get it thru your head -- this isn't a review. "hands on" != "review". the device hasn't been released yet, thus a review is impossible. the most anyone can have is a hands on (from last week's event) summary write up. which is what the tech blogs have and why they have it.
You are incorrect. The keynote specifically said that the hardware was going to be released to developers that same day. I understand AI isn't a developer, but maybe they could contact someone who is. A review is indeed possible, and AI hasn't done it.
I’m amazed at how you don’t comprehend that gigabit Ethernet is faster than 100 meg.
Thank you for the intro-to-computers lesson. Now maybe you can spend more than 2 sec to comprehend why there is no measurable way to benefit from Gigabit Ethernet on an AppleTV.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
Its not rocket science. It just takes a few seconds of critical thinking, and not being a complete ass.
Thank you for the intro-to-computers lesson. Now maybe you can spend more than 2 sec to comprehend why there is no measurable way to benefit from Gigabit Ethernet on an AppleTV.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
Its not rocket science. It just takes a few seconds of critical thinking, and not being a complete ass.
Adding to that… The 2h:20m Apple event last week comes in at 7.92 GiB* for the 1080p version. Using an online bit calculator I converted 7.92 GiB to 66,437,775 kibabits, rounded to the nearest whole number. From there I converted the duration of the event to seconds (2h:20m = 140m = 8,400s) and then divided that number of kibabits by the seconds to the get the average per second bandwidth needed for this stream — even though it wasn't actually streamed as 1080p. The results are 66,437,775 / 8,400 = 7,909 Kibps, rounded, which is just shy of 1 MiBps (0.965485709057617), and in terms of network speeds is 7.72 Mibps.
Now, if we move to 4K UHD streams using H.265 we'll likely get sizes that are close, but not over 2x their current 1080p offerings, which still makes 100Mibps more than adequate, according to my maths.
Note: As I've already stated on several threads I'm shocked they didn't include GigE, but that doesn't mean people should be grabbing their pitchforks and torches or many wild claims about Apple being greedy or that it mean your streams won't start fast enough.
* I'm assuming it's using BASE-2 in iTunes, and not BASE-10 like OS X moved to years ago without altering the terminology. IOW, I'm assuming "kilo" means 1024 here, and not the original 1000. If it's actually Gigibyte, and not Gibibytes, then it just makes the overall file sizes even smaller.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
They’re bigger than that.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
So the aforementioned video content cannot possibly ever buffer there? Ever? I guess if you don’t need it for raw content.
PS4 sales are 50% higher than PS2 sales were at this point in the cycle, and the PS2 was the most successful gaming device of all time.
GTA V has sold more than 50 million units at £50 a pop after a £150,000,000 development spend.
Belittle it and call it niche if you like, but gaming is a huge deal in every way imaginable. But as I say, enjoy your free to play casual junk if you like. I'll stick with Metal Gear Solid V.
YOU are the one who is belittling, you are the one who is patronising.
"Gaming on the new Apple TV is, to be frank, a joke" (that's one of your nice turds you've thrown out there)
"comically weak" (another one)
"plastic toy"
"What a farce"
"casual junk"
I could go on, but your posts are a bunch of trite willy waving "if you're not a hardcore gamer like me you're inferior" load of crap. This isn't a war, this isn't a battle, this viewing a new platform that allows users to play games being seen as a challenge to one's manhood really must stop. It's really disgusting watching people defend an absurd position, a position which says the only fun gaming, the only type of gaming that is to be considered "true" gaming, is done on a games console, and that only people who own them and spend 24 hours in the same chair pissing into an empty Mountain Dew bottle to avoid leaving their "serious" game play are allowed to condone anything having the audacity to call itself a game.
The reality is that niche is not a bad thing, but if we're talking pure numbers here, this device will easily outsell the latest games consoles quickly, and assuming quite a few people will play games on it, the number of ATV gamers will easily outnumber the games console players. Does that mean one is better? FFS, that means nothing of the sort. In fact, I would assume many games console owners will also own ATVs (it does things other than games) and it's even conceivable to expect some of those people will even play games on the ATV and, get this, enjoy playing them. Does that diminish their enjoyment of gaming on the consoles? Only a hard core tribalist would say so.
What I can't understand is why if you're serious about gaming, you don't welcome gaming in all is forms, that you don't get excited about it whenever there's a new way to play games. This isn't a system that claims to be more than it is, *you* are the one claiming that so you can beat it down with your silly statistics meant to prove that this system doesn't have the right to consider itself a platform for enjoyment of games. This system isn't today technologically anything but inferior to games consoles, but that doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of potential in the system, and that is easily concluded based on gaming on iOS, which is a platform on which a great deal of gaming is conducted and enjoyed, from simple easy to play quick in quick out games, to more immersive experiences.
Let's see what happens when older Nintendo games like Super Mario 64, Donkey Kong, Mario Kart and others become available for Apple TV, iPhone, iPad etc. I'm betting it will be a win-win for both companies, and a hot item for people who fondly remember those games.
If you’re looking at uncompressed (or with less compression) 1080p (not RAW images files the format) via Ethernet.
You're claiming that content using H.264 and AAC or MP3 codecs are NOT compressed? FOR **** SAKE! Those are lossy compression standards. Being sent via Ethernet of WiFi or USB only affects how the data is broken up into packets for transmission, but the content is still compressed until it's played locally on the end node.
Gaming on the new Apple TV is, to be frank, a joke. The GPU is comically weak, far weaker than what was found in the 10 year old Xbox 360 and PS3. Whilst it's true that Apple's GPUs get quicker each year, there's no guarantee that the Apple TV will get the new chips (that it's launching with an already antiquated chip is telling), the gulf between anything Apple offer and the GPUs in the XO and PS4 are gigantic.
Then there are other factors, such as RAM (PS4 and XO have 8gb), storage (500gb hard drives and blu-ray discs, vs 32gb and an utterly bizarre 200mb app size limit), and controllers (a standard, included in the box pad with all the required buttons and sticks, vs an even worse than the WiiMote remote with optional third party pads which will get little dev support).
Even if the GPU wasn't so underpowered, the issue of storage alone is a game killer. Many big console titles are open world, and so need access to the entire map on demand. Apple's idea of streaming in levels in a linear fashion is fundamentally incompatible with open world games. The Witcher 3 for example requires 40gb of instant access storage. So don't expect anything like Metal Gear Solid V, The Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, The Division, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, or any other big game on the ATV, ever. Not that any of those would ever run on such a basic low end GPU with 2gb of RAM anyway of course.
The lack of an included controller is another dead end for gaming. If it's an optional extra, it will get next to no support. That's been true in gaming since the beginning, and it will never change. So all games will be written to work on the remote control (a remote control FFS!). Watching that plastic toy third person shooter shown the AI video was hilarious. A shooter with no strafing! What a farce.
the only joke I find myself laughing at is hardcore gamers trying to compare ATV to their niche use case. that's not its job to be done. it's a causal gaming device, and it'll do that very well. hardcore gaming is a niche use case. understand that.
Why are the consoles considered hardcore gaming? Right now they're the only market so how is it a niche?
If you’re looking at uncompressed (or with less compression) 1080p (not RAW images files the format) via Ethernet.
Uncompressed 1080p is 3Gbps. Takes 10s of Internet search to find that. ALL consumer broadcast and streamed video is heavily compressed. Less compressed is of course better, so going from say 5Mbps to 10Mbps, all else being equal, will be a noticeable increase in end user perceived video quality. With H.264, "very good" 1080p HD can be had at 10Mbps for most content, so the complaints around "only" a 100Mbps Ethernet I/f are simply pissing in the wind. I don't think the AppleTV is meant to receive 8 or more simultaneous 1080p streams!!
And no, a single Fast Ethernet link off a switch does not limit the speeds of the other links, nor of the WiFi capacity.
F**k people, do 5 mins of reading before posting idiotic sh*t.
Yep. Which is why 100 megs wouldn’t cut it. Still, it’s fine unless your download speeds are faster than that. And 2160p is ~35Mbps under H.264, right? Looks like we’ll be stuck with non-gig Ethernet on the Apple TV for quite some time.
F**k people, do 5 mins of reading before posting idiotic sh*t.
That's because you keep insisting that networked video isn't transmitted using lossy compression. This is fucking simple 100BASE-T can handle any H.264 1080p from internet-based media companies with more than enough room to spare. This is not up for discussion. This is basic math.
You said "Which is why 100 megs wouldn’t cut it." in response to brucemc's comment, as well as "If you’re looking at uncompressed (or with less compression) 1080p (not RAW images files the format) via Ethernet" and "So the aforementioned video content cannot possibly ever buffer there? Ever? I guess if you don’t need it for raw content." to pmz's comment.
As proven over and over again, 100Mibps will absolutely cut it, and yet you keep saying it won't and used the word uncompressed to prove a nonexistent point.
Exactly my thoughts. If my extensive movie library is not available to watch, because the studios 'told' Apple, no local content allowed, I will stick with my ATV2 or buy something different. I didn't see any reference to a computer app on the presentation.
PS4 sales are 50% higher than PS2 sales were at this point in the cycle, and the PS2 was the most successful gaming device of all time.
GTA V has sold more than 50 million units at £50 a pop after a £150,000,000 development spend.
Belittle it and call it niche if you like, but gaming is a huge deal in every way imaginable. But as I say, enjoy your free to play casual junk if you like. I'll stick with Metal Gear Solid V.
There's no question that console gaming is still very popular and a big business. However, console gaming is no longer just about the the $60 and up flagship titles. It's also about indie games and smaller titles being sold in the various online stores supported by consoles, as well as other media consumption that isn't related to games. I don't think there's much of a question that the new Apple TV can be competitive right away in those latter two categories. Also, keep in mind that the $60 game landscape is becoming more and more reliant on huge hits to be financially viable. That's the achilles heel of the so-called hardcore games these days: the expectations for the content are incredibly high, and the financial risks become greater and greater with each successive generation.
Comments
get it thru your head -- this isn't a review. "hands on" != "review". the device hasn't been released yet, thus a review is impossible. the most anyone can have is a hands on (from last week's event) summary write up. which is what the tech blogs have and why they have it.
You are incorrect. The keynote specifically said that the hardware was going to be released to developers that same day. I understand AI isn't a developer, but maybe they could contact someone who is. A review is indeed possible, and AI hasn't done it.
I’m amazed at how you don’t comprehend that gigabit Ethernet is faster than 100 meg.
Thank you for the intro-to-computers lesson. Now maybe you can spend more than 2 sec to comprehend why there is no measurable way to benefit from Gigabit Ethernet on an AppleTV.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
- Streaming has one simple mandate: Start immediately and don't buffer. For 1080p, it makes no difference how much more bandwidth beyond 100 Mbps you throw it at...you can't improve upon this experience...it has already topped out somewhere much lower than 100 Mbps.
Its not rocket science. It just takes a few seconds of critical thinking, and not being a complete ass.
Adding to that… The 2h:20m Apple event last week comes in at 7.92 GiB* for the 1080p version. Using an online bit calculator I converted 7.92 GiB to 66,437,775 kibabits, rounded to the nearest whole number. From there I converted the duration of the event to seconds (2h:20m = 140m = 8,400s) and then divided that number of kibabits by the seconds to the get the average per second bandwidth needed for this stream — even though it wasn't actually streamed as 1080p. The results are 66,437,775 / 8,400 = 7,909 Kibps, rounded, which is just shy of 1 MiBps (0.965485709057617), and in terms of network speeds is 7.72 Mibps.
Now, if we move to 4K UHD streams using H.265 we'll likely get sizes that are close, but not over 2x their current 1080p offerings, which still makes 100Mibps more than adequate, according to my maths.
Note: As I've already stated on several threads I'm shocked they didn't include GigE, but that doesn't mean people should be grabbing their pitchforks and torches or many wild claims about Apple being greedy or that it mean your streams won't start fast enough.
* I'm assuming it's using BASE-2 in iTunes, and not BASE-10 like OS X moved to years ago without altering the terminology. IOW, I'm assuming "kilo" means 1024 here, and not the original 1000. If it's actually Gigibyte, and not Gibibytes, then it just makes the overall file sizes even smaller.
- 200 MB / 12.5MB/s = 16 seconds to download the largest App available.
They’re bigger than that.
So the aforementioned video content cannot possibly ever buffer there? Ever? I guess if you don’t need it for raw content.
I don't understand a word of that. Buffer where? What would RAW content have to do with streaming video through an Apple TV?
PS4 sales are 50% higher than PS2 sales were at this point in the cycle, and the PS2 was the most successful gaming device of all time.
GTA V has sold more than 50 million units at £50 a pop after a £150,000,000 development spend.
Belittle it and call it niche if you like, but gaming is a huge deal in every way imaginable. But as I say, enjoy your free to play casual junk if you like. I'll stick with Metal Gear Solid V.
YOU are the one who is belittling, you are the one who is patronising.
"Gaming on the new Apple TV is, to be frank, a joke" (that's one of your nice turds you've thrown out there)
"comically weak" (another one)
"plastic toy"
"What a farce"
"casual junk"
I could go on, but your posts are a bunch of trite willy waving "if you're not a hardcore gamer like me you're inferior" load of crap. This isn't a war, this isn't a battle, this viewing a new platform that allows users to play games being seen as a challenge to one's manhood really must stop. It's really disgusting watching people defend an absurd position, a position which says the only fun gaming, the only type of gaming that is to be considered "true" gaming, is done on a games console, and that only people who own them and spend 24 hours in the same chair pissing into an empty Mountain Dew bottle to avoid leaving their "serious" game play are allowed to condone anything having the audacity to call itself a game.
The reality is that niche is not a bad thing, but if we're talking pure numbers here, this device will easily outsell the latest games consoles quickly, and assuming quite a few people will play games on it, the number of ATV gamers will easily outnumber the games console players. Does that mean one is better? FFS, that means nothing of the sort. In fact, I would assume many games console owners will also own ATVs (it does things other than games) and it's even conceivable to expect some of those people will even play games on the ATV and, get this, enjoy playing them. Does that diminish their enjoyment of gaming on the consoles? Only a hard core tribalist would say so.
What I can't understand is why if you're serious about gaming, you don't welcome gaming in all is forms, that you don't get excited about it whenever there's a new way to play games. This isn't a system that claims to be more than it is, *you* are the one claiming that so you can beat it down with your silly statistics meant to prove that this system doesn't have the right to consider itself a platform for enjoyment of games. This system isn't today technologically anything but inferior to games consoles, but that doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of potential in the system, and that is easily concluded based on gaming on iOS, which is a platform on which a great deal of gaming is conducted and enjoyed, from simple easy to play quick in quick out games, to more immersive experiences.
GrowTFU.
If you’re looking at uncompressed (or with less compression) 1080p (not RAW images files the format) via Ethernet.
You're claiming that content using H.264 and AAC or MP3 codecs are NOT compressed? FOR **** SAKE! Those are lossy compression standards. Being sent via Ethernet of WiFi or USB only affects how the data is broken up into packets for transmission, but the content is still compressed until it's played locally on the end node.
Why are the consoles considered hardcore gaming? Right now they're the only market so how is it a niche?
Headphone use?
Bluetooth 4 I presume.
thank you
Nope.
And no, a single Fast Ethernet link off a switch does not limit the speeds of the other links, nor of the WiFi capacity.
F**k people, do 5 mins of reading before posting idiotic sh*t.
Yep. Which is why 100 megs wouldn’t cut it. Still, it’s fine unless your download speeds are faster than that. And 2160p is ~35Mbps under H.264, right? Looks like we’ll be stuck with non-gig Ethernet on the Apple TV for quite some time.
I don’t understand the confusion.
That's because you keep insisting that networked video isn't transmitted using lossy compression. This is fucking simple 100BASE-T can handle any H.264 1080p from internet-based media companies with more than enough room to spare. This is not up for discussion. This is basic math.
Nowhere did I say that...
You said "Which is why 100 megs wouldn’t cut it." in response to brucemc's comment, as well as "If you’re looking at uncompressed (or with less compression) 1080p (not RAW images files the format) via Ethernet" and "So the aforementioned video content cannot possibly ever buffer there? Ever? I guess if you don’t need it for raw content." to pmz's comment.
As proven over and over again, 100Mibps will absolutely cut it, and yet you keep saying it won't and used the word uncompressed to prove a nonexistent point.
Exactly my thoughts. If my extensive movie library is not available to watch, because the studios 'told' Apple, no local content allowed, I will stick with my ATV2 or buy something different. I didn't see any reference to a computer app on the presentation.
PS4 sales are 50% higher than PS2 sales were at this point in the cycle, and the PS2 was the most successful gaming device of all time.
GTA V has sold more than 50 million units at £50 a pop after a £150,000,000 development spend.
Belittle it and call it niche if you like, but gaming is a huge deal in every way imaginable. But as I say, enjoy your free to play casual junk if you like. I'll stick with Metal Gear Solid V.
There's no question that console gaming is still very popular and a big business. However, console gaming is no longer just about the the $60 and up flagship titles. It's also about indie games and smaller titles being sold in the various online stores supported by consoles, as well as other media consumption that isn't related to games. I don't think there's much of a question that the new Apple TV can be competitive right away in those latter two categories. Also, keep in mind that the $60 game landscape is becoming more and more reliant on huge hits to be financially viable. That's the achilles heel of the so-called hardcore games these days: the expectations for the content are incredibly high, and the financial risks become greater and greater with each successive generation.