rogifan_new

foggyhill said:

nht said:

rogifan_new said:

foregoneconclusion said:

rogifan_new said:

Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.

4K TVs are used primarily for viewing content in 4K, right? So why are there so many different prices for 4K TVs? Different technology. Different capability. Different quality. As for Apple promoting gaming, it's pretty routine for them to have game companies do demos for iOS and ATV. Mario and Sky are two of the most recent "heavy hitter" types of presentations like that, and Apple is definitely paying to have those games be timed exclusives. 

I don’t see what capability TV has that other streaming boxes don’t have other than an App Store that Apple rarely every talks about. I dunno maybe you can name all the great apps available on TV that make it worth $100 more.

Apple are such dumbasses to create such a powerful streamer.  Those guys obviously have no strategy on how to use a A10X in a streamer and it's just a complete waste of time and effort not to mention raising the price for all us loyal Apple users for no good reason.

Oh wait:

Graphics and Games

• New in tvOS 11.0 - SceneKit and SpriteKit focus support.

  • Use the UIKit focus-related APIs to control animations, play custom sounds, and receive focus update notifications for SceneKit and SpriteKit nodes.

  • Added SCNNode.focusBehavior and SKNode.focusBehavior to enable focus for node.

• New in tvOS 11.0 - High performance image analysis.

  • Added the Vision framework for detecting faces, bar codes, text, image horizon, and rectangular regions.

  • Provided support for integrating the Vision framework with Core ML to run custom models on images.

  • Added object-tracking in video.

  • Added support for image registration.

• New in tvOS 11.0 - Ability to write custom image blending kernels for Core Image.

  • Added CIBlendKernel, a special type of CIColorKernel to blend two images (supported by CIRenderDestination and CIImageAccumulator).

  • Added init(functionName:fromMetalLibraryData:) to CIKernel for writing kernels using Metal to benefit from the improved language features and the reduced compile time.

• New in tvOS 11.0 - Lightweight render destination.

  • Added CIRenderDestination, an object for creating renderers that return to the caller after the work has been issued. You can specify all the destination attributes of the renderer for different destinations, including a surface (IOSurface), Core Video pixel buffer (CVPixelBuffer), GL textures, Metal textures, and memory. 

• Added new Core Image filters CITextImageGenerator, CIColorCurves, CILabDeltaE, CIBokehBlur, CIMinMaxRed, and CIBicubicScaleTransform.

• Extended the ReplayKit framework.

• Updated RPScreenRecorder for screen capture and back camera support.

Gee, I wonder if Apple has a f-ing plan after all?

A10X is overkill as a streamer, but yeah, seems its going to be doing much more than that pretty soon.

Apple keeps things pretty close to the vest and likely has some announcement planned in the future when all things are lined up.

If Apple has some big thing lined up for TV they sure are taking forever to get it to market. When the new TV was launched in 2014 Tim Cook said the future of TV was apps. The Watch presentation also focused on apps because that’s what Apple knows (see wwdc tagline: ‘center of the app universe’). But I think Apple execs are finding out with the Watch and TV that the future isn’t apps per se. With the Watch Apple seems totally focused on fitness and intelligent notifications. Apps are rarely discussed (unless they’re fitness focused). And with the TV the App Store is rarely mentioned; all you get is a developer on stage showing off some lame game that nobody is going to play. All the focus is on the TV ‘app’ which if done right is what tvOS should be.

foregoneconclusion said:

rogifan_new said: I don’t see what capability TV has that other streaming boxes don’t have other than an App Store that Apple rarely every talks about. I dunno maybe you can name all the great apps available on TV that make it worth $100 more.

Other streaming boxes don't have an A10X and 3GB of RAM. You don't think that makes a difference for streaming capability or quality? For example, does the Fire TV support 4 simultaneous streams within the same screen for the ESPN app? And if it does, would you expect it to work as well? And in terms of the App Store, does something like the Fire TV offer as many choices for apps that support streaming? Fire TV has apps, but obviously not a 1:1 ratio with ATV. 

I haven’t done a 1:1 comparison but the reviews I’ve read don’t mention Fire TV missing any major streaming apps. In nearly all of Apple’s other product lines they have a range of products at different price points. I think TV would be the perfect product to support the iPod model. There’s a market to go after here, especially if Apple plans on adding more original content to iTunes. TV isn’t the #1 steaming product and I think it’s price related. Add a cheaper chromecast style product for people who don’t need all the power of TV, people who don’t have 4K TVs and won’t be streaming 4K content, people who aren’t interested in games or sosphisticated apps. They just want a cheap(er) way to stream content from their TV.

foregoneconclusion said:

rogifan_new said:

Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.

4K TVs are used primarily for viewing content in 4K, right? So why are there so many different prices for 4K TVs? Different technology. Different capability. Different quality. As for Apple promoting gaming, it's pretty routine for them to have game companies do demos for iOS and ATV. Mario and Sky are two of the most recent "heavy hitter" types of presentations like that, and Apple is definitely paying to have those games be timed exclusives. 

I don’t see what capability TV has that other streaming boxes don’t have other than an App Store that Apple rarely every talks about. I dunno maybe you can name all the great apps available on TV that make it worth $100 more.

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

foregoneconclusion said:

tipoo said:

I'm with Gruber here, it's nice, but is it enough to justify 170 vs just 70 for a streamer like the Fire TV with 4K/HDR. 

What would make it worth it for me is if they started funding games, maybe even making them internally, that took advantage of its actively cooled A10X, rather than the usual low graphics iOS games making it over to the ATV. Then, another 100 bucks over the Fire TV for a nifty microconsole might be worth it. 

I also think lack of mode switching and trying to stretch colour spaces is a mistake, as per Nilays review. 

Why does one Blu-Ray player cost $70 and the other $170? Why does one set of headphones cost $70 and the other costs $170? People are making a big deal about a pricing issue that is seen ALL THE TIME in the electronics market. Fire TV does not actually provide hardware that is as good or software access that is as good. The functionality is not even close to being as varied as the ATV. Charging a premium for that is not unique to Apple specifically or electronics in general. 

Who cares how good the hardware is when the device is being used as a streaming media player. I don’t think I need an A10X chip to stream Netflix. I’m highly skeptical many people are using TV to play games otherwise Apple would be promoting game play a lot more and probably would even have their own game controller by now.

Go try one of those Fire Sticks or Roku Sticks and try to watch 4k content.

or try using one of the streaming Live TV packages like Playstation Vue or Sling TV.

The extra horsepower in the A-chips make a huge difference.  Use a cheap stick and you get stuttering menu's and a crappy user experience.

You are using the same argument people use regarding buying a shitty $200 Android phone versus an iPhone.

On paper they sound like a good idea. But try living with those crappy streamers for a week.

Well a lot of people are living with them and either think the trade off is worth the cheaper price or they’re not experiencing those issues. Apple is constantly crowing about Apple Watch being the best selling watch on the market. When is the last time Apple mentioned TV sales? They don’t because these cheaper options are winning out. And as you yourself said most people don’t have 4K TVs so the extra horsepowerto push 4K content doesn’t matter. 

I agree with Gruber. I think Apple TV is one area where Apple should be more competitive on pricing.

https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/cultural_insularity_and_apple_tv

But with Apple TV, I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in the Apple ecosystem — people who own MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones — who just don’t want to spend $200 for an Apple TV when they can get a Roku or Fire TV for a lot less. The primary selling point of an Apple TV over these devices is iTunes. I love iTunes — I’ve bought hundreds of movies and TV series from iTunes over the years, knowing full well these purchases would be locked to the Apple ecosystem. I feel like my loyalty to iTunes is being rewarded now that I can get 4K versions of the movies I’ve already bought without paying another dime. No one sent me Blu-ray versions of the many movies I purchased on DVDs back in the day.

But for people who don’t buy movies from iTunes — and generally don’t buy movies period, choosing only to stream from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Prime, etc. (and/or to assemble their home movie collection from copies that fall off trucks) — what does Apple TV offer to justify costing over twice as much? The computing power of the device and the popularity of iOS for gaming make Apple TV a decent casual gaming device, but it doesn’t ship with a gaming controller and even Apple describes Apple TV as a video platform first, gaming platform second.

I like Apple TV a lot, but I think Apple is ceding marketshare by not having a box that competes on price. I think there are a lot of people who look at iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks and see them as “expensive but worth it” but who look at Apple TV and see it as “ridiculously overpriced”.