AppleTV are not much use without a remote (and the bundled remote works for simple things like selecting a movie but not for anything more complex). And the iPod touch (or iPhone or iPad) is the remote. And once you use an iPod touch as your remote, it does not matter whether the apps run on the AppleTV or the iPod touch.
I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
The key point is that apps on the AppleTV are not much use without a remote (and the bundled remote works for simple things like selecting a movie but not for anything more complex). And the iPod touch (or iPhone or iPad) is the remote. And once you use an iPod touch as your remote, it does not matter whether the apps run on the AppleTV or the iPod touch.
You're conflating two things. One is using an iOS-based iDevice as a remote (which isn't mirroring the content between devices) and the other is mirroring the content between devices (as seen in Racing HD).
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content.
What do you think is killing GoogleTV? Content.
GTV tried to put Hulu feeds up and got blocked because the Hulu deals are for computer viewing not TVs. Hulu had to block the devices or be in contract violation with the nets, who don't want to piss off the cable companies and so on
Hey Apple, when ya gonna add NFL? Training Camp has started -- we could be using our ATVs to watch training camp too at this point in time, which could be interesting...
That's where an SDK for AppleTV widgets would come in handy. You can still use your iDevice as a remote control, but you wouldn't have to. Mirroring everything between both devices simply isn't a great solution if they plan to grow the product.
I'd like to see the AppleTV be an intermediary device between the cable/sat (and other HDMI-compatible devices) and the TV/receiver. This would let me use the AppleTV to switch inputs; have screen overlays for stocks, weather, incoming calls, FaceTime, Facebook, Twitter, etc. as I see fit; and not have to give up my current cable/sat setup to make it work. I don't think Apple is going to do this because they don't want to part of a chain but the whole chain, but I'd certainly like them to do it.
IOS 5 is supposed to enable bluetooth on the ATV so there will be lots of input options.
I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
It looks like Apple had to limit the TV resolution to 720p because the hardware is grossly underpowered for the 1080i capability the AppleTV was supposed to provide. As a result, Apple had to release a software update that limited the video output to 720p.
There is a similar problem playing back high-resolution audio files (48/24. 96/24 lossless). The scrolling of titles stutters as the CPU cannot keep up with concurrent hi-rez audio playback and scrolling of titles. Also, any scrolling through song lists or artist lists is severely throttled while a hi-rez audio file is being played.
It appears that Apple wants me to buy yet another AppleTV box as a fix for their hardware design ineptitude.
Except I have my iPad with me when I go out or maybe I'm in the other room using a different app so now no one else would be able to use the AppleTV. Using an iPad to control the AppleTV works well but you really need an alternative method for when the iPad is not available.
Yes, without an iOS touchscreen device in the room, an AppleTV can only be used for basic things like playing movies, audio or photos (the AppleTV comes with a basic remote for this). If you take your Wii remote to another room, the Wii is also rather useless.
Ability to decode 1080p is very different than ability to properly play 1080p.
From the article you cite: "... All devices are capable of decoding 1080p video, though video larger than 1920x800 will currently cause hiccups on occasion. ..."
"Hiccups" --- Again, the underpowered AppleTV hardware rears its ugly head.
Then use the Remote app over the included remote, but to suggest that mirroring your content between both devices makes the more sense is silly. The AppleTV needs to interact in the HEC the way a HEC works, not the way the iPad works. They are different devices with different uses.
And what if you don't have an iPad or your iPad, being the mobile device that it is, is not there. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't have access to their AppleTV apps without their $500+ remote controller? Again, Netflix and MLB seem to work pretty well as native apps.
I am suggesting that if you want to use apps with a complex user interface, you need a remote with a complex user interface.
As I said already about five times in this thread, for simple consumption uses (apps), the basic remote that comes with the AppleTV is ok (but even for that a touchscreen remote is better, try typing a long movie title with the current AppleTV remote into your AppleTV).
You're conflating two things. One is using an iOS-based iDevice as a remote (which isn't mirroring the content between devices) and the other is mirroring the content between devices (as seen in Racing HD).
Yes, it is conflating two things but it still proves the point that you need a capable remote to play any real game 'on' the AppleTV.
And Apple is simply not developing a separate remote when they already have the iPod touch (get a 8 GB 1st gen used iPod touch if you will). And they won't allow third-party remotes because this would not provide a unified user experience as each remote would act differently.
Wow, $200 million annually in revenue for a "hobby" device is pretty fantastic. I bet many other device manufacturers would love to have that much revenue on their "flagship" devices. Not to mention all of the after sales revenue thru iTunes for movie and TV rentals. It's pretty incredible. I really like my ATV and am looking forward to getting another one once they improve the specs in the future. I am hoping that they put an A5 chip in it and higher resolution would be great, but frankly, I'm pretty happy with the 720p i get from ATV. I also think a lot of internet connections can't really handle 1080p downloads very reliably. Since the movie has to be downloaded and there isn't that much buffer memory in the current model, I think the 720 works well. It's not blu-ray quality, but it is pretty equivalent to my Cable Hi-Def 1080i resolution.
GTV tried to put Hulu feeds up and got blocked because the Hulu deals are for computer viewing not TVs. Hulu had to block the devices or be in contract violation with the nets, who don't want to piss off the cable companies and so on
What content does AppleTV have that GoogleTV doesn't? (This is a genuine question. Not owning either device, I am not sure what the answer is).
From the outside looking in, it really seems to me the biggest issue for Google TV is a terrible interface, which requires the usage of a keyboard, for it to be useful.
GoogleTV seems to add complexity, while AppleTV reduces it. In the living room, adding complexity is a complete no-no.
Comments
I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
Do you really want to use an iPad for all apps on the AppleTV?
Not necessarily an iPad but an iOS device for sure, at least for almost all apps.
Imagine if there was no native Netflix app but you had to mirror from your iPad to get Netflix to work. Besides now costing at least 6x as much as just an AppleTV you have a more complex setup that requires two devices when you just wanted to use one device.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
let's not pretend we're all videophiles, here. Or that we all have unlimited bandwidth and super-high speed connections. 720p is plenty for most people.
And the rest of us have 1080p content that we've downloaded or ripped ourselves and would like to play back on our 1080p televisions that everyone sells and has sold for half a decade.
It's obvious that content providers want ATV to fail because, like the short-sighted music industry, they fear Apple's volume over cost-per-unit business model. The only sure solution I can see is for Apple to buy a media company (other than ABC and Fox). Then they can do what is being done to them--deny content access to their competitors.
Apple doesn't "do" content creation, so they won't be buying any studios or networks anytime soon (or ever, I believe). What Apple does "do" however, is content distribution. Yes it's tough to get deals done right now, but the upcoming Airplay mirroring is a step to circumvent that. Every network has (or will have) an iPad app (either a Hulu-type service or apps for individual networks). Since there will be no way to prevent users from streaming it to their Apple TV, apple just instantly made all their content viewable on ATV without requiring any licensing deals. It's not ideal, but it works.
The thing preventing true cord-cutting is the simple fact that if I drop Comcast Cable i'm still reliant on Comcast internet. My view is that Apple should/could/would buy 4G spectrum for their devices to access. Thereby, I can now access all of my streaming services and not depend on Comcast for anything. This is EXACTLY why Comcast bought NBC, so that they don't become a dumbpipe transmitter.
Yes, for almost all.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
Except I have my iPad with me when I go out or maybe I'm in the other room using a different app so now no one else would be able to use the AppleTV. Using an iPad to control the AppleTV works well but you really need an alternative method for when the iPad is not available.
Yes, for almost all.
For any app that requires any significant user interaction you will want to have a touchscreen remote (iPad, iPod touch, iPhone). Movies, audio and images can work ok without a touchscreen remote because the interaction required is small compared to the usage period (you spent two minutes selecting a move and then watching it for two hours without requiring any interaction beyond a simple start/stop).
Then use the Remote app over the included remote, but to suggest that mirroring your content between both devices makes the more sense is silly. The AppleTV needs to interact in the HEC the way a HEC works, not the way the iPad works. They are different devices with different uses.
And what if you don't have an iPad or your iPad, being the mobile device that it is, is not there. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't have access to their AppleTV apps without their $500+ remote controller?
Does anybody know if AirPlay would allow, say an iPad game to both stream to a TV and show separate video on the device itself ? not just mirror the video from the iPad? (The result would be something akin to the WiiU's dual screen, which I think could allow for some very interesting ideas with apps/games.
Definitely. Why Apple hasn't opened up the AppleTV to iOS devs is beyond me. The iPhone didn't become "The iPhone" (as we know it) until they opened it up to developers. The hardware is good! The software is just too limited as is. (Without jailbreaking.)
Have a look at this 'interview' with Greg Joswiak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBxM...layer_embedded (go to 3:45). You can see that you have a different view on both of the iOS device.
The key point is that apps on the AppleTV are not much use without a remote (and the bundled remote works for simple things like selecting a movie but not for anything more complex). And the iPod touch (or iPhone or iPad) is the remote. And once you use an iPod touch as your remote, it does not matter whether the apps run on the AppleTV or the iPod touch.
Watch this for explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXfyvlPh0
iOS Apple TV *is* capable of decoding 1080p video, see:
http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title...S_specific_FAQ
I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
Have a look at this 'interview' with Greg Joswiak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBxM...layer_embedded (go to 3:45). You can see that you have a different view on both of the iOS device.
The key point is that apps on the AppleTV are not much use without a remote (and the bundled remote works for simple things like selecting a movie but not for anything more complex). And the iPod touch (or iPhone or iPad) is the remote. And once you use an iPod touch as your remote, it does not matter whether the apps run on the AppleTV or the iPod touch.
You're conflating two things. One is using an iOS-based iDevice as a remote (which isn't mirroring the content between devices) and the other is mirroring the content between devices (as seen in Racing HD).
The Apple TV's got a lot of potential, but one of the big problems is that it's at the mercy of studios and networks for a lot of its streaming content.
What do you think is killing GoogleTV? Content.
GTV tried to put Hulu feeds up and got blocked because the Hulu deals are for computer viewing not TVs. Hulu had to block the devices or be in contract violation with the nets, who don't want to piss off the cable companies and so on
That's where an SDK for AppleTV widgets would come in handy. You can still use your iDevice as a remote control, but you wouldn't have to. Mirroring everything between both devices simply isn't a great solution if they plan to grow the product.
I'd like to see the AppleTV be an intermediary device between the cable/sat (and other HDMI-compatible devices) and the TV/receiver. This would let me use the AppleTV to switch inputs; have screen overlays for stocks, weather, incoming calls, FaceTime, Facebook, Twitter, etc. as I see fit; and not have to give up my current cable/sat setup to make it work. I don't think Apple is going to do this because they don't want to part of a chain but the whole chain, but I'd certainly like them to do it.
IOS 5 is supposed to enable bluetooth on the ATV so there will be lots of input options.
I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.
It looks like Apple had to limit the TV resolution to 720p because the hardware is grossly underpowered for the 1080i capability the AppleTV was supposed to provide. As a result, Apple had to release a software update that limited the video output to 720p.
There is a similar problem playing back high-resolution audio files (48/24. 96/24 lossless). The scrolling of titles stutters as the CPU cannot keep up with concurrent hi-rez audio playback and scrolling of titles. Also, any scrolling through song lists or artist lists is severely throttled while a hi-rez audio file is being played.
It appears that Apple wants me to buy yet another AppleTV box as a fix for their hardware design ineptitude.
Except I have my iPad with me when I go out or maybe I'm in the other room using a different app so now no one else would be able to use the AppleTV. Using an iPad to control the AppleTV works well but you really need an alternative method for when the iPad is not available.
Yes, without an iOS touchscreen device in the room, an AppleTV can only be used for basic things like playing movies, audio or photos (the AppleTV comes with a basic remote for this). If you take your Wii remote to another room, the Wii is also rather useless.
Why in the world do you think that 1080i is good? -- it's like 540 lines of resolution! 1080i is actually lower quality than 720p!
...
iOS Apple TV *is* capable of decoding 1080p video, see:
http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title...S_specific_FAQ
Ability to decode 1080p is very different than ability to properly play 1080p.
From the article you cite: "... All devices are capable of decoding 1080p video, though video larger than 1920x800 will currently cause hiccups on occasion. ..."
"Hiccups" --- Again, the underpowered AppleTV hardware rears its ugly head.
Then use the Remote app over the included remote, but to suggest that mirroring your content between both devices makes the more sense is silly. The AppleTV needs to interact in the HEC the way a HEC works, not the way the iPad works. They are different devices with different uses.
And what if you don't have an iPad or your iPad, being the mobile device that it is, is not there. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't have access to their AppleTV apps without their $500+ remote controller?
I am suggesting that if you want to use apps with a complex user interface, you need a remote with a complex user interface.
As I said already about five times in this thread, for simple consumption uses (apps), the basic remote that comes with the AppleTV is ok (but even for that a touchscreen remote is better, try typing a long movie title with the current AppleTV remote into your AppleTV).
Ability to decode 1080p is very different than ability to properly play 1080p.
No one has ever explained why this is the case, though.
though video larger than 1920x800 will currently cause hiccups on occasion. ..."
That's hardly definitive by any stretch of the imagination. Resolution really wouldn't have as much to do with it as bit rate.
Which is why an A5 Apple TV was expected so that these arguments can finally be put to rest.
You're conflating two things. One is using an iOS-based iDevice as a remote (which isn't mirroring the content between devices) and the other is mirroring the content between devices (as seen in Racing HD).
Yes, it is conflating two things but it still proves the point that you need a capable remote to play any real game 'on' the AppleTV.
And Apple is simply not developing a separate remote when they already have the iPod touch (get a 8 GB 1st gen used iPod touch if you will). And they won't allow third-party remotes because this would not provide a unified user experience as each remote would act differently.
What do you think is killing GoogleTV? Content.
GTV tried to put Hulu feeds up and got blocked because the Hulu deals are for computer viewing not TVs. Hulu had to block the devices or be in contract violation with the nets, who don't want to piss off the cable companies and so on
What content does AppleTV have that GoogleTV doesn't? (This is a genuine question. Not owning either device, I am not sure what the answer is).
From the outside looking in, it really seems to me the biggest issue for Google TV is a terrible interface, which requires the usage of a keyboard, for it to be useful.
GoogleTV seems to add complexity, while AppleTV reduces it. In the living room, adding complexity is a complete no-no.