Periscope, Plex and VLC have already hinted at their intentions to develop apps for ATV4 using the TvOS API's, which should bring some interesting versatility and openness to the new Apple TV hardware. No doubt other vendors will throw their hat into the ring in the weeks to come.
Coupled with the gaming options capably demonstrated by Crossy Road at the recent Apple Special Event, all the ATV4 needs now (and is likely to get) is a well-timed price drop either in the holiday period or at Christmas/New Year, to hit the ground sprinting in 2016.
Did we ever get a definitive answer on whether the 4th gen supports local libraries in the same way as the previous versions? Oh, and could we maybe see the local libraries in the same way as EVERY SINGLE OTHER APP ON THE DEVICE?! Namely as a grid of artwork rather than a list of text? How hard, Apple.
iCloud Drive as an app for the ATV4, turning the former into an Apple Media Server overnight?
I really like the new Apple TV but having an Xbox One that pretty much does everything that it can, sans AirPlay and Siri and things that it can't do like control my entire entertainment center and live TV which as a cable cutter the OTA antenna works well to pick up the local stations and doesn't cost a dime monthly except the cost to purchase the antenna and adapter which is 100 bucks, but it's a 600 dollar setup since I have a Kinect with mine and as history has shown gamers want consoles to play games mainly which is why Kinect is no longer bundled together.
TiVo is an OTA receiver (up to 4 simultaneous shows) that can stream any recorded OTA content to your iPad/iPhone. Very handy if you want to keep up with local news or sports, while traveling. TiVo has provided blended search for years, which includes OTA programming. I am really surprised it is not mentioned in these threads.
You really believe it's going to be an Apple exclusive? The live TV providers are going to want to be on all the streamers/platforms to maximize revenue.
Well, since Sony has a TV streaming service that's exclusive to the PS4, yes, I believe the streaming service Apple is working on will be exclusive to Apple TV.
Well obviously a 'Apple service' will be exclusive to the Apple TV. I'm talking about a deal with the networks to provide live TV broadcasts. Look at HBO Now, they announced it at an Apple event, but it wasn't long before it was available on every other platform.
I really like the new Apple TV but having an Xbox One that pretty much does everything that it can, sans AirPlay and Siri and things that it can't do like control my entire entertainment center and live TV which as a cable cutter the OTA antenna works well to pick up the local stations and doesn't cost a dime monthly except the cost to purchase the antenna and adapter which is 100 bucks, but it's a 600 dollar setup since I have a Kinect with mine and as history has shown gamers want consoles to play games mainly which is why Kinect is no longer bundled together.
TiVo is an OTA receiver (up to 4 simultaneous shows) that can stream any recorded OTA content to your iPad/iPhone. Very handy if you want to keep up with local news or sports, while traveling. TiVo has provided blended search for years, which includes OTA programming. I am really surprised it is not mentioned in these threads.
It has been mentioned, and I finally went to look at their site. One can buy a refurbished Romanio which has a tuner for OTA broadcasts plus digital cable for $49(normally $149), and get lifetime TiVo service for $249. Sounds like a good solution for people that only get Internet from their cable company. They should be able to pull the OTA networks off the coax, and have the ability to record up to 4 shows at the same time.
At this point in time, and for quite some time into the future, streaming sources that provide 4k and HDR aren't going to be widely available. Most of the available 4k content will be delivered over compressed, so at the minimum, you will be missing HDR, and it may likely be worse than that. Many have made note that upscaled 1080P streamed content won't look decidedly different than currently available 4K streamed content, i.e., it isn't a big negative to Apple if they don't support 4k output at this time. Your mileage may vary obviously.
Your comparison photos are based on the best case, not the likely case, of source material. I too would have like to have a "future proof" AppleTV, but for $150 dollars, there's enough value to purchase now, and repurchase when Apple does offer 4K output, It is interesting to note that most people will never purchase UHD BD's, and will be satisfied with lesser quality source material, just as they are now with 1080P sources.
In the meantime, I'll wait for the market to settle out to the basic 4k feature set with HDR, and continue using my 1080P television.
4K Blu Ray supports HDR. Amazon streaming supports it, Netflix is adding support. UHD streaming from both is at a higher bitrate than their HD streams. I'm pretty sure they use the superior H.265 codec for UHD vs H.264 for HD. Also, the ones who compare upscaled 1080p to 4k are not comparing it to HDR 4k.
It's a strange stance you and others are taking. One the one hand the claim is being made that UHD streaming isn't true UHD because the signal is compressed. At the same time you and others are arguing that a more compressed signal with a worse codec is somehow just as good.
Do you ever go to a movie and wish your picture at home was just as good. That you could get the same image and color quality that you are seeing in the theater? That's what UHD is about.
A lack of 4K just now isn't going to hold back very many sales of the ?TV box. By 2016, there will be a lot more units out there. HDTVs were selling over 200m units per year and there are most likely over 1 billion units out there that can support 1080p vs under 20 million UHD. Apple can sell maybe 10-15 million boxes of the current model with most units still being the $69 model and then the same or more in a year or two with 4K where they would be able to appeal to over 60 million UHD TV owners or as I say, compete with a TV unit.
It's a huge missed opportunity. You honestly don't think that people who buy 4K tvs want 4K content for those TVs? Apple doesn't have an option for them, so they will buy from Amazon. It's going to be a lot harder to convince people who already have a 4K streaming box to buy a new one next year. People are seriously underestimating just how fast UHD TVs are taking off. I saw one report where earlier this year they hit 3 million units a month and found this chart from earlier this year.
One of the posters currently arguing reasons why the Apple TV shouldn't support 4K was hyping how important it was that the AppleTV was going to support 4K before it was announced.
It's clearly a missed opportunity. Something I expect will be addressed with a new release next year.
4K Blu Ray supports HDR. Amazon streaming supports it, Netflix is adding support. UHD streaming from both is at a higher bitrate than their HD streams. I'm pretty sure they use the superior H.265 codec for UHD vs H.264 for HD. Also, the ones who compare upscaled 1080p to 4k are not comparing it to HDR 4k.
It's a strange stance you and others are taking. One the one hand the claim is being made that UHD streaming isn't true UHD because the signal is compressed. At the same time you and others are arguing that a more compressed signal with a worse codec is somehow just as good.
Do you ever go to a movie and wish your picture at home was just as good. That you could get the same image and color quality that you are seeing in the theater? That's what UHD is about.
Your reading comprehension really is the problem.
You are arguing the best case for 4k, the most optimum source, the best delivery, and HDR. Most people aren't going to see that, and even those that do, won't see a lot of content.
Two Amazon Prime shows are available in 4k HDR today, "Mozart in the Jungle", and "Red Oaks", and there are a limited number of televisions that currently support those two shows.
Netflix is talking about delivering 14 shows in 4k in the future, beyond the few today.
4k BD doesn't exist today; maybe later this year, but then you still have the content that needs to catch up.
I don't think that Apple should be faulted for waiting another AppleTV generation to provide 4K; it just doesn't make sense financially until content and content delivery are widespread.
You are trying to conflate the perfect, 4k UHD HDR, with a reality in content and delivery that doesn't come close to that, and may take a couple of years to flesh out.
You are arguing the best case for 4k, the most optimum source, the best delivery, and HDR. Most people aren't going to see that, and even those that do, won't see a lot of content.
Two Amazon Prime shows are available in 4k HDR today, "Mozart in the Jungle", and "Red Oaks", and there are a limited number of televisions that currently support those two shows.
Netflix is talking about delivering 14 shows in 4k in the future, beyond the few today.
4k BD doesn't exist today; maybe later this year, but then you still have the content that needs to catch up.
I don't think that Apple should be faulted for waiting another AppleTV generation to provide 4K; it just doesn't make sense financially until content and content delivery are widespread.
You are trying to conflate the perfect, 4k UHD HDR, with a reality in content and delivery that doesn't come close to that, and may take a couple of years to flesh out.
They are selling a device with a chip that supports 4K. They could have supported 4K at the same price point. They only needed a different HDMI port. Apple is a company with a long history of driving the adoption of new standards. Prior to the announcement many assumed it would be 4K and talked about how Apple would be a leader in 4K. Now some of those same people are arguing against 4K. Why is anyone suggesting there is no benefit to having a higher bit rate with a better Codec?
They are selling a device with a chip that supports 4K. They could have supported 4K at the same price point. They only needed a different HDMI port. Apple is a company with a long history of driving the adoption of new standards. Prior to the announcement many assumed it would be 4K and talked about how Apple would be a leader in 4K. Now some of those same people are arguing against 4K. Why is anyone suggesting there is no benefit to having a higher bit rate with a better Codec?
Apple has on occasion pushed new standards, but on others, they sat on their hands. A perfect case is Blu-Ray, which they never implemented, probably because they believed the future was streaming.
What people are arguing is the incremental value of a weak implementation of streaming 4k, i.e., highly compressed 4k isn't going to look any better in the real world than 1080P at the same bandwidth, and probably even at a lesser bandwidth.
Tell me; how many hours of the total hours that you watch television are you streaming 4k. Have you watched the two shows available from Amazon that are UHD HDR yet? Have you watched all of the content on Netflix that is available?
Apple has on occasion pushed new standards, but on others, they sat on their hands. A perfect case is Blu-Ray, which they never implemented, probably because they believed the future was streaming.
What people are arguing is the incremental value of a weak implementation of streaming 4k, i.e., highly compressed 4k isn't going to look any better in the real world than 1080P at the same bandwidth, and probably even at a lesser bandwidth.
It's not the same bandwidth. It's both higher a bit rate and a better codec.
And if Apple skipped blu ray to jump to streaming, why shouldn't they jump on the window of actually beating 4K Blu Ray to the market?
Well obviously a 'Apple service' will be exclusive to the Apple TV. I'm talking about a deal with the networks to provide live TV broadcasts. Look at HBO Now, they announced it at an Apple event, but it wasn't long before it was available on every other platform.
The difference with HBO is that they themselves made the decision to venture into a Netflix-like service and talk of such a service had been on HBO's mind for a couple years as they watched Netflix's popularity and usage increase. Apple had nothing to do with their decision other than to secure an exclusive window once the app was released. Not to mention that 95% of HBO's content is recorded. Other than Real Time with Bill Maher and the occasional live stand-up comedy concert all other content is canned. However, in the case of a streaming service for broadcast television networks and the local affiliates associated with those major networks it's a different ball game entirely.
HBO is the same no matter where you are in the country and probably the world whereas ABC in Ohio is different than ABC in Nebraska is different from ABC in Maryland and so on. And with those different affiliates comes local content like news, sports, shows and of course ads.
Of many this is the chief reason Sony is launching pilots only in certain cities because they're working like crazy to strike deals with local affiliates. If Sony's and Apple's efforts were so easy to copy or partner with then Amazon and Google would already be offering something similar, so it's safe to assume that deals with Sony and Apple are treated differently.
With all that said that you could still be right. Maybe the competition is waiting for Apple to do all the leg work while they swoop in using the same infrastructure that Apple's built. Though I can't shake the feeling that whatever Apple's doing won't be transferrable to the competition.
It's not the same bandwidth. It's both higher a bit rate and a better codec.
And if Apple skipped blu ray to jump to streaming, why shouldn't they jump on the window of actually beating 4K Blu Ray to the market?
It's only more bandwidth if you have it available. You need 15 mbps minimum or so just for 4k, not everybody has that, and if it's less than that, what's the point"
Apple isn't concerned about the BD market. It's for people that want the ultimate experience, and unless the source is high bitrate, it's likely that streaming won't give that experience.
For those wondering about the 4th gen Apple TV having access to your local iTunes libraries via Home Sharing, the good news is it's still there, the bad news is it hasn't changed a lick.
'The complicated thing about the Roku platform is that there isn't just one device, but many, ranging from the Streaming Stick ($50) to the Roku 3 ($90) and even some TVs.'
For those wondering about the 4th gen Apple TV having access to your local iTunes libraries via Home Sharing, the good news is it's still there, the bad news is it hasn't changed a lick.
But the (sort-of) of good news is that tvOS might get a significant 2.0 upgrade (vs the paltry upgrades the current gen gets) that might fix it?
Comments
then again I'm uncapped with a service that rarely drops below 100Mbps. So for 4K streaming I should be ok yummy
Your lucky to have that kind of connection but I would say that 80% of the world does not.
Actually, 80% of the world DOES have that kind of connection. Only in the U.S. are we crippled with tiny pipes (less that 100M) and ridiculous costs.
Coupled with the gaming options capably demonstrated by Crossy Road at the recent Apple Special Event, all the ATV4 needs now (and is likely to get) is a well-timed price drop either in the holiday period or at Christmas/New Year, to hit the ground sprinting in 2016.
Did we ever get a definitive answer on whether the 4th gen supports local libraries in the same way as the previous versions? Oh, and could we maybe see the local libraries in the same way as EVERY SINGLE OTHER APP ON THE DEVICE?! Namely as a grid of artwork rather than a list of text? How hard, Apple.
iCloud Drive as an app for the ATV4, turning the former into an Apple Media Server overnight?
Hope springs eternal...
I really like the new Apple TV but having an Xbox One that pretty much does everything that it can, sans AirPlay and Siri and things that it can't do like control my entire entertainment center and live TV which as a cable cutter the OTA antenna works well to pick up the local stations and doesn't cost a dime monthly except the cost to purchase the antenna and adapter which is 100 bucks, but it's a 600 dollar setup since I have a Kinect with mine and as history has shown gamers want consoles to play games mainly which is why Kinect is no longer bundled together.
TiVo is an OTA receiver (up to 4 simultaneous shows) that can stream any recorded OTA content to your iPad/iPhone. Very handy if you want to keep up with local news or sports, while traveling. TiVo has provided blended search for years, which includes OTA programming. I am really surprised it is not mentioned in these threads.
Well obviously a 'Apple service' will be exclusive to the Apple TV. I'm talking about a deal with the networks to provide live TV broadcasts. Look at HBO Now, they announced it at an Apple event, but it wasn't long before it was available on every other platform.
It has been mentioned, and I finally went to look at their site. One can buy a refurbished Romanio which has a tuner for OTA broadcasts plus digital cable for $49(normally $149), and get lifetime TiVo service for $249. Sounds like a good solution for people that only get Internet from their cable company. They should be able to pull the OTA networks off the coax, and have the ability to record up to 4 shows at the same time.
https://www.tivo.com/shop/promo/supersavings
At this point in time, and for quite some time into the future, streaming sources that provide 4k and HDR aren't going to be widely available. Most of the available 4k content will be delivered over compressed, so at the minimum, you will be missing HDR, and it may likely be worse than that. Many have made note that upscaled 1080P streamed content won't look decidedly different than currently available 4K streamed content, i.e., it isn't a big negative to Apple if they don't support 4k output at this time. Your mileage may vary obviously.
Your comparison photos are based on the best case, not the likely case, of source material. I too would have like to have a "future proof" AppleTV, but for $150 dollars, there's enough value to purchase now, and repurchase when Apple does offer 4K output, It is interesting to note that most people will never purchase UHD BD's, and will be satisfied with lesser quality source material, just as they are now with 1080P sources.
In the meantime, I'll wait for the market to settle out to the basic 4k feature set with HDR, and continue using my 1080P television.
4K Blu Ray supports HDR. Amazon streaming supports it, Netflix is adding support. UHD streaming from both is at a higher bitrate than their HD streams. I'm pretty sure they use the superior H.265 codec for UHD vs H.264 for HD. Also, the ones who compare upscaled 1080p to 4k are not comparing it to HDR 4k.
It's a strange stance you and others are taking. One the one hand the claim is being made that UHD streaming isn't true UHD because the signal is compressed. At the same time you and others are arguing that a more compressed signal with a worse codec is somehow just as good.
Do you ever go to a movie and wish your picture at home was just as good. That you could get the same image and color quality that you are seeing in the theater? That's what UHD is about.
A lack of 4K just now isn't going to hold back very many sales of the ?TV box. By 2016, there will be a lot more units out there. HDTVs were selling over 200m units per year and there are most likely over 1 billion units out there that can support 1080p vs under 20 million UHD. Apple can sell maybe 10-15 million boxes of the current model with most units still being the $69 model and then the same or more in a year or two with 4K where they would be able to appeal to over 60 million UHD TV owners or as I say, compete with a TV unit.
It's a huge missed opportunity. You honestly don't think that people who buy 4K tvs want 4K content for those TVs? Apple doesn't have an option for them, so they will buy from Amazon. It's going to be a lot harder to convince people who already have a 4K streaming box to buy a new one next year. People are seriously underestimating just how fast UHD TVs are taking off. I saw one report where earlier this year they hit 3 million units a month and found this chart from earlier this year.
You do know 4k projectors cost over $10k
Not all of them.
One of the posters currently arguing reasons why the Apple TV shouldn't support 4K was hyping how important it was that the AppleTV was going to support 4K before it was announced.
It's clearly a missed opportunity. Something I expect will be addressed with a new release next year.
4K Blu Ray supports HDR. Amazon streaming supports it, Netflix is adding support. UHD streaming from both is at a higher bitrate than their HD streams. I'm pretty sure they use the superior H.265 codec for UHD vs H.264 for HD. Also, the ones who compare upscaled 1080p to 4k are not comparing it to HDR 4k.
It's a strange stance you and others are taking. One the one hand the claim is being made that UHD streaming isn't true UHD because the signal is compressed. At the same time you and others are arguing that a more compressed signal with a worse codec is somehow just as good.
Do you ever go to a movie and wish your picture at home was just as good. That you could get the same image and color quality that you are seeing in the theater? That's what UHD is about.
Your reading comprehension really is the problem.
You are arguing the best case for 4k, the most optimum source, the best delivery, and HDR. Most people aren't going to see that, and even those that do, won't see a lot of content.
Two Amazon Prime shows are available in 4k HDR today, "Mozart in the Jungle", and "Red Oaks", and there are a limited number of televisions that currently support those two shows.
Netflix is talking about delivering 14 shows in 4k in the future, beyond the few today.
4k BD doesn't exist today; maybe later this year, but then you still have the content that needs to catch up.
I don't think that Apple should be faulted for waiting another AppleTV generation to provide 4K; it just doesn't make sense financially until content and content delivery are widespread.
You are trying to conflate the perfect, 4k UHD HDR, with a reality in content and delivery that doesn't come close to that, and may take a couple of years to flesh out.
Your reading comprehension really is the problem.
You are arguing the best case for 4k, the most optimum source, the best delivery, and HDR. Most people aren't going to see that, and even those that do, won't see a lot of content.
Two Amazon Prime shows are available in 4k HDR today, "Mozart in the Jungle", and "Red Oaks", and there are a limited number of televisions that currently support those two shows.
Netflix is talking about delivering 14 shows in 4k in the future, beyond the few today.
4k BD doesn't exist today; maybe later this year, but then you still have the content that needs to catch up.
I don't think that Apple should be faulted for waiting another AppleTV generation to provide 4K; it just doesn't make sense financially until content and content delivery are widespread.
You are trying to conflate the perfect, 4k UHD HDR, with a reality in content and delivery that doesn't come close to that, and may take a couple of years to flesh out.
They are selling a device with a chip that supports 4K. They could have supported 4K at the same price point. They only needed a different HDMI port. Apple is a company with a long history of driving the adoption of new standards. Prior to the announcement many assumed it would be 4K and talked about how Apple would be a leader in 4K. Now some of those same people are arguing against 4K. Why is anyone suggesting there is no benefit to having a higher bit rate with a better Codec?
Apple TV (3rd-Gen)
"People who have HomeKit accessories can use the hardware as a remote hub for control away from the house."
Are there any HomeKit accessories actually on the market right now which utilize Apple TV (3rd-Gen) as a remote hub for control away from the house?
They are selling a device with a chip that supports 4K. They could have supported 4K at the same price point. They only needed a different HDMI port. Apple is a company with a long history of driving the adoption of new standards. Prior to the announcement many assumed it would be 4K and talked about how Apple would be a leader in 4K. Now some of those same people are arguing against 4K. Why is anyone suggesting there is no benefit to having a higher bit rate with a better Codec?
Apple has on occasion pushed new standards, but on others, they sat on their hands. A perfect case is Blu-Ray, which they never implemented, probably because they believed the future was streaming.
What people are arguing is the incremental value of a weak implementation of streaming 4k, i.e., highly compressed 4k isn't going to look any better in the real world than 1080P at the same bandwidth, and probably even at a lesser bandwidth.
Tell me; how many hours of the total hours that you watch television are you streaming 4k. Have you watched the two shows available from Amazon that are UHD HDR yet? Have you watched all of the content on Netflix that is available?
Apple has on occasion pushed new standards, but on others, they sat on their hands. A perfect case is Blu-Ray, which they never implemented, probably because they believed the future was streaming.
What people are arguing is the incremental value of a weak implementation of streaming 4k, i.e., highly compressed 4k isn't going to look any better in the real world than 1080P at the same bandwidth, and probably even at a lesser bandwidth.
It's not the same bandwidth. It's both higher a bit rate and a better codec.
And if Apple skipped blu ray to jump to streaming, why shouldn't they jump on the window of actually beating 4K Blu Ray to the market?
The difference with HBO is that they themselves made the decision to venture into a Netflix-like service and talk of such a service had been on HBO's mind for a couple years as they watched Netflix's popularity and usage increase. Apple had nothing to do with their decision other than to secure an exclusive window once the app was released. Not to mention that 95% of HBO's content is recorded. Other than Real Time with Bill Maher and the occasional live stand-up comedy concert all other content is canned. However, in the case of a streaming service for broadcast television networks and the local affiliates associated with those major networks it's a different ball game entirely.
HBO is the same no matter where you are in the country and probably the world whereas ABC in Ohio is different than ABC in Nebraska is different from ABC in Maryland and so on. And with those different affiliates comes local content like news, sports, shows and of course ads.
Of many this is the chief reason Sony is launching pilots only in certain cities because they're working like crazy to strike deals with local affiliates. If Sony's and Apple's efforts were so easy to copy or partner with then Amazon and Google would already be offering something similar, so it's safe to assume that deals with Sony and Apple are treated differently.
With all that said that you could still be right. Maybe the competition is waiting for Apple to do all the leg work while they swoop in using the same infrastructure that Apple's built. Though I can't shake the feeling that whatever Apple's doing won't be transferrable to the competition.
It's not the same bandwidth. It's both higher a bit rate and a better codec.
And if Apple skipped blu ray to jump to streaming, why shouldn't they jump on the window of actually beating 4K Blu Ray to the market?
It's only more bandwidth if you have it available. You need 15 mbps minimum or so just for 4k, not everybody has that, and if it's less than that, what's the point"
Apple isn't concerned about the BD market. It's for people that want the ultimate experience, and unless the source is high bitrate, it's likely that streaming won't give that experience.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/63163/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
= biased or stupid
For those wondering about the 4th gen Apple TV having access to your local iTunes libraries via Home Sharing, the good news is it's still there, the bad news is it hasn't changed a lick.
But the (sort-of) of good news is that tvOS might get a significant 2.0 upgrade (vs the paltry upgrades the current gen gets) that might fix it?