This article is from June 2015, so very recent (US centric). Some highlights:
Netflix
If you subscribe to Netflix's top-tier $11.99/month plan, you can access the Ultra HD options from this streaming video service. Since I first wrote about the Netflix Ultra HD servicelast August, the company has doubled the number of Ultra HD titles. Unfortunately, that's not saying much, since it only had 10 titles back then and now has 20. Netflix has added more of its original TV series, including Daredevil, Grace and Frankie, and Marco Polo. In terms of theatrical film releases, though, I counted a grand total of six...none of which would qualify as a new release.
Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video
The Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video streaming service includes some titles--mostly, Amazon's original TV series--that are available free to Amazon Prime subscribers ($99/year). However, the majority of its theatrical film content is offered on a pay-per-use basis... Amazon's lineup is more extensive than Netflix's; the problem is that virtually all of those pay-per-use titles are not available for rent. They must be purchased, usually for $25.99 to $29.99.
YouTube and Vimeo
These sites offer an assortment of user-generated 4K options but no major theatrical or TV releases. YouTube uses the VP9 codec for its 4K content, so your smart TV or player needs to have that decoding capability. This year's TVs probably have it, but older models may not.
By the way, this took a total of 2 minutes searching and reading...not exactly a secret. Other sites provide similar information.
4K is starting to rollout in terms of some parts of the solution, but it is far from entering in the tipping point phase (where content, terminals, STBs, service providers and delivery networks align).
Based on this thread, I am thinking that "4K" is the new "CPU clock rate & transistors" spec whore buzz word...
I don't think we've seen the end game with Apple TV yet. The device is out, but its real purpose will be the rumored over-the-top live TV service. THAT is the reason why the device doesn't support 4k. If you look at HDTV broadcasting, the content is either 720p or 1080i. And after the years and billions spent transitioning the infrastructure and content over to HD, I don't think they're in any hurry to move on UHD.
As I wrote earlier, the loss of local connectivity to iTunes Music is what will keep me on the sidelines with the new Apple TV. Having that plus the new UI, apps, and video content features plus future capacity for live TV streaming would have made the new Apple TV a no-brainer. But, as things stand, I'm thinking of just getting the old Apple TV for screen sharing and connecting my music library, and waiting for future updates before deciding on the new Apple TV.
This article is from June 2015, so very recent (US centric). Some highlights:
Netflix
If you subscribe to Netflix's top-tier $11.99/month plan, you can access the Ultra HD options from this streaming video service. Since I first wrote about the Netflix Ultra HD servicelast August, the company has doubled the number of Ultra HD titles. Unfortunately, that's not saying much, since it only had 10 titles back then and now has 20. Netflix has added more of its original TV series, including Daredevil, Grace and Frankie, and Marco Polo. In terms of theatrical film releases, though, I counted a grand total of six...none of which would qualify as a new release.
Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video
The Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video streaming service includes some titles--mostly, Amazon's original TV series--that are available free to Amazon Prime subscribers ($99/year). However, the majority of its theatrical film content is offered on a pay-per-use basis... Amazon's lineup is more extensive than Netflix's; the problem is that virtually all of those pay-per-use titles are not available for rent. They must be purchased, usually for $25.99 to $29.99.
YouTube and Vimeo
These sites offer an assortment of user-generated 4K options but no major theatrical or TV releases. YouTube uses the VP9 codec for its 4K content, so your smart TV or player needs to have that decoding capability. This year's TVs probably have it, but older models may not.
By the way, this took a total of 2 minutes searching and reading...not exactly a secret. Other sites provide similar information.
4K is starting to rollout in terms of some parts of the solution, but it is far from entering in the tipping point phase (where content, terminals, STBs, service providers and delivery networks align).
Based on this thread, I am thinking that "4K" is the new "CPU clock rate & transistors" spec whore buzz word...
Indeed, it's more of a checklist feature than anything with real meaning.
From what I've been reading, 4k streaming is an improvement only because it brings the picture quality closer to good 1080p sources. But, as with so many other specs (MP, anybody?) the resolution is only one part of picture quality. What I've seen with so-called HD streaming, the picture quality is nowhere near what I see with HD broadcasts or Blu-ray. The spec on the video stream might be 720p or 1080p, but the visible pixelation, artifacts, and loss of detail make it barely more watchable than a DVD.
If only some people spent a bit of time looking into streaming and picture quality, rather than write endlessly about how Apple is failing...
There are many aspects to good picture quality from a streaming solution, and native resolution is only one of them. As noted by a few more observant people on the thread, *almost all* content delivered via broadcast, cable, satellite, and fiber today is not even 1080p (highest HD resolution for consumer use). It is only in the last 2-3 years that such TV's (1080p, vs. 1080i or 720p) are the default at the mainstream level and there is no premium for them.
All content which is broadcast or streamed is highly compressed (native 1080p bitrate is ~3Gbps). To get that down to say 5-10Mbps requires some serious compression. The more highly compressed, the worse the picture quality (something has to be taken away). The best are OTA broadcast sources, which often use a nitrate of 15-20Mbps for 720p or 1080i (MPEG-2 codec), and are considered superior to cable or satellite.
Uncompressed 4K content is 12Gbps (4x 1080p). To get that down to 5-10Mbps, or even say under 15Mbps, requires more compression than 1080p. Even H.265 codec (vs. H.264) is just 50% better. So a 1080p stream at 8Mbps with H.264 could be maybe 4-5Mbps with H.265. With 4K, there is 4x as much content to compress, so even with H.265, streams will still be coming in above 10Mbps for what is expected to be just OK compression quality.
So for the given "usable" average broadband access in much of the world, lets say under 15Mbps, better picture quality is with less compressed 1080p in most cases (see below).
The human eye can only perceive a certain visual resolution, which is directly related to distance of observer to the screen & size of screen. Based on certain distance from seat location to TV, a viewer will not see any benefit unless the TV is of a certain size. Per the linked article, at an 8' (foot) distance (which is not much at all), a TV needs to be 60" or greater to start to see an improvement with 4K over 1080p. And that assumes that the 4K is compressed to have the same quality level as the 1080p.
4K video enthusiasts are going to mostly get their content from physical media on very large TV's, so they can enjoy a truly better experience, for some time come. Same as Blu-Ray & 1080p in the beginning. 4K is nowhere near prime time for mass audience (although TV manufacturers want you to think so). The qualitative difference (as perceived by us humans) between SD to HD was more than HD to 4K (SD to HD was more than double resolution, move to widescreen, accompanied by the digital changeover). The latter transition took 10 years to hit true mainstream.
Apple isn't late, and isn't failing. They are releasing a product which will deliver excellent picture quality (better than most watch today) to the mass market for the next 5 years. A 4K ATV in the future (couple years I would think) will make a viable upgrade. Some people will always be angry that Apple doesn't put in HW that could be usable in a few years...but they have never done that, so don't understand why it is always such a surprise...
I think it won't be easy to get folks to switch to Apple TV & streaming only. People are replacing their $80/month 200 channel tier 1 cable service to something that cost more than that for about the same or less content that is what the cable providers are saying that their services are much better value.
Comcast/At&T/Verizon/etc can give you: 200+ channels, on-demand cable+internet, PPV, internet access for $80 -200/month
Streaming only deals cost $80-150 depending on data package and streaming services are $8-15/month.
It's a hard sell to get people to switch from cable unless you are paying nothing for content. Especially sports and live content there's no competition for cable TV and OTA.
Again, the Apple TV's HDMI as spec'd will support 4k up to 30 fps.
I find it difficult to believe that the new iPhones coincidentally shoot 4k at 30fps and Apple wont give you some way to enjoy your family clips on a family room device...
I think it won't be easy to get folks to switch to Apple TV & streaming only. People are replacing their $80/month 200 channel tier 1 cable service to something that cost more than that for about the same or less content that is what the cable providers are saying that their services are much better value.
Comcast/At&T/Verizon/etc can give you: 200+ channels, on-demand cable+internet, PPV, internet access for $80 -200/month
Streaming only deals cost $80-150 depending on data package and streaming services are $8-15/month.
It's a hard sell to get people to switch from cable unless you are paying nothing for content. Especially sports and live content there's no competition for cable TV and OTA.
Well, it is never that simple. Many buy an AppleTV to provide supplemental services while having a PayTV subscription. This new version with apps & contextual search simply adds another reason to purchase one (especially if Apple actually markets this device, as they have never marketed AppleTV before.
Whether going streaming only (or OTA + streaming) is cheaper is all relative. I know many that do now, and they certainly pay less than before. Some service providers give a good bundle price (good broadband tier + payTV package), but many don't. Also, the digital terminal rentals are often a cost not considered - so a $149 purchase is much better than say a $5-10/month fee per unit from your cableco. Many streaming services are starting to offer "cloud DVR", which eliminates a requirement there & provides better service.
I agree, that if you have a typical PayTV bundle with maybe 200-300 channels (of which maybe you watch only 10-20, but different content is spread across them all, including sports) - then replicating that with existing streaming services & giving up the bundle may not be any cheaper.
It is early innings in this streaming game though...
The new Apple TV is better mousetrap. A good mousetrap. Its an incremental step on a road that every other tech firm (and one internet retailer) is treading on. They are great at producing new mousetraps and I upgrade my phone every 12 - 24 months minimum.
The new Apple TV is hardly an incremental step. The App Store alone is a very big deal and changes the device completely. You have to view the Apple TV within the context of the Apple world. This is not your Roku or Amazon Fire TV. Both are fine products but with little chance of changing anything. For whatever reason Google TV was a massive failure and Android TV has just gone nowhere. Those wanting massive hardware with an included game controller need only look at the NVidia Shield and see how well that has been received.
Apple has struck the perfect balance with the $149 version of the Apple TV. They have given hope to gamers, to people who want Apps to stream their own content, introduced a very interesting search approach which works across many providers, used a state of the art processor with the A8 ( which is in the current flagship iPhone) and have put the content providers on notice that they will not put up with their delays for much longer. This is huge and if the ATV4 takes off you have the foundation for a massive change.
Maybe or maybe not re 4k. The fact is that this is a non-issue at this time and you don't build media players for 3 years down the road. You build them in a way that they can evolve. A key goal with the new ATV had to be to get it out at a reasonable price. $149 is fine. $200 is too high for most but it's optional.
Those who think this new media player is not revolutionary will simply have to wait a few months to see how many users come back to the Apple TV after having left for what is, for the most part, a desert of media players with no real plans for the future. Amazon does have a future path but they are finding it difficult living on the periphery of the Android world.
I had expectations of what the new apple TV would do for me, especially given the length of time since the last significant update. At present those expectations weren't met. For me, that's a shame as I think this could (for me anyway) have been a real game changer. So will I be beating the glass doors down to grab one the second they become available...probably not. I'm also not silly enough the think that Mr Cook will loose much sleep over that.
There are others on this thread Sog35 for example, that seem really pleased with the new update and what it will do for them.. This is great. And the fact others are excited by the update is also fine with me. Some are really excited about siri, Some are pleased about the app store and being able to play games...neither of those things are really for me, but it's fine that others want that.. :-)
I don't think I'm trolling in a sea of negativity because I have a different view to others here. I'm also certainly not an apple 'hater' either, (infact quite the opposite) just because I'm not super excited by this new release. But I won't take everything they put out as the best thing ever just because they say so.. ;-)
I do get a bit miffed when opinions get shot down simply because they differ from others views. That seems silly. We all have different needs and what suits one won't always suit others.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but debate nicely, respect others views and opinions. People are a lot more likely to listen to your point of view if you do that, rather than feel like they have to defend their corner...
Just my two pence worth at the end of a long day.... :-)
Again, the Apple TV's HDMI as spec'd will support 4k up to 30 fps.
I find it difficult to believe that the new iPhones coincidentally shoot 4k at 30fps and Apple wont give you some way to enjoy your family clips on a family room device...
Not according to the specs on line. Yes it has HDMI 1.4a that supports that resolution, but that doesn't meant the hardware to drive that resolution is there.
Not according to the specs on line. Yes it has HDMI 1.4a that supports that resolution, but that doesn't meant the hardware to drive that resolution is there.
What will new iPhone users watch their 4k videos on?
What will new iPhone users watch their 4k videos on?
Anyway, we shall see.
a very good point indeed.....
I suppose its possible the hardware might be capable of 4K but is deprecated awaiting future enablement, but if it was possible I would have expected a 'there's no better place to watch your 4k footage shot on our new iPhones, than on our new apple TV' kind of announcement....
I suppose its possible the hardware might be capable of 4K but is deprecated awaiting future enablement, but if it was possible I would have expected a 'there's no better place to watch your 4k footage shot on our new iPhones, than on our new apple TV' kind of announcement....
Yes, I sort of lamented this earlier...but maybe without some of the bigger picture opportunities solidified yet, they are withholding that. I do think it's a switch that will be turned on, and perhaps h.265 comes with a firmware update.
4k ingestion was the first shoe to drop. Playback will be the second shoe..
So again tell me what Apple COULD have done it make revolutionary and still cost only $149.
What other device has universal search with Siri and a touch remote? FireTV and Roku's voice control is rudementary compared to Siri. Both are stuck with physical buttons instead of a touch pad and don't have advanced motion detection on the remote.
The A8 is far superior to the chipset in the Fire or Roku.
The on board storage of 32/64GB is multitudes larger than the competition.
So you are right:
The only thing that’s different from the competition is everything.
Well said. The price point is very enticing. It is probably one or more software upgrades (or apps) away from activating a la carte TV subscriptions, HomeKit, and support for the 6S/6S+ 4k video, plus who knows what.
To me, voice control with the touch remote seems to be the perfect combination. (A mid-range Logitech Harmony smart remote costs $149!)
I think the Apple remote will be a big enabler to its functionality. I can't wait for the reviews.
Yes, I sort of lamented this earlier...but maybe without some of the bigger picture opportunities solidified yet, they are withholding that. I do think it's a switch that will be turned on, and perhaps h.265 comes with a firmware update.
4k ingestion was the first shoe to drop. Playback will be the second shoe..
maybe you're right. But I think the A8 is the same as in my 6plus....now that does 1080P pretty well...could it drive something 4 times as big? I'm not sure on that one.
I also have a feeling that the hardware design was probably set at least a year ago....and a year ago 4K was even closer to it's infancy than it is is now. So I reckon it will be a new apple TV2 that finally brings 4K home...
The big question then remains, what will the release schedule for hardware updates be...If it's a new one in a years time, then I can live with that. If its a decade or so ;-) (like the last update) then that won't be good.
I suspect that now apple tv seems to be a bit more front and centre that updates will be a bit more frequent....at least that's what I'm hoping for.
1) The H.265 codec (used for 4k) is quite a bit more difficult and time consuming to [B][I] encode [/I][/B] than the H.264 codec (used for 1080p, etc.).
2) The H.265 codec can [B][I] encode [/I][/B] 1080p with a 40-60% saving in size over the same video coded in H.264.
3) H.265 is a bit more difficult to [B][I] decode [/I][/B] than H.264.
4) 1080p played on a 4k screen will look better than 1080p played on a current (less than 4k) screen.
5) [B][I]Encoding [/I][/B] is usually done on a server (or at the source) so the difficulty is not an issue on the AppleTV.
6) A mains-powered AppleTV, likely, can be cranked up (CPU and GPU) so there is little, if any, issue [B][I] decoding [/I][/B] H.265
So, here's the advantage to Apple: the H.265 files are half the file size and take half the bandwidth to download/stream than their H264 equivalent.
And here's the leverage for Apple with Content owners/providers: If you [B][I] one-time H.265-encode [/I][/B] your new 4k videos and existing 1080p videos -- you can deliver your content in [B][I] equal or better quality [/I][/B] to [B][I] twice the number of paying customers [/I][/B] from then on.
Apple could provide a server-side service or Mac app to do [B][I] H.265-encoding [/I][/B] for Pros, Prosumers and consumers (those customers with 6s iPhones).
Well said. The price point is very enticing. It is probably one or more software upgrades (or apps) away from activating a la carte TV subscriptions, HomeKit, and support for the 6S/6S+ 4k video, plus who knows what.
To me, voice control with the touch remote seems to be the perfect combination. (A mid-range Logitech Harmony smart remote costs $149!)
I think the Apple remote will be a big enabler to its functionality. I can't wait for the reviews.
Agree completely. The $149 price strikes me as a very reasonable point especially given what you get. I am especially happy with the App Store, Siri and remote ( though I have the Logitech Smart Control and Ultimate One remotes - oddly prefer the lower cost remote ( the $149 one)).
This should be viewed as the start of the Apple TV platform. The App Store is going to really transform things.
Comments
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
http://hometheaterreview.com/what-4k-content-can-you-enjoy-right-now/
This article is from June 2015, so very recent (US centric). Some highlights:
Netflix
If you subscribe to Netflix's top-tier $11.99/month plan, you can access the Ultra HD options from this streaming video service. Since I first wrote about the Netflix Ultra HD service last August, the company has doubled the number of Ultra HD titles. Unfortunately, that's not saying much, since it only had 10 titles back then and now has 20. Netflix has added more of its original TV series, including Daredevil, Grace and Frankie, and Marco Polo. In terms of theatrical film releases, though, I counted a grand total of six...none of which would qualify as a new release.
Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video
The Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video streaming service includes some titles--mostly, Amazon's original TV series--that are available free to Amazon Prime subscribers ($99/year). However, the majority of its theatrical film content is offered on a pay-per-use basis... Amazon's lineup is more extensive than Netflix's; the problem is that virtually all of those pay-per-use titles are not available for rent. They must be purchased, usually for $25.99 to $29.99.
YouTube and Vimeo
These sites offer an assortment of user-generated 4K options but no major theatrical or TV releases. YouTube uses the VP9 codec for its 4K content, so your smart TV or player needs to have that decoding capability. This year's TVs probably have it, but older models may not.
By the way, this took a total of 2 minutes searching and reading...not exactly a secret. Other sites provide similar information.
4K is starting to rollout in terms of some parts of the solution, but it is far from entering in the tipping point phase (where content, terminals, STBs, service providers and delivery networks align).
Based on this thread, I am thinking that "4K" is the new "CPU clock rate & transistors" spec whore buzz word...
I don't think we've seen the end game with Apple TV yet. The device is out, but its real purpose will be the rumored over-the-top live TV service. THAT is the reason why the device doesn't support 4k. If you look at HDTV broadcasting, the content is either 720p or 1080i. And after the years and billions spent transitioning the infrastructure and content over to HD, I don't think they're in any hurry to move on UHD.
As I wrote earlier, the loss of local connectivity to iTunes Music is what will keep me on the sidelines with the new Apple TV. Having that plus the new UI, apps, and video content features plus future capacity for live TV streaming would have made the new Apple TV a no-brainer. But, as things stand, I'm thinking of just getting the old Apple TV for screen sharing and connecting my music library, and waiting for future updates before deciding on the new Apple TV.
http://hometheaterreview.com/what-4k-content-can-you-enjoy-right-now/
This article is from June 2015, so very recent (US centric). Some highlights:
Netflix
If you subscribe to Netflix's top-tier $11.99/month plan, you can access the Ultra HD options from this streaming video service. Since I first wrote about the Netflix Ultra HD service last August, the company has doubled the number of Ultra HD titles. Unfortunately, that's not saying much, since it only had 10 titles back then and now has 20. Netflix has added more of its original TV series, including Daredevil, Grace and Frankie, and Marco Polo. In terms of theatrical film releases, though, I counted a grand total of six...none of which would qualify as a new release.
Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video
The Amazon Ultra HD Instant Video streaming service includes some titles--mostly, Amazon's original TV series--that are available free to Amazon Prime subscribers ($99/year). However, the majority of its theatrical film content is offered on a pay-per-use basis... Amazon's lineup is more extensive than Netflix's; the problem is that virtually all of those pay-per-use titles are not available for rent. They must be purchased, usually for $25.99 to $29.99.
YouTube and Vimeo
These sites offer an assortment of user-generated 4K options but no major theatrical or TV releases. YouTube uses the VP9 codec for its 4K content, so your smart TV or player needs to have that decoding capability. This year's TVs probably have it, but older models may not.
By the way, this took a total of 2 minutes searching and reading...not exactly a secret. Other sites provide similar information.
4K is starting to rollout in terms of some parts of the solution, but it is far from entering in the tipping point phase (where content, terminals, STBs, service providers and delivery networks align).
Based on this thread, I am thinking that "4K" is the new "CPU clock rate & transistors" spec whore buzz word...
Indeed, it's more of a checklist feature than anything with real meaning.
From what I've been reading, 4k streaming is an improvement only because it brings the picture quality closer to good 1080p sources. But, as with so many other specs (MP, anybody?) the resolution is only one part of picture quality. What I've seen with so-called HD streaming, the picture quality is nowhere near what I see with HD broadcasts or Blu-ray. The spec on the video stream might be 720p or 1080p, but the visible pixelation, artifacts, and loss of detail make it barely more watchable than a DVD.
If only some people spent a bit of time looking into streaming and picture quality, rather than write endlessly about how Apple is failing...
There are many aspects to good picture quality from a streaming solution, and native resolution is only one of them. As noted by a few more observant people on the thread, *almost all* content delivered via broadcast, cable, satellite, and fiber today is not even 1080p (highest HD resolution for consumer use). It is only in the last 2-3 years that such TV's (1080p, vs. 1080i or 720p) are the default at the mainstream level and there is no premium for them.
All content which is broadcast or streamed is highly compressed (native 1080p bitrate is ~3Gbps). To get that down to say 5-10Mbps requires some serious compression. The more highly compressed, the worse the picture quality (something has to be taken away). The best are OTA broadcast sources, which often use a nitrate of 15-20Mbps for 720p or 1080i (MPEG-2 codec), and are considered superior to cable or satellite.
Uncompressed 4K content is 12Gbps (4x 1080p). To get that down to 5-10Mbps, or even say under 15Mbps, requires more compression than 1080p. Even H.265 codec (vs. H.264) is just 50% better. So a 1080p stream at 8Mbps with H.264 could be maybe 4-5Mbps with H.265. With 4K, there is 4x as much content to compress, so even with H.265, streams will still be coming in above 10Mbps for what is expected to be just OK compression quality.
So for the given "usable" average broadband access in much of the world, lets say under 15Mbps, better picture quality is with less compressed 1080p in most cases (see below).
The human eye can only perceive a certain visual resolution, which is directly related to distance of observer to the screen & size of screen. Based on certain distance from seat location to TV, a viewer will not see any benefit unless the TV is of a certain size. Per the linked article, at an 8' (foot) distance (which is not much at all), a TV needs to be 60" or greater to start to see an improvement with 4K over 1080p. And that assumes that the 4K is compressed to have the same quality level as the 1080p.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared
4K video enthusiasts are going to mostly get their content from physical media on very large TV's, so they can enjoy a truly better experience, for some time come. Same as Blu-Ray & 1080p in the beginning. 4K is nowhere near prime time for mass audience (although TV manufacturers want you to think so). The qualitative difference (as perceived by us humans) between SD to HD was more than HD to 4K (SD to HD was more than double resolution, move to widescreen, accompanied by the digital changeover). The latter transition took 10 years to hit true mainstream.
Apple isn't late, and isn't failing. They are releasing a product which will deliver excellent picture quality (better than most watch today) to the mass market for the next 5 years. A 4K ATV in the future (couple years I would think) will make a viable upgrade. Some people will always be angry that Apple doesn't put in HW that could be usable in a few years...but they have never done that, so don't understand why it is always such a surprise...
Again, the Apple TV's HDMI as spec'd will support 4k up to 30 fps.
I find it difficult to believe that the new iPhones coincidentally shoot 4k at 30fps and Apple wont give you some way to enjoy your family clips on a family room device...
Well, it is never that simple. Many buy an AppleTV to provide supplemental services while having a PayTV subscription. This new version with apps & contextual search simply adds another reason to purchase one (especially if Apple actually markets this device, as they have never marketed AppleTV before.
Whether going streaming only (or OTA + streaming) is cheaper is all relative. I know many that do now, and they certainly pay less than before. Some service providers give a good bundle price (good broadband tier + payTV package), but many don't. Also, the digital terminal rentals are often a cost not considered - so a $149 purchase is much better than say a $5-10/month fee per unit from your cableco. Many streaming services are starting to offer "cloud DVR", which eliminates a requirement there & provides better service.
I agree, that if you have a typical PayTV bundle with maybe 200-300 channels (of which maybe you watch only 10-20, but different content is spread across them all, including sports) - then replicating that with existing streaming services & giving up the bundle may not be any cheaper.
It is early innings in this streaming game though...
The new Apple TV is hardly an incremental step. The App Store alone is a very big deal and changes the device completely. You have to view the Apple TV within the context of the Apple world. This is not your Roku or Amazon Fire TV. Both are fine products but with little chance of changing anything. For whatever reason Google TV was a massive failure and Android TV has just gone nowhere. Those wanting massive hardware with an included game controller need only look at the NVidia Shield and see how well that has been received.
Apple has struck the perfect balance with the $149 version of the Apple TV. They have given hope to gamers, to people who want Apps to stream their own content, introduced a very interesting search approach which works across many providers, used a state of the art processor with the A8 ( which is in the current flagship iPhone) and have put the content providers on notice that they will not put up with their delays for much longer. This is huge and if the ATV4 takes off you have the foundation for a massive change.
Maybe or maybe not re 4k. The fact is that this is a non-issue at this time and you don't build media players for 3 years down the road. You build them in a way that they can evolve. A key goal with the new ATV had to be to get it out at a reasonable price. $149 is fine. $200 is too high for most but it's optional.
Those who think this new media player is not revolutionary will simply have to wait a few months to see how many users come back to the Apple TV after having left for what is, for the most part, a desert of media players with no real plans for the future. Amazon does have a future path but they are finding it difficult living on the periphery of the Android world.
It looks like optical audio out has gone, which I use for music.
It sounds marginally better.
So here's the thing...
I had expectations of what the new apple TV would do for me, especially given the length of time since the last significant update. At present those expectations weren't met. For me, that's a shame as I think this could (for me anyway) have been a real game changer. So will I be beating the glass doors down to grab one the second they become available...probably not. I'm also not silly enough the think that Mr Cook will loose much sleep over that.
There are others on this thread Sog35 for example, that seem really pleased with the new update and what it will do for them.. This is great. And the fact others are excited by the update is also fine with me. Some are really excited about siri, Some are pleased about the app store and being able to play games...neither of those things are really for me, but it's fine that others want that.. :-)
I don't think I'm trolling in a sea of negativity because I have a different view to others here. I'm also certainly not an apple 'hater' either, (infact quite the opposite) just because I'm not super excited by this new release. But I won't take everything they put out as the best thing ever just because they say so.. ;-)
I do get a bit miffed when opinions get shot down simply because they differ from others views. That seems silly. We all have different needs and what suits one won't always suit others.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but debate nicely, respect others views and opinions. People are a lot more likely to listen to your point of view if you do that, rather than feel like they have to defend their corner...
Just my two pence worth at the end of a long day.... :-)
Again, the Apple TV's HDMI as spec'd will support 4k up to 30 fps.
I find it difficult to believe that the new iPhones coincidentally shoot 4k at 30fps and Apple wont give you some way to enjoy your family clips on a family room device...
Not according to the specs on line. Yes it has HDMI 1.4a that supports that resolution, but that doesn't meant the hardware to drive that resolution is there.
What will new iPhone users watch their 4k videos on?
Anyway, we shall see.
In fact I think streaming would be better off to use a 1080p signal with less compression than a 4k stream with massive compression.
Thats an interesting point actually...
A blu-ray quality stream would be great....(but then I'll start getting all needy and wanting the same quality audio as well) :-)
What will new iPhone users watch their 4k videos on?
Anyway, we shall see.
a very good point indeed.....
I suppose its possible the hardware might be capable of 4K but is deprecated awaiting future enablement, but if it was possible I would have expected a 'there's no better place to watch your 4k footage shot on our new iPhones, than on our new apple TV' kind of announcement....
Yes, I sort of lamented this earlier...but maybe without some of the bigger picture opportunities solidified yet, they are withholding that. I do think it's a switch that will be turned on, and perhaps h.265 comes with a firmware update.
4k ingestion was the first shoe to drop. Playback will be the second shoe..
So again tell me what Apple COULD have done it make revolutionary and still cost only $149.
What other device has universal search with Siri and a touch remote? FireTV and Roku's voice control is rudementary compared to Siri. Both are stuck with physical buttons instead of a touch pad and don't have advanced motion detection on the remote.
The A8 is far superior to the chipset in the Fire or Roku.
The on board storage of 32/64GB is multitudes larger than the competition.
So you are right:
The only thing that’s different from the competition is everything.
Well said. The price point is very enticing. It is probably one or more software upgrades (or apps) away from activating a la carte TV subscriptions, HomeKit, and support for the 6S/6S+ 4k video, plus who knows what.
To me, voice control with the touch remote seems to be the perfect combination. (A mid-range Logitech Harmony smart remote costs $149!)
I think the Apple remote will be a big enabler to its functionality. I can't wait for the reviews.
Yes, I sort of lamented this earlier...but maybe without some of the bigger picture opportunities solidified yet, they are withholding that. I do think it's a switch that will be turned on, and perhaps h.265 comes with a firmware update.
4k ingestion was the first shoe to drop. Playback will be the second shoe..
maybe you're right. But I think the A8 is the same as in my 6plus....now that does 1080P pretty well...could it drive something 4 times as big? I'm not sure on that one.
I also have a feeling that the hardware design was probably set at least a year ago....and a year ago 4K was even closer to it's infancy than it is is now. So I reckon it will be a new apple TV2 that finally brings 4K home...
The big question then remains, what will the release schedule for hardware updates be...If it's a new one in a years time, then I can live with that. If its a decade or so ;-) (like the last update) then that won't be good.
I suspect that now apple tv seems to be a bit more front and centre that updates will be a bit more frequent....at least that's what I'm hoping for.
1) The H.265 codec (used for 4k) is quite a bit more difficult and time consuming to [B][I] encode [/I][/B] than the H.264 codec (used for 1080p, etc.).
2) The H.265 codec can [B][I] encode [/I][/B] 1080p with a 40-60% saving in size over the same video coded in H.264.
3) H.265 is a bit more difficult to [B][I] decode [/I][/B] than H.264.
4) 1080p played on a 4k screen will look better than 1080p played on a current (less than 4k) screen.
5) [B][I]Encoding [/I][/B] is usually done on a server (or at the source) so the difficulty is not an issue on the AppleTV.
6) A mains-powered AppleTV, likely, can be cranked up (CPU and GPU) so there is little, if any, issue [B][I] decoding [/I][/B] H.265
So, here's the advantage to Apple: the H.265 files are half the file size and take half the bandwidth to download/stream than their H264 equivalent.
And here's the leverage for Apple with Content owners/providers: If you [B][I] one-time H.265-encode [/I][/B] your new 4k videos and existing 1080p videos -- you can deliver your content in [B][I] equal or better quality [/I][/B] to [B][I] twice the number of paying customers [/I][/B] from then on.
Apple could provide a server-side service or Mac app to do [B][I] H.265-encoding [/I][/B] for Pros, Prosumers and consumers (those customers with 6s iPhones).
... And, Only on AppleTV ...
Rat-A-Tat-Tat.
Agree completely. The $149 price strikes me as a very reasonable point especially given what you get. I am especially happy with the App Store, Siri and remote ( though I have the Logitech Smart Control and Ultimate One remotes - oddly prefer the lower cost remote ( the $149 one)).
This should be viewed as the start of the Apple TV platform. The App Store is going to really transform things.
Actually I did, there are thousands upon thousands of hours of movies that is filmed at greater than 4K