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?
I doubt it. They could have done that with this new version but they still wanted to keep the focus on their iTunes Store with Home Sharing as some unwarranted mother-in-law under the unfortunate name Computers, which tells me there is no hope for a true iTunes Server appliance (a NAS or RAID with the iTunes Library XML files stored on the Apple TV), nor making your main Home Sharing iTunes Server device show up as its own "channel" by request via Settings, or show up by name when only one Home Sharing device listed in Computers.
The reviewer failed to emphasise ATV has AirPlay, which fundamentally means it has almost any app from iOS. I merrily watch Amazon video on my ATV without a skip or a stutter. This I think gives ATV a clear advantage.
Yep, I'm going for the Apple TV Mk 4 and no doubt the version for 2016 will add 4K or higher. Apple may be delaying as they intend to go far higher than 4K when they do release support.
You're network isn't setup right. 802.11ac routers + devices = no need for Ethernet. Even latency is impressive over 802.11ac. I still use Ethernet where I can, but for everything Wireless in the home, 802.11ac leaves nothing to be desired. Counting down the days until my AppleTV is using it.
I doubt it. They could have done that with this new version but they still wanted to keep the focus on their iTunes Store with Home Sharing as some unwarranted mother-in-law under the unfortunate name Computers, which tells me there is no hope for a true iTunes Server appliance (a NAS or RAID with the iTunes Library XML files stored on the Apple TV), nor making your main Home Sharing iTunes Server device show up as its own "channel" by request via Settings, or show up by name when only one Home Sharing device listed in Computers.
Seems kinda silly that Home Sharing would be a second class citizen when the new 3rd party Apps are going to let you do all kinds of simple and easy things like this.
At least Home Sharing works on AppleTV, which is more than can be said for iOS devices with far more horsepower. Home Sharing is a joke on iOS. Having to reload the Home Sharing library every time you go to use it, which can take several minutes...pathetic. I'll just stick with StreamToMe. If only their UI didn't suck.
Having to reload the Home Sharing library every time you go to use it, which can take several minutes...pathetic. I'll just stick with StreamToMe. If only their UI didn't suck.
1) I've tried that before and it does suck. I did notice that with the updated iTunes to 12.3, new items I'm viewing in Home Sharing via iTunes aren't showing which means I have to click the eject button and reconnect it again. I hope this gets resolved quickly, but I doubt it will.
2) Not familiar with StreamToMe. I'll check it out.
My beloved 160 gb ATV1 is mothballed but had a good life for many years, as did my ATV2 that's still connected to a tv in the house but rarely used. Ditto, the ATV3 in my office. For more content and reliability, we finally picked up an Amazon Fire TV on sale, side loaded a bunch of free apps and have never looked back. Apple not only missed the streaming boat years ago but seemingly on purpose stood and waved from shore.
2) Not familiar with StreamToMe. I'll check it out.
Definitely do. I've been using it for years. Install the ServeToMe server application on a Mac or PC, configure for Local or Local & Remote access, and install StreamToMe on any Mac or iOS device.
The only thing it won't do is DRM content, but that stuff is easy enough to stream from iTunes in the Cloud.
Definitely do. I've been using it for years. Install the ServeToMe server application on a Mac or PC, configure for Local or Local & Remote access, and install StreamToMe on any Mac or iOS device.
The only thing it won't do is DRM content, but that stuff is easy enough to stream from iTunes in the Cloud.
Have you tried Plex for this? Does ServeToMe pull from your iTunes Library, and update play counts and other data, so that can you can switch between it, say, on an iPad, and an Apple TV that is pulling from iTunes on your home Mac/PC?
I'm in on the new AppleTV, but the 4k omission is really strange. What better way to play the 4k video taken with your new iPhone 6s? It's also becoming a standard feature on new televisions, dovetailing nicely with Apple's on 5k iMacs. I honestly don't get it.
We’ve covered this. A9 for 2160p, but not enough A9 chips, so no 2160p this revision.
We’ll have to wait for the 2018 Apple TV, I guess.
1) I think that's a valid hypothesis for consideration but it sounds like you're saying it's the truth and only truth.
2) Even though Apple has a history of long times between Apple TV HW updates, I don't think we'll be waiting 3 years for a 4K UHD version. I wouldn't be surprised to see one in a year, and will be very surprised if it takes more than years, assuming the new platform takes off.
1) I think that's a valid hypothesis for consideration but it sounds like you're saying it's the truth and only truth.
What other reason could they possibly have, though? Apple’s pushing retina and 2160p support on everything else new they make, so there’s no ideological reason not to add it. Apple is always short on the newest chips they create, and so the iPhone always gets priority. The last Apple TV got the A5 because the A6 was limited, after all. Apple has a history of adding hardware support for things before there is widespread adoption and a shorter history of doing the same with software, so I don’t buy the “there’s no content” argument.
What other reason could they possibly have, though? Apple’s pushing retina and 2160p support on everything else new they make, so there’s no ideological reason not to add it. Apple is always short on the newest chips they create, and so the iPhone always gets priority. The last Apple TV got the A5 because the A6 was limited, after all. Apple has a history of adding hardware support for things before there is widespread adoption and a shorter history of doing the same with software, so I don’t buy the “there’s no content” argument.
1) The reasons range from my, "maybe Apple wanted developers to only focus on one tvOS UI to help them focus better and produce apps faster out of the gate," to "perhaps they don't want to release that until they have all the other parts ready for 4K, too, namely a certain level of iTunes Store content, which could be help up by content owners," to the more nebulous, but still very valid answer, "something we haven't even considered."
2) I wonder if the A9 would be an issue for Apple for the Apple TV since we're only talking 5(?) million G4 Apple TV's from the end(?) of October through December, compared to the 100(?) million plus iPhone 6S-series being shipped through December? Also, if what you say about chip production is accurate, wouldn't that imply the A-series chip production speed is the weakest link in the iPhone production chain? I'm not sure I've ever considered that to be weakest link in the chain; I'd put Foxconn assembly speeds and perhaps other components, like Touch ID or the camera module first, if I were to guess.
3) How do you know the G3 Apple TV got the A5 because the A6 wasn't in high enough supply, and not because it made the most sense financially? Doesn't the G3 Apple TV also only have one core enabled, which means it could be from repurposing discarded A5 chips in iPhones and iPads that weren't quite good enough for their flagship moneymakers. Note the G5 iPhone Touch also came out the same years that Apple TV with the year-old A5 chip. Was that because the iPod Touch are selling in too great a quality or because they are trying to reduce costs?
4) I've never said there is "no content," but that doesn't mean Apple has been given rights to enough 4K content to make flipping the switch on their servers a good move. You know their history, they are likely to wait on this sort of thing instead of trying to piecemeal it, which is arguably one of the reasons the original Apple TV flopped with only Disney/MGM on board.
But isn’t it just a matter of 2x-ing the UI elements? Why am I thinking it’s a piece of cake to upscale for TV...
...perhaps they don’t want to release that until they have all the other parts ready for 4K, too, namely a certain level of iTunes Store content...
Oh, I was under the impression that they still had a stranglehold on what formats they get to put in their store... It did take a while to get HD stuff up there in the first place, didn’t it?
2) I wonder if the A9 would be an issue for Apple for the Apple TV since we're only talking 5(?) million G4 Apple TV's from the end(?) of October through December, compared to the 100(?) million plus iPhone 6S-series being shipped through December?
I don’t know how quickly demand would wane, but maybe they just wanted to have a new product shipping as soon as possible?
I'm not sure I've ever considered that to be weakest link in the chain; I'd put Foxconn assembly speeds and perhaps other components, like Touch ID or the camera module first, if I were to guess.
See, I don’t know. I guess I always assumed they could speed up the lines (“work or it’s the gulag! the one where you eat tiny oranges all day!”), but without components they wouldn’t get anywhere. And we make them here and ship them there (I hate that, from simply a logistical standpoint), right?
Doesn't the G3 Apple TV also only have one core enabled, which means it could be from repurposing discarded A5 chips in iPhones and iPads that weren't quite good enough for their flagship moneymakers.
You know, I think you’re right.
Was that because the iPod Touch are selling in too great a quality or because they are trying to reduce costs?
There again, that points to the Apple TV (this year) continuing to get the short end of the stick, as the iPod touch now does (because it’s a dead product). Speaks to still being considered a hobby, in my mind. Hardware, plus no new content deals or UX paradigm shift (I sound like Gates...) makes the v4 look like something for which we shouldn’t have had to wait three years.
...rights to enough 4K content...
I don’t get why rights to a thing don’t mean rights TO A THING. “You have the right to sell this in this exact resolution with this exact fidelity of audio, etc.” If I was in charge of licensing deals, this garbage wouldn’t happen. Nor would the “you have the rights to the song for broadcast but not syndication or home video distribution” insanity. Alas.
But isn’t it just a matter of 2x-ing the UI elements? Why am I thinking it’s a piece of cake to upscale for TV…
Sure, and no issue with rotation, but Apple does like to do more steps then we often like them to do.
Oh, I was under the impression that they still had a stranglehold on what formats they get to put in their store... It did take a while to get HD stuff up there in the first place, didn’t it?
It took awhile to get anything there. Remember how they introduced it in Late-2006 as "iTV." They never show us an unfinished product with a code name like that. I think they did it, not for us, but for Hollywood, to get them excited about a secure way to push content over the internet. It didn't work as expected, unless Apple meant it to start with really low quality TV shows, spattered content, missing episodes, NBC eventually pulling out to start Hulu just to eventually come back in, etc. It was a rough ride, and my guess is Hollywood got them to change a lot of things, not the other way around.
I don’t know how quickly demand would wane, but maybe they just wanted to have a new product shipping as soon as possible?
I think that's a possibility, and I think that with an App Store there is enough interest in that alone.
I don’t get why rights to a thing don’t mean rights TO A THING. “You have the right to sell this in this exact resolution with this exact fidelity of audio, etc.” If I was in charge of licensing deals, this garbage wouldn’t happen. Nor would the “you have the rights to the song for broadcast but not syndication or home video distribution” insanity. Alas. :p
The contracts may also include codecs and containers for all I know. What I do know is that they don't make this easy. The TV show Ally McBeal was a huge hit in its day and one of the appealing factors was the music in the show. Yet, when the DVDs came out there they were not available in Region 1 (namely, the US) because they couldn't secure the music rights for a show that had aired a decade earlier on TV. That might be an extreme example, but I think that's the general landscape of how it all goes.
Comments
I doubt it. They could have done that with this new version but they still wanted to keep the focus on their iTunes Store with Home Sharing as some unwarranted mother-in-law under the unfortunate name Computers, which tells me there is no hope for a true iTunes Server appliance (a NAS or RAID with the iTunes Library XML files stored on the Apple TV), nor making your main Home Sharing iTunes Server device show up as its own "channel" by request via Settings, or show up by name when only one Home Sharing device listed in Computers.
Yep, I'm going for the Apple TV Mk 4 and no doubt the version for 2016 will add 4K or higher. Apple may be delaying as they intend to go far higher than 4K when they do release support.
for streaming I need Ethernet these days.
You're network isn't setup right. 802.11ac routers + devices = no need for Ethernet. Even latency is impressive over 802.11ac. I still use Ethernet where I can, but for everything Wireless in the home, 802.11ac leaves nothing to be desired. Counting down the days until my AppleTV is using it.
I doubt it. They could have done that with this new version but they still wanted to keep the focus on their iTunes Store with Home Sharing as some unwarranted mother-in-law under the unfortunate name Computers, which tells me there is no hope for a true iTunes Server appliance (a NAS or RAID with the iTunes Library XML files stored on the Apple TV), nor making your main Home Sharing iTunes Server device show up as its own "channel" by request via Settings, or show up by name when only one Home Sharing device listed in Computers.
Seems kinda silly that Home Sharing would be a second class citizen when the new 3rd party Apps are going to let you do all kinds of simple and easy things like this.
At least Home Sharing works on AppleTV, which is more than can be said for iOS devices with far more horsepower. Home Sharing is a joke on iOS. Having to reload the Home Sharing library every time you go to use it, which can take several minutes...pathetic. I'll just stick with StreamToMe. If only their UI didn't suck.
1) I've tried that before and it does suck. I did notice that with the updated iTunes to 12.3, new items I'm viewing in Home Sharing via iTunes aren't showing which means I have to click the eject button and reconnect it again. I hope this gets resolved quickly, but I doubt it will.
2) Not familiar with StreamToMe. I'll check it out.
2) Not familiar with StreamToMe. I'll check it out.
Definitely do. I've been using it for years. Install the ServeToMe server application on a Mac or PC, configure for Local or Local & Remote access, and install StreamToMe on any Mac or iOS device.
The only thing it won't do is DRM content, but that stuff is easy enough to stream from iTunes in the Cloud.
Have you tried Plex for this? Does ServeToMe pull from your iTunes Library, and update play counts and other data, so that can you can switch between it, say, on an iPad, and an Apple TV that is pulling from iTunes on your home Mac/PC?
We’ve covered this. A9 for 2160p, but not enough A9 chips, so no 2160p this revision.
We’ll have to wait for the 2018 Apple TV, I guess.
1) I think that's a valid hypothesis for consideration but it sounds like you're saying it's the truth and only truth.
2) Even though Apple has a history of long times between Apple TV HW updates, I don't think we'll be waiting 3 years for a 4K UHD version. I wouldn't be surprised to see one in a year, and will be very surprised if it takes more than years, assuming the new platform takes off.
What other reason could they possibly have, though? Apple’s pushing retina and 2160p support on everything else new they make, so there’s no ideological reason not to add it. Apple is always short on the newest chips they create, and so the iPhone always gets priority. The last Apple TV got the A5 because the A6 was limited, after all. Apple has a history of adding hardware support for things before there is widespread adoption and a shorter history of doing the same with software, so I don’t buy the “there’s no content” argument.
Sure; same here.
1) The reasons range from my, "maybe Apple wanted developers to only focus on one tvOS UI to help them focus better and produce apps faster out of the gate," to "perhaps they don't want to release that until they have all the other parts ready for 4K, too, namely a certain level of iTunes Store content, which could be help up by content owners," to the more nebulous, but still very valid answer, "something we haven't even considered."
2) I wonder if the A9 would be an issue for Apple for the Apple TV since we're only talking 5(?) million G4 Apple TV's from the end(?) of October through December, compared to the 100(?) million plus iPhone 6S-series being shipped through December? Also, if what you say about chip production is accurate, wouldn't that imply the A-series chip production speed is the weakest link in the iPhone production chain? I'm not sure I've ever considered that to be weakest link in the chain; I'd put Foxconn assembly speeds and perhaps other components, like Touch ID or the camera module first, if I were to guess.
3) How do you know the G3 Apple TV got the A5 because the A6 wasn't in high enough supply, and not because it made the most sense financially? Doesn't the G3 Apple TV also only have one core enabled, which means it could be from repurposing discarded A5 chips in iPhones and iPads that weren't quite good enough for their flagship moneymakers. Note the G5 iPhone Touch also came out the same years that Apple TV with the year-old A5 chip. Was that because the iPod Touch are selling in too great a quality or because they are trying to reduce costs?
4) I've never said there is "no content," but that doesn't mean Apple has been given rights to enough 4K content to make flipping the switch on their servers a good move. You know their history, they are likely to wait on this sort of thing instead of trying to piecemeal it, which is arguably one of the reasons the original Apple TV flopped with only Disney/MGM on board.
But isn’t it just a matter of 2x-ing the UI elements? Why am I thinking it’s a piece of cake to upscale for TV...
Oh, I was under the impression that they still had a stranglehold on what formats they get to put in their store... It did take a while to get HD stuff up there in the first place, didn’t it?
I don’t know how quickly demand would wane, but maybe they just wanted to have a new product shipping as soon as possible?
See, I don’t know. I guess I always assumed they could speed up the lines (“work or it’s the gulag! the one where you eat tiny oranges all day!”), but without components they wouldn’t get anywhere. And we make them here and ship them there (I hate that, from simply a logistical standpoint), right?
You know, I think you’re right.
There again, that points to the Apple TV (this year) continuing to get the short end of the stick, as the iPod touch now does (because it’s a dead product). Speaks to still being considered a hobby, in my mind. Hardware, plus no new content deals or UX paradigm shift (I sound like Gates...) makes the v4 look like something for which we shouldn’t have had to wait three years.
I don’t get why rights to a thing don’t mean rights TO A THING. “You have the right to sell this in this exact resolution with this exact fidelity of audio, etc.” If I was in charge of licensing deals, this garbage wouldn’t happen. Nor would the “you have the rights to the song for broadcast but not syndication or home video distribution” insanity. Alas.
Sure, and no issue with rotation, but Apple does like to do more steps then we often like them to do.
It took awhile to get anything there. Remember how they introduced it in Late-2006 as "iTV." They never show us an unfinished product with a code name like that. I think they did it, not for us, but for Hollywood, to get them excited about a secure way to push content over the internet. It didn't work as expected, unless Apple meant it to start with really low quality TV shows, spattered content, missing episodes, NBC eventually pulling out to start Hulu just to eventually come back in, etc. It was a rough ride, and my guess is Hollywood got them to change a lot of things, not the other way around.
I think that's a possibility, and I think that with an App Store there is enough interest in that alone.
The contracts may also include codecs and containers for all I know. What I do know is that they don't make this easy. The TV show Ally McBeal was a huge hit in its day and one of the appealing factors was the music in the show. Yet, when the DVDs came out there they were not available in Region 1 (namely, the US) because they couldn't secure the music rights for a show that had aired a decade earlier on TV. That might be an extreme example, but I think that's the general landscape of how it all goes.
Have you tried Plex for this?
I have not. I tried Plex once years ago and I found to be terribly clumsy and difficult to setup and I gave up on it and moved on almost immediately.
Does ServeToMe pull from your iTunes Library
Yes it does.
and update play counts and other data
Not sure about that...I don't think so.
Have you tried Plex for this?
I'm trying Plex again today for the first time in a long time and its....stellar.
Dear Roku Inc.,
Find a better use for your cash than paying people to shill your crap on competitors’ websites.
Sincerely,
Boo.