Only months after launch, 'Disney Infinity' ditches support for Apple TV

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    volcan said:
    sog35 said:

    I agree that 4k should have been included.
    People who are so fixated and emotional about TV and video games should probably get outdoors more often, take a walk, learn to garden, ride a bike or teach your kids to throw a baseball. Great stress relievers.
    Agreed.  I was up for a debate today and hoping to expand minds a bit given I've been seeing a lot of people who are locked into seeing the world from one perspective (both online and in the real world).  sog has helped me see that there are people out there who are fanatical about picture and sound quality (a friend of mine is an audio engineer, so I knew about the sound quality bit).  Hopefully I've helped him see that there's more than one way to use a TV, and picture quality isn't everything.

    One thing I'd hope to impress upon someone who is suggesting activities outside of TV/games (I've met a lot of parents who see TV/video games as inherently bad) is that, I feel the fact that I played games (and later learned how to build my own) got me onto the path of my career in technology.  So it isn't necessarily wasted time if it's used in a way that empowers you to be creative/use your mind (hence that last Jobs quote and my feelings about interactive vs passive entertainment).
  • Reply 82 of 109
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    sog35 said:

    auxio said:
    I don't have a 4K TV, and have no plans to get one in the near future given that I mostly use my TV for interactive entertainment (games, etc), which doesn't work well at 4K, so I honestly wouldn't know.

    For my use of TV, I'd opt for dynamic/interactive 1080p content over non-interactive/prerecorded 4K content.  So I guess I'm the target market for AppleTV and you're not.  I'm not sure why you'd even get one given your obsession with 4K.
    70% of new TV's sold last year was 4k
    This year will be closer to 80%

    There is no excuse for Apple not to include this feature when competing devices have it at HALF THE PRICE.
    Amazon Fire TV 4K 8GB = $99 (no game controller included), TV 32GB = $149 (remote game controller).
     
    http://press.ihs.com/press-release/tv-shipments-decline-even-4k-tv-continues-strong-growth-ihs-says

    Total annual TV shipments = 226 million units in 2015, 4K shipments = 32 million = 14%.
    32 million is a lot of units though and growing quickly.

    Adding 4K capability (or other features) to the TV at launch probably wouldn't have increased the sales dramatically and it's a feature that will get people to buy another one. TV boxes are slow sellers.

    PS4 = 36m in 26 months = 1.38m/month.
    XBO = 20m in 26 months = 0.77m/month.
    Wii (original) = 100m in 108 months = 0.93m/month.

    https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/news/strategy-analytics-press-releases/strategy-analytics-press-release/2016/03/08/chromecast-takes-35-of-the-42-million-unit-global-digital-media-streamer-market-in-2015-says-strategy-analytics

    "Based on cumulative shipments of digital media streamers, Apple still leads the way having shipped close to 37 million Apple TV units since its launch in 2007. However, Google’s Chromecast is catching up fast with 27 million units shipped in just two and a half years followed by Roku’s Box and Streaming Stick (20 million) and Amazon Fire TV (less than 10 million)."

    The lack of Disney Infinity upgrades affect more platforms than TV so it doesn't have much to do with how it has been designed or its features.

    Behind the scenes, Apple will probably be encoding movies (50,000) in H.265 at 4K so when they ship the next TV with 4K support, maybe late 2017 then not only will more people have the broadband to support it and have the 4K TVs to support it, Apple will have a large enough 4K library to stream.
  • Reply 83 of 109
    foadfoad Posts: 697member
    sog35 said:


    And the majority of Americans will not be streaming them. Most US homes don't have the internet speed or bandwidth or both to be streaming 4K movies. It's just not a big enough thing right now. Besides, the Apple TV isn't on a yearly upgrade cycle. We may not see the next one for another three years.

    As for shooting 4K video on the phone, I don't think they're expecting people to then stream that over to Apple TV. What you're trying to do puts you in a very small minority. A minority Apple isn't catering to. You have to realize that most people will never do anything more with their devices than browse the web, take pictures/videos of random things, check email and do social media. They're not making commercials and films in 4K to show off on their 4K televsions.
    21% of the USA homes can stream 4k or ultra HD in 2015.  That was an increase from 17% in 2014.  We could be up to 25% this year.

    http://4k.com/news/research-shows-just-21-of-us-homes-have-4k-capable-internet-access-9744/

    And that number is growing each month. So no 4k is NOT niche at all. In a couple years I would not be surprised that number is closer to 35%.  That is a HUGE chunk of the population.

    And I think it isn't a wild assumption that many Apple customers have fast internet connections because on average Apple customers are richer than the average citizen.
    It had a 4% jump in a year, so if you add 2 more years, you're looking at maybe 30% have the minimum to only stream 4K and nothing else. If you look at an average home that has multiple devices, no one is going to saturate their network just for the TV. The article even states that the speed is only one component and doesn't take into consideration of that 21% how many have data caps. That is also the maximum available bandwidth and with cable, you aren't getting that most of the time, especially in saturated neighborhoods. Roku only has it as a marketing tool. Even on there, content is very limited.
  • Reply 84 of 109
    sog35 said:


    And the majority of Americans will not be streaming them. Most US homes don't have the internet speed or bandwidth or both to be streaming 4K movies. It's just not a big enough thing right now. Besides, the Apple TV isn't on a yearly upgrade cycle. We may not see the next one for another three years.

    As for shooting 4K video on the phone, I don't think they're expecting people to then stream that over to Apple TV. What you're trying to do puts you in a very small minority. A minority Apple isn't catering to. You have to realize that most people will never do anything more with their devices than browse the web, take pictures/videos of random things, check email and do social media. They're not making commercials and films in 4K to show off on their 4K televsions.
    21% of the USA homes can stream 4k or ultra HD in 2015.  That was an increase from 17% in 2014.  We could be up to 25% this year.

    http://4k.com/news/research-shows-just-21-of-us-homes-have-4k-capable-internet-access-9744/

    And that number is growing each month. So no 4k is NOT niche at all. In a couple years I would not be surprised that number is closer to 35%.  That is a HUGE chunk of the population.

    And I think it isn't a wild assumption that many Apple customers have fast internet connections because on average Apple customers are richer than the average citizen.
    Did you read that article? It actually argues against your point and validates mine.
  • Reply 84 of 109
    For anyone like Sog who can't be bothered to read the internet speed article, here are the really relevant points

    "According to recent findings from Akamai, not only do a minority of homes even have a 4K TV in their living rooms or dens, the overwhelming majority of all U.S homes also lack the internet connectivity necessary to stream 4K UHD content from principal sources like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video."

    "
    What Akamai’s research shows is that only 21% of U.S homes get at least the minimal 15 Mbps necessary for 4K ultra HD streaming and this alone is before bandwidth caps, which could further block off 4K streaming to millions of homes. Furthermore, the 15 Mbps minimum is just that, a minimum, and until even more efficient 4K videocompression methods are developed for the web, broadband speeds of closer to 20 Mbps are the more highly recommended minimum, in addition to the fact that these cannot be peak speeds but instead must be the lower end minimum that any home which wants access to online 4K video must consistently maintain."

    "
    While there is lots of talk being done in tech, media and communications delivery circles about the potential for easy to install gigabit internet proliferating across the U.S –with Google Fiber being one notable example of a technology giant actively trying to deliver this kind of ultra-broadband—major telecoms have to first deal with the simple fact that 79% of U.S households can’t even get the minimum internet connectivity necessary to watch “House of Cards” in 4K resolution through their Netflix subscriptions."

    "
    The U.S is well down in the 18th position globally for percentage of homes reached by internet speeds of 15 Mbps or higher."

    "
    All of this aside, there isn’t all that much 4K content available via streaming to begin with. While considerable growth in entertainment options in ultra HD has indeed occurred during the last year, 4K UHD is still a long ways away from Full HD in terms of content market penetration."


  • Reply 86 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    For anyone like Sog who can't be bothered to read the internet speed article, here are the really relevant points

    "According to recent findings from Akamai, not only do a minority of homes even have a 4K TV in their living rooms or dens, the overwhelming majority of all U.S homes also lack the internet connectivity necessary to stream 4K UHD content from principal sources like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video."

    "What Akamai’s research shows is that only 21% of U.S homes get at least the minimal 15 Mbps necessary for 4K ultra HD streaming and this alone is before bandwidth caps, which could further block off 4K streaming to millions of homes. Furthermore, the 15 Mbps minimum is just that, a minimum, and until even more efficient 4K videocompression methods are developed for the web, broadband speeds of closer to 20 Mbps are the more highly recommended minimum, in addition to the fact that these cannot be peak speeds but instead must be the lower end minimum that any home which wants access to online 4K video must consistently maintain."

    "While there is lots of talk being done in tech, media and communications delivery circles about the potential for easy to install gigabit internet proliferating across the U.S –with Google Fiber being one notable example of a technology giant actively trying to deliver this kind of ultra-broadband—major telecoms have to first deal with the simple fact that 79% of U.S households can’t even get the minimum internet connectivity necessary to watch “House of Cards” in 4K resolution through their Netflix subscriptions."

    "The U.S is well down in the 18th position globally for percentage of homes reached by internet speeds of 15 Mbps or higher."

    "All of this aside, there isn’t all that much 4K content available via streaming to begin with. While considerable growth in entertainment options in ultra HD has indeed occurred during the last year, 4K UHD is still a long ways away from Full HD in terms of content market penetration."


    People were saying these same things a decade ago.  They said HD Netflix would never work out.
    The point isn't that 4K won't work out -- the point is that it won't be ready for most people for a couple years at least.

    Given that fact, the fact that Apple has promoted apps as the feature which differentiates the AppleTV from competitors ("the future of TV", as they market it), and the fact that making all types of apps (not just ones which stream video) work well at 4K currently requires expensive hardware, is why they chose to forgo 4K.  If you just want a 4K video streamer box, then the AppleTV isn't the right product.
  • Reply 87 of 109
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    sog35 said:
    For anyone like Sog who can't be bothered to read the internet speed article, here are the really relevant points

    "According to recent findings from Akamai, not only do a minority of homes even have a 4K TV in their living rooms or dens, the overwhelming majority of all U.S homes also lack the internet connectivity necessary to stream 4K UHD content from principal sources like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video."

    "What Akamai’s research shows is that only 21% of U.S homes get at least the minimal 15 Mbps necessary for 4K ultra HD streaming and this alone is before bandwidth caps, which could further block off 4K streaming to millions of homes. Furthermore, the 15 Mbps minimum is just that, a minimum, and until even more efficient 4K videocompression methods are developed for the web, broadband speeds of closer to 20 Mbps are the more highly recommended minimum, in addition to the fact that these cannot be peak speeds but instead must be the lower end minimum that any home which wants access to online 4K video must consistently maintain."

    "While there is lots of talk being done in tech, media and communications delivery circles about the potential for easy to install gigabit internet proliferating across the U.S –with Google Fiber being one notable example of a technology giant actively trying to deliver this kind of ultra-broadband—major telecoms have to first deal with the simple fact that 79% of U.S households can’t even get the minimum internet connectivity necessary to watch “House of Cards” in 4K resolution through their Netflix subscriptions."

    "The U.S is well down in the 18th position globally for percentage of homes reached by internet speeds of 15 Mbps or higher."

    "All of this aside, there isn’t all that much 4K content available via streaming to begin with. While considerable growth in entertainment options in ultra HD has indeed occurred during the last year, 4K UHD is still a long ways away from Full HD in terms of content market penetration."


    People were saying these same things a decade ago.  They said HD Netflix would never work out.
    Meanwhile in the backwater UK the average speed has risen to 28.9Mbps. In urban areas the average has risen to 50Mbps so we are well prepared to have 4K content.
  • Reply 88 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    People were saying these same things a decade ago.  They said HD Netflix would never work out.
    Meanwhile in the backwater UK the average speed has risen to 28.9Mbps. In urban areas the average has risen to 50Mbps so we are well prepared to have 4K content.
    While there are definitely challenges in a country where the overall infrastructure was developed centuries before North American cities even existed, this helps explain the reason for that.
    propod
  • Reply 89 of 109
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    auxio said:
    Meanwhile in the backwater UK the average speed has risen to 28.9Mbps. In urban areas the average has risen to 50Mbps so we are well prepared to have 4K content.
    While there are definitely challenges in a country where the overall infrastructure was developed centuries before North American cities even existed, this helps explain the reason for that.
    We also have blood thirsty competition for customers and very few local monopolies. So companies fight to provide faster services. From what people on this forum say, you can be stuck with a crap provider who has no incentive to provide anything.
    We must be lucky (apart from being geographically small) to have a better infrastructure. Though not as good as South Korea or Japan.
  • Reply 90 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:

    auxio said:
    The point isn't that 4K won't work out -- the point is that it won't be ready for most people for a couple years at least.


    If everyone had a mindset of you then we would never get any progress.
    And if everyone thought that televisions/monitors were only for watching video, personal computers wouldn't exist.  We'd only have devices dedicated to one purpose instead of having ones which are capable of being used for anything people can dream up.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 91 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member

    sog35 said:

    auxio said:
    The point isn't that 4K won't work out -- the point is that it won't be ready for most people for a couple years at least.


    There are tens of millions of people in the USA who have access to internet that can easily stream 4k.  Just because it isn't EVERYONE does not mean Apple should not do it.  And I bet many of the people who have high speed internet (rich and educated) are the same people that buy Apple product.

    If Apple waited for something to be ready for 'most people' they would have never released the original iPhone, iPad, or Watch.  When Jobs was running things Apple was at the cutting edge of innovation. 4k is the future. You can deny it all you want but that is where we are heading in the next 2-5 years.  And not putting 4k when TENS OF MILLIONS of people (Hundreds of millions if you go worldwide scale) could benefit from it is stupid. Especially since adding 4k to the AppleTV would be at minimal cost. 
    Many of the rich and educated (Jobs included) believe/believed that traditional, non-interactive television is leading to a dumbing down of the population because most people are just passively viewing/accepting what's being shown to them on a television screen.  As opposed to engaging them and stimulating critical thinking and problem solving skills (as interactive content would).  This is the real revolution in television -- not just increasing the number of pixels on the screen.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 92 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    And if everyone thought that televisions/monitors were only for watching video, computers wouldn't exist.  We'd only have devices dedicated to one purpose instead of having ones which are capable of being used for anything people can dream up.

    And what the hell are you taking about that if Apple did 4k it could only do video? WTF guy.  Roku/Amazon are doing 4k AND Apps AND GAMES for $99.  Stop being such an Apple fanboy.
    If the Roku and FireTV can run high-quality apps and games at 4K smoothly, I'll take everything I've said back.  Somehow I doubt that given that even the Xbox One and PS4 (which are far more expensive) can't run games at 4K yet, but I'll run out to a store and take a DETAILED look at what they can do (paying close attention to what resolution everything is running at).

    And given your attention to detail with video and audio quality, I'd expect you to put that same level of focus into looking at the quality of the apps and games on those devices as well.  Even if you don't care about games, having apps which can extend/enhance the way you watch video will be important going forward.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 93 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:

    Many of the rich and educated (Jobs included) believe/believed that traditional, non-interactive television is leading to a dumbing down of the population because most people are just passively viewing/accepting what's being shown to them on a television screen.  As opposed to engaging them and stimulating critical thinking and problem solving skills (as interactive content would).  This is the real revolution in television -- not just increasing the number of pixels on the screen.
    Just stop. Stop being ridiculous. How the hell would 4k make people dumber than standard HD.
    If you can't understand my core argument about passive vs interactive television, then there's no point in me debating any further.
  • Reply 94 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    If the Roku and FireTV can run high-quality apps and games at 4K smoothly, I'll take everything I've said back.  Somehow I doubt that given that even the Xbox One and PS4 (which are far more expensive) can't run games at 4K yet, but I'll run out to a store and take a DETAILED look at what they can do (paying close attention to what resolution everything is running at).

    And given your attention to detail with video and audio quality, I'd expect you to put that same level of focus into looking at the quality of the apps and games on those devices as well.  Even if you don't care about games, having apps which can extend/enhance the way you watch video will be important going forward.
    Jesus Christ guy.  You need to WALK before you RUN.
    You also need to know what direction you're running in.  Apple chose to run in the interactive direction first, Roku and Amazon chose to run in the higher resolution direction first.  Given the time it takes to develop a good app ecosystem as compared to the time it takes for graphics hardware to come down in price, I'd say they chose the best direction to take first.  But you're free to disagree.

    Just because you can't run video games at 4k does not mean you need to shun 4k altogether.
    I already described how it creates a bad experience to do video mode switching.

    And for your INFORMATION the majority of time people use video streamers is for - WATCHING VIDEO. Very little time is used on Apps. Its all Netflix, Youtube, ect.  So get out of here with minimizing video watching on VIDEO STREAMERS.
    AppleTV is more akin to a computer than video streamer.  As I said before, if all you care about is owning a 4K video streamer, then it's the wrong device for you.

    Don't forget Roku's 4k also means it can show 4k photo's and slideshows.  And displaying 4k photos is a piece of cake even with a slow internet connection.
    It's not about the speed of your Internet connection.  It's about the quality of the apps.  How easy are their photo and slideshow apps to use?  What types of features do they have?  Are they laggy/annoying/painful enough to use that I'd only use them if I had to (like the apps built in to my so-called SMART TV)?  You pay attention to the details of the picture quality, I pay attention to how easy/enjoyable things are to use.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 95 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    If you can't understand my core argument about passive vs interactive television, then there's no point in me debating any further.
    Your argument makes no sense for the majority of customers.

    The majority of customers use VIDEO STREAMERS like AppleTV, Roku, and FireTV to watch VIDEO. The most time is spent on Netflix, Youtube, ect.
    And the majority of customers don't have 4K yet.

    You can't have it both ways: first you maintain that, even though the majority of customers won't have 4K for a few years, Apple must support 4K.  Then you maintain that since the majority of customers don't see the need interactivity/apps yet, Apple shouldn't have bothered with it.
  • Reply 96 of 109
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    audio said:
    Apple chose to run in the interactive direction first, Roku and Amazon chose to run in the higher resolution direction first.
    If I could make an analogy here–let’s compare to the video game console industry.

    Instead of trying to increase to 1080p like Microsoft and Sony (who failed miserably and continue to fail), Nintendo chose to run in the interactive direction, just like Apple.

    The Wii was limited to 480p but increased physical interaction with games, opening a new paradigm (I feel like Bill Gates saying that...). It worked spectacularly. Microsoft and Sony tried to hit 1080p while retaining traditional controls. Turns out they couldn’t. Sometimes they couldn’t even hit 720. Interaction came after, reactively, copying Nintendo’s success.

    So I guess it’s a question of what Apple wants to be: Nintendo... or Microsoft.


  • Reply 97 of 109
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    sog35 said:
    Now the WiiU sucked big time.
    Yeah, they COMPLETELY screwed the pooch there, both on advertising and on backward compatibility.

    If Dolphin–an emulator–can run Wii games in 1440p, why can’t the WiiU? The WiiU would have sold 10,000,000 units on upconverted Wii playback alone. As it stands, they’ve barely even sold 10 million!

    I mean, how do you screw up that bad? You give it a new name, a new case design, and you make sure people understand they aren’t just paying $250 for a new controller.
  • Reply 98 of 109
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,032member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    And the majority of customers don't have 4K yet.

    You can't have it both ways: first you maintain that, even though the majority of customers won't have 4K for a few years, Apple must support 4K.  Then you maintain that since the majority of customers don't see the need interactivity/apps yet, Apple shouldn't have bothered with it.
    You need to work on your reading comprehension.

    The majority of people who own AppleTV/Roku/Amazon use it to watch VIDEO. That is a FACT.  
    So giving customers lower quality VIDEO is a slap in the face.
    How is it a slap in the face if the video quality matches their setup perfectly?  You're in a niche with your 4K setup at this point, and simply delusional in believing that you're not.

    And how much would it cost Apple to add 4k?  $2? $5? 
    To do interactive 4K smoothly with the A-series architecture, they'd need, at minimum, the same hardware they're using in the 12.9" iPad Pro.  And even it doesn't run at 4K resolution (only around 3K), so that may not be enough.

    Do you even own an ATV4?  If not you need to shut the fuc up because you don't know what you are talking about.
    I've had an ATV4 since the developer prerelease boxes were handed out.  And I attended an AppleTV tech talk about how to develop apps for it.  I also spoke in-depth with Apple engineers about some more advanced things I wanted to do with it.  But clearly you are the expert here.
    edited April 2016 singularity
  • Reply 99 of 109
    I just have to ask...what do you currently watch in 4K Sog? What content do you actually watch? Because there's next to nothing out there but you act like every video you watch is available in 4K.

    And I have to say, I don't think it matters if Apple had 4K in the Apple TV because most people don't have 4K televisions. Hell, most people can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 100 of 109
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,791member
    sog35 said:

    Probably sell my ATV4 and buy a Roku/Amazon this year.
    That makes me laugh. You've said you are a big time investor with hundreds of AAPL shares but then you plan to sell a used TV, for what, maybe fifty bucks? 

    Not even worth the time to put an ad on Craig's List. Not to mention you might get mugged.

    Plus, you brag about all the money you've paid to Apple yet all you have is a Mac mini? Give me a break. For all your outrage you'd think the sky was falling.
Sign In or Register to comment.