4x the bit rate unless they also support H.265 which would bring it down to 2X. I'm not aware of any silicon with H.265 encode/decode support yet. Not that Apple couldn't be making their own. My current Apple TV would be good enough for awhile if it had an App Store. I just figured out that they let you move the apps like iPhone and iPad. Not sure how I missed that.
In my experience, quadrupling the pixels doesn't necessarily require quadrupling the bitrate of the encoded stream. It's a little complicated, but when you're showing finer details of a given image, it's not necessary to have quadruple the bitstream to do so, because of the way the coding works.
In my experience, quadrupling the pixels doesn't necessarily require quadrupling the bitrate of the encoded stream. It's a little complicated, but when you're showing finer details of a given image, it's not necessary to have quadruple the bitstream to do so, because of the way the coding works.
Not at all. In fact, I've read (but can't verify) that there an increase in efficiency to a bit rate as you scale the resolution. Now I did use 2x in my examples earlier only to make the math simple and favoring the worst possible outcome.
See I have felt that apple has a rule in its self about ppi, well apple is probably going to do 4k( maybe even 5k.) well this is probably going to drive the TV in upper thousands thou(1800 for a small) (5000 for a large).
[...] The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached.
Or, even more ideally, just a monitor -- period, full stop. Who here actually uses their TV's built-in tuner? How many of us use an external cable box or equivalent? The only thing I need a "TV" to be is a display with an HDMI input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.
AIRPLAY. Yes. That is an excellent point. You're right, I really would want a higher res display for that.
I wish they would build a touch screen iMac!!!!!!!!!
I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
I'm sure I saw another one advertised somewhere around that price too. Given that the average selling price is so low, the sales volumes of expensive TVs has to be extremely small. The highest target volume would be Samsung at ~57 million per year worldwide.
I think we can exclude the $0-500 range under the assumption that they won't make a 1080p TV so that's well over half the volume cut out. Say it's only half, that leaves a best case volume of ~28 million units and the majority of those will be in the $500-1000 range.
Let's say that range is excluded too and it's only half again. That leaves the best case scenario for a $1000+ TV at ~14 million units per year worldwide. This is less than their Mac line. If they can get similar margins, ok it might be worth doing. Samsung and Sony can't maintain their margins:
but this is the same on the phone side - they can't sustain margins as high as Apple. Nonetheless, almost certainly, Apple would make less profit from making a TV than they do from their Macs. That's still a decent amount of money at 30% of their profit but this is all under the assumption that they can match Samsung's volumes, maintain high margins and that the volume distribution is in even 50% splits, which it can't be.
It would probably have a nice design, maybe it's something they've always wanted to improve but it won't be a big money maker and it offers very few opportunities for Apple to show off why they are better than TVs with lower margins. If they've found a way to make a 4K TV in the $1000-2000 range, that's a huge selling point along with a laminated low glare front, coupled with some nice software. Even with the low numbers, they'll own the premium market, which is what they usually do. However, that's pretty optimistic because how could Apple have the tech to make a 4K display that cheap when nobody else does? Apple is buying the panels from a 3rd party.
Not at all. In fact, I've read (but can't verify) that there an increase in efficiency to a bit rate as you scale the resolution. Now I did use 2x in my examples earlier only to make the math simple and favoring the worst possible outcome.
2x bitrate for 4x more pixels seems to be a decent rule of thumb. I think there is a name for the theory behind it, but I don't remember what it is.
2x bitrate for 4x more pixels seems to be a decent rule of thumb. I think there is a name for the theory behind it, but I don't remember what it is.
And that's with me assuming H.265 over the current H.264 so we can imagine even better results overall, not to mention that audio channels, subtitle/CC, and whatever is deemed the high and low values for a perceived video quality don't scale the same way as with video codecs. Meaning, the last one, that the amount of data per video frame could be dramatically lowered per pixel without having a noticeable effect on quality for a given circumstance. I think testing and comparing is the only way to figure that out; I don't think it can be done with formulas.
I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that. The only way a touchscreen Mac works for extended use is if the display is repositioned to be in a natural place your hands would be, like when you use an iPad on a table, lap with it propped up in the back. I think TS had a pic of a mockup once.
There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that.
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.
Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than having to guess how much the one should go up and the other down. Once done, I go back to the keyboard and mouse and trackpad.
There are at least half-a-dozen other use cases I can imagine just off the top of my head.
The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.
Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than having to guess how much the one should go up and the other down. Once done, I go back to the keyboard and mouse and trackpad.
There are at least half-a-dozen other use cases I can imagine just off the top of my head.
The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.
You do realize that the less frequent an input method is and the more specialized its use the worse you make your case because you're essentially asking Apple to add a 27" touch panel to their iMac that hopefully 1) won't increase the cost for users, and 2) won't negatively affect the brightness, color quality, etc for professional that need the most accurate display, but won't get used much. Then you have people complaining that a touchscreen Mac is pointless since it's not capable of being placed in some "drafting board" mode, for lack of a better term.
In no way am I saying your desire isn't real or wouldn't help you out, but there are at least as many ideas for making something just right for an individual as there are people in the world. Your idea doesn't affect my usage in the slightest so I hope it comes true but so far I've seen nothing that would indicate that is high on Apple's priorities.
You do realize that the less frequent an input method is and the more specialized its use the worse you make your case because you're essentially asking Apple to add a 27" touch panel to their iMac that hopefully 1) won't increase the cost for users, and 2) won't negatively affect the brightness, color quality, etc for professional that need the most accurate display, but won't get used much. Then you have people complaining that a touchscreen Mac is pointless since it's not capable of being placed in some "drafting board" mode, for lack of a better term..
Not only that, but touching the screen leaves marks. It's not a big deal on the phone because I can wipe the phone on my jeans to clean it, but you can't do that with a 27" iMac. You'd need to keep cleaning supplies handy and use them all the time.
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway.
People don't know what they want until you show it to them. You don't actually want it. As to the earlier query about the use case of those who buy vertical touchscreen desktops, I should think that we would have that information readily available, since HP, Dell, Acer, and nearly everyone else who makes a computer has a touchscreen desktop model.
And yet… we don't hear anything about how often they're used, if they're returned, or how they're used at all…
…it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet.
Do you know what strain means? So how could it be easier?
Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡
Originally Posted by v5v
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.
That's why it won't be included until it's the only form. Apple isn't big on "another".
The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.
Ah, but the thing is, a touchscreen can replace ALL forms, and therefore it'll be moved to when it's the only form.
Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
I'm NOT hung up on the word TV. The analysts are. I'm on record saying this will make for a great monitor. I'd love a 40" or larger retina display monitor!
But a monitor is not going to sell anywhere near the volume that an Apple TV set will, nor that the analysts expect one would. If Apple just released a large format retina monitor along with a new headliner product at a media event, everyone would applaud, and nobody would think anything more about it. But the minute you call it a "TV" the ramifications of that word go waaaaaaaay beyond a really cool new monitor. Suddenly Apple's future depends on it.
What's being debated here is not whether Apple will release a nifty new Thuderbolt Display, but whether Apple will introduce a 4K Apple TV. The difference is profound. You wanna talk large screen retina display? I'm all for it. You wanna talk 4K Apple branded TV set? I doubt Apple will do it anytime soon.
Could somebody buy such a display now and then add to it a quietly updated 4K Apple TV set top box "hobby" of Apple's? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and the launch of a new integrated product category which requires 4K media content to justify the cost.
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?
Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.
Comments
In my experience, quadrupling the pixels doesn't necessarily require quadrupling the bitrate of the encoded stream. It's a little complicated, but when you're showing finer details of a given image, it's not necessary to have quadruple the bitstream to do so, because of the way the coding works.
Not at all. In fact, I've read (but can't verify) that there an increase in efficiency to a bit rate as you scale the resolution. Now I did use 2x in my examples earlier only to make the math simple and favoring the worst possible outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached.
Or, even more ideally, just a monitor -- period, full stop. Who here actually uses their TV's built-in tuner? How many of us use an external cable box or equivalent? The only thing I need a "TV" to be is a display with an HDMI input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.
AIRPLAY. Yes. That is an excellent point. You're right, I really would want a higher res display for that.
I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
Early 2014 now. That timeframe just keeps on movin'.
The biggest issue I see in this is the size of the market:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/21/Global-Television-Demand-dropped-last-year/
203 million LCD TVs worldwide in 2012 of which Samsung accounts for 28%, LG 15% and the average selling price in the region of $500.
Sony seems to be planning a 4k TV at $5000:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1364200494
I'm sure I saw another one advertised somewhere around that price too. Given that the average selling price is so low, the sales volumes of expensive TVs has to be extremely small. The highest target volume would be Samsung at ~57 million per year worldwide.
I think we can exclude the $0-500 range under the assumption that they won't make a 1080p TV so that's well over half the volume cut out. Say it's only half, that leaves a best case volume of ~28 million units and the majority of those will be in the $500-1000 range.
Let's say that range is excluded too and it's only half again. That leaves the best case scenario for a $1000+ TV at ~14 million units per year worldwide. This is less than their Mac line. If they can get similar margins, ok it might be worth doing. Samsung and Sony can't maintain their margins:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/23/samsung_sony_begin_enforcing_minimum_prices_on_hdtvs_to_grow_margins
but this is the same on the phone side - they can't sustain margins as high as Apple. Nonetheless, almost certainly, Apple would make less profit from making a TV than they do from their Macs. That's still a decent amount of money at 30% of their profit but this is all under the assumption that they can match Samsung's volumes, maintain high margins and that the volume distribution is in even 50% splits, which it can't be.
It would probably have a nice design, maybe it's something they've always wanted to improve but it won't be a big money maker and it offers very few opportunities for Apple to show off why they are better than TVs with lower margins. If they've found a way to make a 4K TV in the $1000-2000 range, that's a huge selling point along with a laminated low glare front, coupled with some nice software. Even with the low numbers, they'll own the premium market, which is what they usually do. However, that's pretty optimistic because how could Apple have the tech to make a 4K display that cheap when nobody else does? Apple is buying the panels from a 3rd party.
2x bitrate for 4x more pixels seems to be a decent rule of thumb. I think there is a name for the theory behind it, but I don't remember what it is.
And that's with me assuming H.265 over the current H.264 so we can imagine even better results overall, not to mention that audio channels, subtitle/CC, and whatever is deemed the high and low values for a perceived video quality don't scale the same way as with video codecs. Meaning, the last one, that the amount of data per video frame could be dramatically lowered per pixel without having a noticeable effect on quality for a given circumstance. I think testing and comparing is the only way to figure that out; I don't think it can be done with formulas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that. The only way a touchscreen Mac works for extended use is if the display is repositioned to be in a natural place your hands would be, like when you use an iPad on a table, lap with it propped up in the back. I think TS had a pic of a mockup once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that.
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.
Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than having to guess how much the one should go up and the other down. Once done, I go back to the keyboard and mouse and trackpad.
There are at least half-a-dozen other use cases I can imagine just off the top of my head.
The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.
You do realize that the less frequent an input method is and the more specialized its use the worse you make your case because you're essentially asking Apple to add a 27" touch panel to their iMac that hopefully 1) won't increase the cost for users, and 2) won't negatively affect the brightness, color quality, etc for professional that need the most accurate display, but won't get used much. Then you have people complaining that a touchscreen Mac is pointless since it's not capable of being placed in some "drafting board" mode, for lack of a better term.
In no way am I saying your desire isn't real or wouldn't help you out, but there are at least as many ideas for making something just right for an individual as there are people in the world. Your idea doesn't affect my usage in the slightest so I hope it comes true but so far I've seen nothing that would indicate that is high on Apple's priorities.
Not only that, but touching the screen leaves marks. It's not a big deal on the phone because I can wipe the phone on my jeans to clean it, but you can't do that with a 27" iMac. You'd need to keep cleaning supplies handy and use them all the time.
Originally Posted by v5v
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway.
People don't know what they want until you show it to them. You don't actually want it. As to the earlier query about the use case of those who buy vertical touchscreen desktops, I should think that we would have that information readily available, since HP, Dell, Acer, and nearly everyone else who makes a computer has a touchscreen desktop model.
And yet… we don't hear anything about how often they're used, if they're returned, or how they're used at all…
…it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet.
Do you know what strain means? So how could it be easier?
Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡
Originally Posted by v5v
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.
That's why it won't be included until it's the only form. Apple isn't big on "another".
The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.
Ah, but the thing is, a touchscreen can replace ALL forms, and therefore it'll be moved to when it's the only form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
I'm NOT hung up on the word TV. The analysts are. I'm on record saying this will make for a great monitor. I'd love a 40" or larger retina display monitor!
But a monitor is not going to sell anywhere near the volume that an Apple TV set will, nor that the analysts expect one would. If Apple just released a large format retina monitor along with a new headliner product at a media event, everyone would applaud, and nobody would think anything more about it. But the minute you call it a "TV" the ramifications of that word go waaaaaaaay beyond a really cool new monitor. Suddenly Apple's future depends on it.
What's being debated here is not whether Apple will release a nifty new Thuderbolt Display, but whether Apple will introduce a 4K Apple TV. The difference is profound. You wanna talk large screen retina display? I'm all for it. You wanna talk 4K Apple branded TV set? I doubt Apple will do it anytime soon.
Could somebody buy such a display now and then add to it a quietly updated 4K Apple TV set top box "hobby" of Apple's? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and the launch of a new integrated product category which requires 4K media content to justify the cost.
You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right? :???:
You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right? :???:
Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?
Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.
How many games work at that resolution?
I believe the number may be ZERO.