That's typical of all companies. They decide what they're going to offer. It is, after all, their company, not yours. If you feel there is a gap in the market you have the right to create your own company that will fill that gap. Good luck.
If one is suggesting that companies should do what one want simply because one wants it, without concern for the company's own focus and goals, then, yes, it's very helpful, assuming one is willing to let go of their self-entitlement.
1. Wrong. You can search for anything and you choose to buy or not. For instance, you can search Netflix, Hulu or iTunes and either pay a subscription or purchase the content.
2. They were showing sample games. It's up to app developers to make great content for the device and trust me, they will.
3. It has an App Store. A developer can easily make a web browser app.
4. The current AppleTV supports Bluetooth keyboards and the new one will too. It also supports third-party controllers.
5. I think you're ridiculous in that statement. You choose whether to spend money or not. Why don't ya get yourself a pair of rabbit ears?
The only thing that's ridiculous here is your whining about someone having the temerity of criticizing Apple. The new Apple TV doesn't come with a web browser for the simple reason that Apple is only interested in having it be used as a sales portal for streaming media and cloud-based games. It's not about forcing people to buy. It's about the stupidity paying $150 to have a glorified streaming media store hooked up to your TV.
The only thing that's ridiculous here is your whining about someone having the temerity of criticizing Apple. The new Apple TV doesn't come with a web browser for the simple reason that Apple is only interested in having it be used as a sales portal for streaming media and cloud-based games. It's not about forcing people to buy. It's about the stupidity paying $150 to have a glorified streaming media store hooked up to your TV.
The foolish part of that is you have been able to use the Apple TV as a large secondary display for years now. Just use AirPlay from an iDevice or Mac and you have your browser on the big screen without some ridiculous use of a remote control browser the internet.
The TV doesn't need to be on for the AppleTV to be meaningful. I have a bluetooth speaker in my master bathroom and also leave the Apple TV in the bedroom on with the TV turned off, since the AppleTV is attached to the speakers directly via TOSLink. Since I stream music when I am in the bathroom to the speaker via Airplay, I can simply switch the source on my phone or iPad and move the music to the bedroom without any interruption.
For these outraged with omission of optical port, revamp your home theater. Technology will change over time and old tech will be ditched. Btw, learn to configure your home theater the right way. You don't need any optical port.
I joined this site purposely to comment on your comment which is weeks old. I have a full house set up using SONOS components which is about as revamped as you can get for a fairly reasonable budget. According to you i should learn how to configure the industry standard choice of connector on my sound bar. Of course technology moves on (CD ROMS removed for example I can understand) but there are other options available. Sound bars generally do not have any options.There is no option to download from iCloud as was when removing the CD ROM.
Please think about what other equipment people may use before making sweeping comments. Rant over.
What????? NO, YOU ARE WRONG!!!! HDMI carries both Digital Video and up to 7.1 Digital Surround sound!!! There is a older standard called DVI. it's the same Digital Signal, but Video only. So you could for example plug a HDMI to DVI cable into a old HDTV that only had DVI, and then needed another connection for the Audio.
HDMI had BOTH!!! If you have a Surround sound Receiver with HDMI In ports, You plug all your devices into that using HDMI and that's it!!!!! Then a single HDMI cable from the receiver to your HDTV. The Receiver takes the Audio it's getting from the HDMI and outputs it to the speakers connected to it. The HDTV's speaker you just turn OFF!!!
Your posts will still read just fine if you cut down on the excessive punctuation. I can almost feel myself going deaf from all of the typed shouting!
I don’t think you understand. The pretty chart doesn’t matter and words about the pretty chart don’t matter. It’s just plain wrong. I can see the difference at the distances it claims I can’t. End of story.
I don’t think you understand. The pretty chart doesn’t matter and words about the pretty chart don’t matter. It’s just plain wrong. I can see the difference at the distances it claims I can’t. End of story.
i don't think *you* seem to be understanding that the resolving power of the human visual system is quantified.
while the aforementioned chart deals with the normal of 20/20, or 6/6, vision, you can use the calculator to enter *your* visual acuity (VA) and see where *you* can see differences of specified resolution display systems.
yes, it is based on a population-derived "normal" that doesn't imply an absolute "best". but measuring VA is simply measuring the specific resolving power of your cornea, lens & retina as a system.
research on the resolving power of the human eye far predates pixel-based displays. its not rocket science, it is mathematics.
My main use for my Apple TVs is as an entry point to my stereo for streaming music from my Mac. I have my whole library in ALAC on my Mac (with backups on different discs and different locations) - approx. 4 TB data. My DACs do not have HDMI - very few have due to licensing fees for the HDMI-port - it would add a significant amount to the price of a DAC. This doesn't matter much to high-volume TV or amp producers, but to producers selling to low-volume markets it is a deal-breaker.
The old AppleTV was a cheap and easy way of connecting my Mac to my stereo, the new one is useless.
BTW: I just bought a new Marantz receiver to use at my office - it has HDMI, and sounds like shit compared to my 10 year old C-J that it replaced (I moved the C-J back to my living room).
I realize that I'm a (very small) minority here, but the cost of adding TOSLINK to the AppleTV would have been insignificant. I hear people saying "why should I pay for TOSLINK when I don't need it?" - well Why should I pay for HDMI when I don't need it? As it is I won't pay for a new AppleTV because I dont need it - so Apple just lost one sale.
I've seen this chart years ago. Just looking at the Requirements for 1080P and I'd bet you many already have to small of a TV to see any difference for the distance they are at. Say the average someone sits from their TV is 8 feet. That's pretty Normal right? Well according to that chart, you need around a 70" TV to have the full benefits of 1080P. Going to 4K you need around a 140" screen size. If you're around 3 feet from the screen, you can get away with a 30" or so screen size. This is why 4K is pretty silly. 4K is what you are watching on a huge screen at a movie theater. If you have one of those in your house, great, you need 4K.
This is why so many are happy with 1080P streaming. Most people can't tell it's not Blu-Ray quality because they have to small of a TV for the distance they are at and it looks just fine. Just like a DVD looks just fine and don't see any difference over a Blu-Ray. If you paused it, got up close and took a look, sure you could tell 1080P from 4K. That's just silly.
3D wasn't a big seller to get people to buy a new TV. Now they're trying it with 4K. Spend less money and get a larger 1080P HDTV and be happy with that. Have a nice large wall free to put a picture on, great, 4K may be for you. Maybe you're one of the minority with better eye site. It's still not that good. For most people, it's pointless.
3D wasn't a big seller to get people to buy a new TV. Now they're trying it with 4K. Spend less money and get a larger 1080P HDTV and be happy with that. Have a nice large wall free to put a picture on, great, 4K may be for you. Maybe you're one of the minority with better eye site. It's still not that good. For most people, it's pointless.
And yet Apple has chosen to support 4K on the iPhone 6S, the iPadPro, new Macs, and video editing software.
And while they're not supporting even limited 4K on the ?TV, they are supporting 3D which was a dismal commercial failure.
Kind of a mixed message for the Apple apologists isn't it?
And yet Apple has chosen to support 4K on the iPhone 6S, the iPadPro, new Macs, and video editing software.
And while they're not supporting even limited 4K on the ?TV, they are supporting 3D which was a dismal commercial failure.
Kind of a mixed message for the Apple apologists isn't it?
or you can interpret it thusly:
"Apple supports 4k on capture & production devices, while supporting 1080p on it's home theater consumption device."
The A8 can handle 4k, as shown prior, so it would only require a software update if the time comes. For now, i think concentrating their efforts on content far supersedes a spec war.
Comments
At least there are work-arounds posted here but I'm shaking my head at this move.
That's a really helpful suggestion /s
If one is suggesting that companies should do what one want simply because one wants it, without concern for the company's own focus and goals, then, yes, it's very helpful, assuming one is willing to let go of their self-entitlement.
The only thing that's ridiculous here is your whining about someone having the temerity of criticizing Apple. The new Apple TV doesn't come with a web browser for the simple reason that Apple is only interested in having it be used as a sales portal for streaming media and cloud-based games. It's not about forcing people to buy. It's about the stupidity paying $150 to have a glorified streaming media store hooked up to your TV.
The foolish part of that is you have been able to use the Apple TV as a large secondary display for years now. Just use AirPlay from an iDevice or Mac and you have your browser on the big screen without some ridiculous use of a remote control browser the internet.
For these outraged with omission of optical port, revamp your home theater. Technology will change over time and old tech will be ditched. Btw, learn to configure your home theater the right way. You don't need any optical port.
I joined this site purposely to comment on your comment which is weeks old. I have a full house set up using SONOS components which is about as revamped as you can get for a fairly reasonable budget. According to you i should learn how to configure the industry standard choice of connector on my sound bar. Of course technology moves on (CD ROMS removed for example I can understand) but there are other options available. Sound bars generally do not have any options.There is no option to download from iCloud as was when removing the CD ROM.
Please think about what other equipment people may use before making sweeping comments. Rant over.
For the 4K lovers....
Yeah, this has never been accurate at all. People who think this is a viable chart need their eyes checked.
Your posts will still read just fine if you cut down on the excessive punctuation. I can almost feel myself going deaf from all of the typed shouting!
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
I don’t think you understand. The pretty chart doesn’t matter and words about the pretty chart don’t matter. It’s just plain wrong. I can see the difference at the distances it claims I can’t. End of story.
I don’t think you understand. The pretty chart doesn’t matter and words about the pretty chart don’t matter. It’s just plain wrong. I can see the difference at the distances it claims I can’t. End of story.
i don't think *you* seem to be understanding that the resolving power of the human visual system is quantified.
while the aforementioned chart deals with the normal of 20/20, or 6/6, vision, you can use the calculator to enter *your* visual acuity (VA) and see where *you* can see differences of specified resolution display systems.
yes, it is based on a population-derived "normal" that doesn't imply an absolute "best". but measuring VA is simply measuring the specific resolving power of your cornea, lens & retina as a system.
research on the resolving power of the human eye far predates pixel-based displays. its not rocket science, it is mathematics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5880378
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/998716
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2324310
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1374766
and on, and on.
My main use for my Apple TVs is as an entry point to my stereo for streaming music from my Mac. I have my whole library in ALAC on my Mac (with backups on different discs and different locations) - approx. 4 TB data. My DACs do not have HDMI - very few have due to licensing fees for the HDMI-port - it would add a significant amount to the price of a DAC. This doesn't matter much to high-volume TV or amp producers, but to producers selling to low-volume markets it is a deal-breaker.
The old AppleTV was a cheap and easy way of connecting my Mac to my stereo, the new one is useless.
BTW: I just bought a new Marantz receiver to use at my office - it has HDMI, and sounds like shit compared to my 10 year old C-J that it replaced (I moved the C-J back to my living room).
I realize that I'm a (very small) minority here, but the cost of adding TOSLINK to the AppleTV would have been insignificant. I hear people saying "why should I pay for TOSLINK when I don't need it?" - well Why should I pay for HDMI when I don't need it? As it is I won't pay for a new AppleTV because I dont need it - so Apple just lost one sale.
research on the resolving power of the human eye far predates pixel-based displays. its not rocket science, it is mathematics.
You say that as though I don’t know these things or that the statement somehow invalidates what I said.
Given the content and given the display, I can see things further than the chart says. Period.
You say that as though I don’t know these things or that the statement somehow invalidates what I said.
Given the content and given the display, I can see things further than the chart says. Period.
Correct, if your vision is better than 20/20. My last measured VA was 20/10 OS & 20/15 OD.
Which is exactly what the more detailed webpage explaining the chart (and linked calculator) says. Enter your VA and get a more specific idea.
Your VA being better than 20/20 does not discredit the science behind measurement of the resolving power of the human eye.
"Its just plain wrong".
It is not, your assumptions are.
It is math.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
I've seen this chart years ago. Just looking at the Requirements for 1080P and I'd bet you many already have to small of a TV to see any difference for the distance they are at. Say the average someone sits from their TV is 8 feet. That's pretty Normal right? Well according to that chart, you need around a 70" TV to have the full benefits of 1080P. Going to 4K you need around a 140" screen size. If you're around 3 feet from the screen, you can get away with a 30" or so screen size. This is why 4K is pretty silly. 4K is what you are watching on a huge screen at a movie theater. If you have one of those in your house, great, you need 4K.
This is why so many are happy with 1080P streaming. Most people can't tell it's not Blu-Ray quality because they have to small of a TV for the distance they are at and it looks just fine. Just like a DVD looks just fine and don't see any difference over a Blu-Ray. If you paused it, got up close and took a look, sure you could tell 1080P from 4K. That's just silly.
3D wasn't a big seller to get people to buy a new TV. Now they're trying it with 4K. Spend less money and get a larger 1080P HDTV and be happy with that. Have a nice large wall free to put a picture on, great, 4K may be for you. Maybe you're one of the minority with better eye site. It's still not that good. For most people, it's pointless.
And yet Apple has chosen to support 4K on the iPhone 6S, the iPadPro, new Macs, and video editing software.
And while they're not supporting even limited 4K on the ?TV, they are supporting 3D which was a dismal commercial failure.
Kind of a mixed message for the Apple apologists isn't it?
And yet Apple has chosen to support 4K on the iPhone 6S, the iPadPro, new Macs, and video editing software.
And while they're not supporting even limited 4K on the ?TV, they are supporting 3D which was a dismal commercial failure.
Kind of a mixed message for the Apple apologists isn't it?
or you can interpret it thusly:
"Apple supports 4k on capture & production devices, while supporting 1080p on it's home theater consumption device."
The A8 can handle 4k, as shown prior, so it would only require a software update if the time comes. For now, i think concentrating their efforts on content far supersedes a spec war.