New products reaffirm Apple TV's central role in HomeKit ecosystem

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 58
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    A few things I've noticed here:



    1. The name Apple TV makes less and less sense. With this hardware being less about TV and more central to the home a new device with a fresh name may be announced. One that makes sense.



    2. Why is this device's Home automation necessary when I'm sure Home will be available in your pocket(iPhone), in you're computers(iPad,Macs) and your wrist(?Watch).



    Home being available on your iPhone makes this feature completely unnecessary.



    3. If Siri integration is really planned, expect this device to get expensive and have massive features added.



    Mics, a speaker, large hard drive, A8/A9 chip, possibly a new remote, etc.



    This would definitely take it out of the hobby stage.

    re: 2:  Because your phone and wrist aren't home all the time, and Internet sometimes goes down (hence a cloud solution ain't perfect)

     

    re: 3:  adding Siri costing money?.  A8 chips are probably less expensive than the current A5 chips (single purpose factory floor real estate being the most expensive thing).  Your phone is your new remote, and any new remote will be force touch anyway.   Your TV will be on, so the speakers are taken care of (or a $3 speaker that turns on if the HDMI is cold).  high gain Mic? $5.

     

    My (Wild @ssed) ;guess:  Airport Extreme/AppleTV merger:  $299 for AppleTV extreme (TB disk), and $199 for AppleTV (no local disk)  and $99 for AppleTV Express.

  • Reply 22 of 58
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post

     

     

    That might be a compelling argument if iMacs and laptops were all Apple sold.  But there are still Mac Minis and Mac Pros for sale.

     

    Maybe later, when the market has evolved a bit more, the all-in-one router/tv/wap could make sense; my feeling is, it's too early just yet.


    you're just adding the TV... and in most [US] houses the cable modem is behind the TV... and this would then replace the massive cable box.

     

    I'm sure a lot of people said a tablet without a keyboard was too early.;-)

  • Reply 23 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

    Also, start resetting your expectations if you think Apple will release a 4K-capable Apple TV this year. Right now 4K makes no sense for anyone other than content producers.


    Apple is a content producer (do you mean provider?).

     

    However, a 4k-capable AppleTV wouldn't actually have to give anyone 4k.  It just needs to be able to via a firmware/software update at a later date.  I think that's all people are asking for - an updated A chip that would allow for h265 and 4k.

  • Reply 24 of 58
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post

     

    That might be a compelling argument if iMacs and laptops were all Apple sold.  But there are still Mac Minis and Mac Pros for sale.

     

    Maybe later, when the market has evolved a bit more, the all-in-one router/tv/wap could make sense; my feeling is, it's too early just yet.




    There's more...

     

    Apple TV has historically sold for $100. Depending on the feature set, the new one may cost more. An Airport Extreme is $200, so combining the two you'd be looking at a $300 device, minimum. This combination eliminates the following from your addressable market:

     


    • Anyone who can't or won't spend $300+ for a device in a market dominated by <$99 products

    • Anyone who already has a perfectly working router and doesn't want to waste an extra $200 on a redundant feature

    • Anyone who owns a Time Capsule

    • Anyone who owns a third party router because it provides some features not available from Apple (e.g., DD-WRT)

     

    Additionally, Apple's current routers have a large, vertical form factor to house multiple antennae. Nobody wants an Apple TV that has grown from an easily conceivable hockey puck to a 4" X 6" eye sore.

  • Reply 25 of 58
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

     

    Apple is a content producer (do you mean provider?).

     

    However, a 4k-capable AppleTV wouldn't actually have to give anyone 4k.  It just needs to be able to via a firmware/software update at a later date.  I think that's all people are asking for - an updated A chip that would allow for h265 and 4k.




    So you think Apple should include a feature that will not work, will not be advertised, but will add to the cost of the device so that at some point in the future those who purchased it will be able to get added functionality from it rather than buying a new model from Apple?

     

    4K needs more than just people willing to buy a new TV set. It needs content and a means for distribution. The TVs have become more affordable, but the available content is insignificant, and there is no reason to believe that the US will have internet bandwidth in the next few years that can accommodate 4K video streaming without so much compression that it negates the benefits of the higher resolution and color gamut.

     

    And before you say "Ultra HD BluRay" I'd like to remind you that Apple is a champion of wireless networking and they have suppressed the proliferation of physical media for years.

  • Reply 26 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     



    So you think Apple should include a feature that will not work, will not be advertised, but will add to the cost of the device so that at some point in the future those who purchased it will be able to get added functionality from it rather than buying a new model from Apple?


     

    Firstly, as I believe someone mentioned above, there's nothing to indicate that an A8 is more expensive at this point than an A5 anyway, due to economies of scale and the dedicated fab space.

     

    Secondly, there are plenty of reasons besides 4K that they could use a SoC upgrade, App store/Games being an obvious one.

     

    Thirdly, they could easily announce 4k content from iTunes.  Come on, man.

     

    edit: ok that third point is weak, considering the context of the argument.  But also keep in mind Netflix already offers 4K, only not if you're using a current Apple TV.  I believe YouTube does as well.  

  • Reply 27 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     



    So you think Apple should include a feature that will not work, will not be advertised, but will add to the cost of the device so that at some point in the future those who purchased it will be able to get added functionality from it rather than buying a new model from Apple?

     

    4K needs more than just people willing to buy a new TV set. It needs content and a means for distribution. The TVs have become more affordable, but the available content is insignificant, and there is no reason to believe that the US will have internet bandwidth in the next few years that can accommodate 4K video streaming without so much compression that it negates the benefits of the higher resolution and color gamut.

     

    And before you say "Ultra HD BluRay" I'd like to remind you that Apple is a champion of wireless networking and they have suppressed the proliferation of physical media for years.


    I hadn't realized US internet bandwidth is a problem.  I live in a small city in Canada with 100mbps internet, so 4K is no problem.

     

    And i would NEVER say Ultra HD BluRay.  Gross.

     

    Largely I agree with you on 4K content generally, but I think a new Apple TV with a processor capable of eventually allowing 4k playback not unreasonable right now.

  • Reply 28 of 58
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

     

     

    Firstly, as I believe someone mentioned above, there's nothing to indicate that an A8 is more expensive at this point than an A5 anyway, due to economies of scale and the dedicated fab space.

     

    Secondly, there are plenty of reasons besides 4K that they could use a SoC upgrade, App store/Games being an obvious one.

     

    Thirdly, they could easily announce 4k content from iTunes.  Come on, man.




    How are you going to get that 4K content from iTunes? You need 20-40 Mbps of actual (not theoretical) bandwidth for 4K p60 streaming. The only way they could stream 4K content on a 15 Mbps connection would be to compress the living crap out of it, apply heavy noise reduction, and cut the frame rate to 24/30 fps... at which point you would start to wonder why you wasted so much money and energy to receive such crappy quality video.

     

    In reality, 4K p60 over a 15 Mbps connection is dependent on promises of dramatically superior HVEC compression at least 40% better than what we have now. This is at best several years away (or until Pied Piper gets their act together with their middle-out compression algorithm.)

  • Reply 29 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     



    How are you going to get that 4K content from iTunes? You need 20-40 Mbps of actual (not theoretical) bandwidth for 4K p60 streaming. The only way they could stream 4K content on a 15 Mbps connection would be to compress the living crap out of it, apply heavy noise reduction, and cut the frame rate to 24/30 fps... at which point you would start to wonder why you wasted so much money and energy to receive such crappy quality video.

     

    In reality, 4K p60 over a 15 Mbps connection is dependent on promises of dramatically superior HVEC compression at least 40% better than what we have now. This is at best several years away,




    First of all, Netflix somehow does it for 24mbps, and as I just said, i get 100mbps, which is not the highest available in my area.  250 is.  I could stream 8k.

     

    Also, you could easily put in 32gb (or 48 or 64) of onboard memory to store and not need to compress it. Btw, you know that h265 is twice as good as 264, right?

     

    Think A LITTLE man

  • Reply 30 of 58
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

     



    First of all, Netflix somehow does it for 24mbps, and as I just said, i get 100mbps, which is not the highest available in my area.  250 is.  I could stream 8k.

     

    Also, you could easily put in 32gb (or 48 or 64) of onboard memory to store and not need to compress it. Btw, you know that h265 is twice as good as 264, right?

     

    Think A LITTLE man




    Most people in North America do not have your internet bandwidth. A realistic target for video streaming is 15Mbps, and even there you're leaving a lot of people out, including myself. Netflix’s current bitrate for 4K is 15.6Mbps, which is too high. Also Netflix, like cable companies, compresses the hell out of their video. When you watch a 1080p movie on cable it is full of ugly compression artifacts that ruin the quality. Some may not notice - but anyone who just invested in a 4K TV and other related gear is sure going to notice.

     

    Right now 4K is not ready for prime time. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

  • Reply 31 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     



    Most people in North America do not have your internet bandwidth. A realistic target for video streaming is 15Mbps, and even there you're leaving a lot of people out, including myself. Netflix’s current bitrate for 4K is 15.6Mbps, which is too high. Also Netflix, like cable companies, compresses the hell out of their video. When you watch a 1080p movie on cable it is full of ugly compression artifacts that ruin the quality. Some may not notice - but anyone who just invested in a 4K TV and other related gear is sure going to notice.

     

    Right now 4K is not ready for prime time. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.




    I agree.  However, i still don't see a reason to not include an SoC on the AppleTV that is capable of playing it.

     

    And also, if most people won't notice, then is it not by definition ready for prime time?  Because those people who don't notice it are 99% of the market. 

     

    Also, most places in north america can't get 15 Mbps?  I don't know if I believe that.  I mean, rural, sure, but the gigantic markets of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.etc. literally can't get that?  I think there must be a large enough market out there.  The LOWEST my ISP provides is 8. Its barely any more to get up to 15.

     

    PS - isn't most cable 720p?  Mine sure is. 

  • Reply 32 of 58
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

     



    I agree.  However, i still don't see a reason to not include an SoC on the AppleTV that is capable of playing it.

     

    And also, if most people won't notice, then is it not by definition ready for prime time?  Because those people who don't notice it are 99% of the market. 

     

    Also, most places in north america can't get 15 Mbps?  I don't know if I believe that.  I mean, rural, sure, but the gigantic markets of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.etc. literally can't get that?  I think there must be a large enough market out there.  The LOWEST my ISP provides is 8. Its barely any more to get up to 15.

     

    PS - isn't most cable 720p?  Mine sure is. 


     

     

    ?

  • Reply 33 of 58
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    re: 2:  Because your phone and wrist aren't home all the time, and Internet sometimes goes down (hence a cloud solution ain't perfect)

    re: 3:  adding Siri costing money?.  A8 chips are probably less expensive than the current A5 chips (single purpose factory floor real estate being the most expensive thing).  Your phone is your new remote, and any new remote will be force touch anyway.   Your TV will be on, so the speakers are taken care of (or a $3 speaker that turns on if the HDMI is cold).  high gain Mic? $5.

    My (Wild @ssed) guess:  Airport Extreme/AppleTV merger:  $299 for AppleTV extreme (TB disk), and $199 for AppleTV (no local disk)  and $99 for AppleTV Express.

    Good answers.

    Re 3:

    I was thinking more Amazon Echo meets Apple TV meets Home automation. Definitely could make for a higher price device.

    I imagine a mic on both AppleTV and remote. A speaker on the device since requiring the TV to be on for Siri would be a pain. Possibly an advanced remote and paying for premium parts like A9, 1TB hard drive etc.

    I'm guessing $200 to $500 and dont expect a $99 model with all these features.
  • Reply 34 of 58
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

     

    ?




    This site says differently:

    http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/

     

    Unless I'm reading it wrong - it suggests globally ~23

     

    Edit: Average is also a lot different from possible.  Many people a) don't need more (because they don't have a 4k tv yet) or live in that state but not in a city, so they can't get more.  That doesn't mean people who can shouldn't be allowed to.  I'm from Canada and even I find that too socialist!!

  • Reply 35 of 58
    For people who are tired of streaming content through their router to another device to get it on iTunes, then back through the same router to go into ATV?
  • Reply 36 of 58
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    1. AppleInsider.com is not an official Apple site or spokesperson.



    2. If you don't know what the word "many" means there are various dictionaries that will help you out.



    3. Everything until WWDC is speculation.



    4. Again Apple didn't say this.





    So take your trolling elsewhere!!

     

    Of course Appinsider is not official Apple site or spokesperson.
    My whole sarcastic post was about websites that think everything apple does is incredible and amazing. IE this quote:

    "This has its own set of challenges, especially when you consider that many connected home accessories simply aren't designed to respond to requests from the outside world"

    While I am looking forward to home kit. The idea that this is some how new, incredible, amazing which I feel this article implies is just hyperbole. There are a TON of devices that currently do this. Its not something new or incredible.

    It will be nice that hopefully homekit will allow devices that do not talk to each other work together (if that's what it can do, we don't know yet)
    I.E. I have a nest protect, when the fire alarm goes off turn all lights in the house on (regardless if the nest even knows about them or has support for them)
  • Reply 37 of 58
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    cali wrote: »
    A few things I've noticed here:

    1. The name Apple TV makes less and less sense. With this hardware being less about TV and more central to the home a new device with a fresh name may be announced. One that makes sense.
    .

    Probably something obvious like (Apple logo) Home.
  • Reply 38 of 58
    inklinginkling Posts: 768member
    When I was growing up, our Fifties-era home had something like this. Latching relays controlled the lights. From the kitchen and master bedroom, you could turn every light in the house on and off.

    Neat? Not really. My dad wired it into our home but never used it. Neither did my mother. Occasionally, on rainy days my siblings or I would play with it.

    That's why I have trouble finding much value in HomeKit. A bedtime, for instance, you want to do a walk around the house anyway. And turning on/off home systems remotely is fraught with about as much risk as benefit.

    I could see some benefit in what a energy management firm I once worked for sold. A computer system monitored inside and outside temperatures and taking into account the temperature inertia of the building. Turned on and off heating and cooling on a schedule.

    It was smart enough to calculate, based on inside and outside temperatures, just the right moment to turn on the heating or cooling for an office building for it to just the right temperature when workers arrived. And at the end of the day, it'd turn off the heating or cooling so it went into the uncomfortable range just after they left. Add in a knowledge of the weather, say a cold front moving it, and it would save money without adding complexity.
  • Reply 39 of 58
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    When I was growing up, our Fifties-era home had something like this. Latching relays controlled the lights. From the kitchen and master bedroom, you could turn every light in the house on and off.



    Neat? Not really. My dad wired it into our home but never used it. Neither did my mother. Occasionally, on rainy days my siblings or I would play with it.



    That's why I have trouble finding much value in HomeKit. A bedtime, for instance, you want to do a walk around the house anyway. And turning on/off home systems remotely is fraught with about as much risk as benefit.

     

    I have an Insteon setup right now.   I don't have the whole house wired as it is not ours -- we rent it - but I have wired the outside front light, the garage door, and the sprinklers.    The outside light turns on automatically at sundown, which time it gets from the internet.  It turns the lights off again automatically at sunrise.   This saves electricity and makes sure the lights are on at night outside -- that I don't forget.

     

    The sprinklers are hooked up and besides being able to manually control them from my phone, I have the sequence of when and where and how long to run them, X times a week, which I can change from my phone.  Saves a lot of water as I can easily change the frequency throughout the year and I can easily program it to run 2x a night, for 8 minutes at a time, instead of once for a longer period, where the yard gets soacked and extra runs off into the gutter.

     

    The garage door I did basically because the remotes for the garage door opener barely worked, and it was easy to set up to just use my phone.   This was really less compelling.   I can check if it is open from work, and close it etc. but have never actually done that.

     

    There are lots of use cases you wouldn't think about up front, but that you realize later when you see someone else do it or your circumstances changes and you need to solve some problem.

     

    I also have some Insteon switched lights in my basement where I can switch them on before I get there instead of having to fumble around in the the dark while I get to the room I am trying to get to in the dark.   (Unfinished basement)

     

    As a side note, when I am on vacation, I can use the system, along with the Philips Hue lights I was given by someone I did some work for, to make the house look lived in while we are gone.  Turning lights on and off, using Insteon switch to turn on TV and back off, etc.  All on a randomized schedule.

  • Reply 40 of 58
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    To address the needs of safety and security, a HomeKit hub needs to include [B][I] battery backup [/I][/B] in case of power loss -- to assure that the devices (they're called [I] accessories [/I] by HomeKit) it controls/monitors are in a desired state to the greatest extent possible.

    For example, your new garage door opener has a battery backup -- The HomeKit Hub should be able to monitor and control the garage door opener during a power loss. Say, you're away on a trip -- you should be able to set the HomeKit hub to keep the garage door (and other battery backup [I] accessories [/I]) closed until power and remote communication is returned.

    HomeKit is designed so that users who have multiple homes: suburban home;  beach house;  pied-à-terre in the city;  mountain cabin, etc. -- can control/monitor and set default behavior for [I] accessories [/I] regardless of power and wirless access.
Sign In or Register to comment.