PhoncipleBone
Banned
Possibly transcodes on the phone. I have 1080p videos shot on my phone that I AirPlay to my AppleTV 2 that is only 720p without issue.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple TV |OT|
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
3) SoC supply constraints.
They're more interested in putting the high-powered chips necessary into their iPhones, because who knows how the Apple TV will sell.
This is all without factoring in iTunes Store content still being at 1080p. When the content from Apple is there, the hardware will be, too. It was the same situation with the 1080p ATV upgrade following the upgrade of iTunes Store video content from 720p to 1080p (which, side note, was fucking awesome, because you got the 1080p video upgrade if you wanted it if you bought the show at 720p), and I can't imagine this being any different.
And 4K content is going to be a longer ways away, since Apple has to content with ISP caps before that becomes something that they can do in any meaningfully reasonable way.
Universal search api confirmed: http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/03/tim-cook-apple-tv-universal-search
show me your skeleton
Member
so let's say i was going to abandon the rather clunky, pretty awful WDTV, would the glorious apple tv do what i need it to do, which is simply play files from a removable USB hard drive? i'm guessing not. what would i be doing to play my films and things? in other words, what is the usual apple tv setup/use?
Chittagong
Gold Member
So when is this thing up for order? I was somehow under the impression it was going to ship this month
No. You'd need to use something like plex to stream over your network.
badcrumble
Member
The A7 can handle 4K streaming, so the A8 definitely can (and the A9X can edit multiple 4K streams, obviously). The fact that it's an A8 instead of an A9 is definitely explained by sending all of the A9 demand to iPhones and ipad pros, but that doesn't explain the lack of 4K.
I think the hypothesis of shaving a buck off the cost by going with cheaper HDMI makes more sense. That, and iTunes doesn't support 4K yet (nor AirPlay).
We'll probably see 4K support in the next model, since (if they aren't altering the remote) UHD (and, I suppose, Hey Siri support in the base and WiFi broadcast) is the most obvious upgrade path for the Apple TV.
layzie1989
Member
Can someone help me with some questions I have? I'm thinking about getting an iPhone, but my decision is heavily based on my ability to stream video to my tv. Right now I have an android phone and a chromecast, but if I get an iPhone I'll probably end up getting an Apple TV. On android, if you're watching a video on the web, say a Hulu or Comedy Central embed, YouTube, or an MP4 in the web player in chrome, the chromecast icon will show up on the player and I'll be able to press it and send it to my tv. Is this how AirPlay works with iOS for web video? Also, how do apps like Hulu/Comedy Central/ESPN/HBO go work? Can I send video to the Apple TV from the app on the phone, or am I forced to use the apps on the Apple TV? Also, how reliable is AirPlay mirroring? Right now streaming my screen to my chromecast is spotty stutter-wise and the audio goes out of sync.
Thanks! Anyone's experiences are greatly appreciated.
Thanks! Anyone's experiences are greatly appreciated.
AirPlay is, for the most part, 1 to 1 screen mirroring. It's different than casting. With an Apple TV, you're supposed to use the native apps, and only default to AirPlay when a native app isn't available. When you AirPlay, your iPhone becomes basically useless.
That said, you don't need an Android phone to use the Chromecast. It works the same on an iPhone. So, you can get an iPhone and keep using your Chromecast if you want.
infiniteloop
Member
Yeah, pretty much.
You can turn on AirPlay from Control centre and send just about any video/audio to Apple TV. If you have an Apple TV, might be easier to use that imo.
AirPlay quality is great, i use it all the time for movies from Plex, even mirror games from the iPhone to the Apple TV.
This is not true. You can do 1-1 mirroring, but for video/audio you can send it over to the Apple TV and continue to use the device. I do it all the time with Plex.
badcrumble
Member
AirPlay mirroring from iOS is great and AirPlay mirroring from Mac OS X is not so great.
The A8 actually has HEVC already though; that is what's used for the upgraded FaceTime in the iPhone 6. So unless it's gimped in some unknown way, decoding isn't the issue here.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8554/the-iphone-6-review/2
How are Vudu, Netflix, Amazon, Sony, and others able to offer 4k then? Do they not have to contend with the same caps?
But your first point rings true. Why offer a feature your competitors have that you don't, regardless of whether it's beneficial to your customers? As you said they've already played this game before.
badcrumble
Member
Honestly I think Apple's IP contracts are so fucking huge that renegotiating them for things like the upcoming subscription service or major iTunes changes has to be an absolutely gargantuan legal endeavor in a way it isn't for their more specialized competitors.
iTunes 4K will happen, and with it will come hardware support. But not until around the same time.
show me your skeleton
Member
blehhhh.
holygeesus
Banned
I notice they have put a price on the US store (starting at $149!!!) but not on the UK. Given the comparatively low price, of Amazon's new player it will be competing against, it will be interesting to see what it launches at.
I was hoping for <£100 but it's not looking good. I want one for Apple Music and the general integration with my other Apple products, but not if the price is too high.
I was hoping for <£100 but it's not looking good. I want one for Apple Music and the general integration with my other Apple products, but not if the price is too high.
Pops Maellard
Member
I'm not really understanding the 4K criticisms here; presumably even most of GAF is still using a 1080p. This is a tiny media streaming device that even at Apple prices isn't insanely expensive. What doesn't make sense about buying it now, using it for a few years and then upgrading when you inevitably buy a better TV?
Because they don't honestly give a flying fuck about what type of internet service a customer has to the same extent?
But to break it down:
Vudu and Netflix don't have to field customer service calls about the device they're watching their service on siphoning all their available data in their data cap.
Amazon, Sony, etc. need that extra bullet point to contend with Apple, even if a fraction of users would benefit from it.
Meanwhile, Apple can get CS calls about iPhones for obvious carrier and app-specific issues that have nothing to do with them. As they are still the leader in this product category, Apple is the one with an actual obligation to address the situation.
Hell, I'm still using a 720p TV. The market's moving too fast for me.
Sir Abacus
Member
No it isn't. When you send anything other than locally stored video to Airplay it sends the HTTP location to the Apple TV and it starts streaming the video on its own.
eh, I am buying the thing day one and even I can tell you. Basically I've had my ATV3 for going on 4 years and kicking ass like a champ. This thing looks almost just as great, EXCEPT that right out of the gate I know I'll have to upgrade probably sooner than later to add 4K. I've been talking with a buddy about the possibility of just doing 4K30 over 1.4, and we agree that it's unlikely with lacking HDR and HDCP2. So basically if you want this now, and you want 4K later, you'll be buying two devices, no way around it.
yeah, I've noticed this as well. I am guessing it has a lot to do with the A-series' GPU being way better at transcoding the iOS display than Intel transcoding OS X... We have up to... umm.. HD4600(?) at home (will have to double check the wife's MBA model) and yeah it gets pretty stuttery. Interestingly on my Hackintosh, I have the HD4600 chip turned off so EVERYTHING goes through my 770Ti.. it is very sporadic in working with AirPlay (I'll take it, considering it's not supposed to work AT ALL), but when it does work it's seemingly 60fps (even gaming)
But yeah, mirroring is arguably the least useful/cool part of AirPlay. Casting from supported software (ESPECIALLY video streams on both OS X and iOS) is by far the best part. It was chromecast long before chromecast existed.
Why are people here so hung up on 4K? Apple doesn't rush into increasing a stat like that until it represents few compromises and lots of value:
Value 4K currently offers:
* could play iPhone 6s videos for the vanishing minority who enable 4K shooting
* could play some of the teeny tiny amount of content that is available in 4K (but not all, because rights)
Compromises:
* instead of the A8 representing a phenomenally snappy UI with plenty of CPU/GPU/memory resources, everything would be much more resources-constrained and slower. Marketable features that make the system easier to use would have to be cut. Future features like split screen app usage may become impossible
* customer confusion about what's 4K and what isn't, resulting in a spike of returns and consumer support time (super slow buffering, people with the wrong TV, people who burn through their data caps, people upset that there is so little 4K content)
* a fresh round of negotiations with all the movie/TV companies to secure content at 4K, at a moment when Apple is trying to get them to focus on an IP TV cable package (additionally, if Apple is able to be a superior carrier of content to cable boxes, Universal and others would probably bail on it out of fear it'd cannabilize their cable business faster)
* games would look like garbage, because 4K would take a ton of resources and scaling wouldn't be allowed (just like it'sI don't thinknot on iOS), because any res-switching would fuck up global UI elements like Siri
* games would demand even huger texture budgets, and the App Store isn't currently set up to handle a bunch of >40GB apps
* AirPlay mirroring probably wouldn't work at 4K on any or many existing devices, further confusing customers
* production costs would go up
I mean, why would Apple do this? They have almost nothing to win by coming out in front and leading the way in 4K video content. It made sense for them to do a 5K iMac, because they controlled the entire experience and could ensure everything would be worth the expense when you're working in OS X. Until there's a bunch of content, a bunch of TVs, faster ISPs, and new codecs for minimizing the speed/buffering hit, it just makes zero sense.
Value 4K currently offers:
* could play iPhone 6s videos for the vanishing minority who enable 4K shooting
* could play some of the teeny tiny amount of content that is available in 4K (but not all, because rights)
Compromises:
* instead of the A8 representing a phenomenally snappy UI with plenty of CPU/GPU/memory resources, everything would be much more resources-constrained and slower. Marketable features that make the system easier to use would have to be cut. Future features like split screen app usage may become impossible
* customer confusion about what's 4K and what isn't, resulting in a spike of returns and consumer support time (super slow buffering, people with the wrong TV, people who burn through their data caps, people upset that there is so little 4K content)
* a fresh round of negotiations with all the movie/TV companies to secure content at 4K, at a moment when Apple is trying to get them to focus on an IP TV cable package (additionally, if Apple is able to be a superior carrier of content to cable boxes, Universal and others would probably bail on it out of fear it'd cannabilize their cable business faster)
* games would look like garbage, because 4K would take a ton of resources and scaling wouldn't be allowed (just like it'sI don't thinknot on iOS), because any res-switching would fuck up global UI elements like Siri
* games would demand even huger texture budgets, and the App Store isn't currently set up to handle a bunch of >40GB apps
* AirPlay mirroring probably wouldn't work at 4K on any or many existing devices, further confusing customers
* production costs would go up
I mean, why would Apple do this? They have almost nothing to win by coming out in front and leading the way in 4K video content. It made sense for them to do a 5K iMac, because they controlled the entire experience and could ensure everything would be worth the expense when you're working in OS X. Until there's a bunch of content, a bunch of TVs, faster ISPs, and new codecs for minimizing the speed/buffering hit, it just makes zero sense.
The usual way to do it for AppleTV is put everything in iTunes and turn on Home Sharing. I've ripped most of my DVD's/Blu-rays using MakeMKV/Handbrake and have them all in iTunes on my PC. Then on the AppleTV there's a Computers "channel" where any connected system with iTunes Hone Sharing turned on shows up, with all the video/music you have in iTunes.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Since moving to a laptop last year, I don't have a computer on all the time to act as the iTunes server. I just wish they would allow the AppleTV to find stuff on a connected HDD or on NAS without needing a computer.
Yeah I don't have my PC turned on all the time either. I've considered shelling out for a little home theater PC/Mac mini solely to be a 24/7 media server.
They're quick to dump ports people still use but incredibly slow to add new stuff. They deserve the criticism.
No date yet. Still "end of October".
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I have an old crappy Toshiba laptop that my wife had that runs Vista (ewwww), and am thinking of using that as a server. If not, I am thinking of going your route and getting a tiny lil HP Mini or something.
this is very common. iTunes Library on a NAS, a then the cheapest Mac Mini as the media server. On top of iTunes you can also use a transcoder then (something you can't do with a bare NAS) to quickly move stuff to a format that can be streamed right to the ATV.
And it seems to be working fantastically well for them and the vast majority of their customers. Everything is a trade-off, and the inability of internet forumgoers to recognize the costs of adding new things for newness' sake is frustrating.
Yeah, the removal of popular ports like USB really works out well for customers. Jesus.
I have a MacBook One and it's my all time favorite computer. I didn't need the USB port as much as I need as small and thin a laptop as humanly possible for all the traveling I do.
If your needs are different, they have products that will cater to you too.
badcrumble
Member
I remember people saying the same about SCSI.
It does seem short sighted given that the new fire TV and shield support 4K, and Amazon video and Netflix both have 4K content. They risk being left behind a little (unless they assume early adopters will just buy again in a years time)
badcrumble
Member
Not necessarily in a year's time, but in two or three years, sure. I think that's exactly their assumption.
I think the hardware revisions will be just fine. The Apple TV's biggest problem will be the same as that faced by the iPad and the Mac App Store: the iOS App Store doesn't sufficiently support the appropriate premium software business models, just ad-supported, SaaS/subscription, or in-app purchase driven business models. $50 software has no chance, and that's specifically the result of how Apple has structured the App Store.
The iPhone works well with these business models because it's something you generally pick up and put down frequently without necessarily being engrossed in it for uninterrupted hours (the main exceptions being content feeds, which are easily ad-supported). I suspect the Watch will be fine with that business model too (especially since Watch apps are explicitly features of iPhone apps). Smaller screens are more personal and more close-at-hand while not getting used for really long sessions; bigger screens demand longer use for productivity/creativity/gaming/content consumption, and the App Store simply doesn't support that.
I expect the AppleTV to be just fine for content consumption, same as the iPad is, but I don't expect to see a robust games market take off for it. I'd love to be wrong about that.
Marty Chinn
Member
The thing is, I don't think people want to be constantly upgrading these devices. A lot of the things they want them for aren't very performance intensive. People want to buy once and be done with it. Apple has been behind the times with these boxes, and they're going to still be behind in many respects with everyone shifting to 4K. To me, even if you don't have 4K right now, it's future proofing by having it at least capable. I can see if only TVs were out there they might skip it but with the leader in streaming video already supporting it and the fact that their own iPhone that just launched takes 4K video, it seems a bit short sighted and done purposely with the intention that they expect people to upgrade these boxes frequently. I mean if nobody is using 4K, why even let them shoot 4K video on the iPhone?
badcrumble
Member
'Everyone' is shifting to 4K? That's news to me.
It'll happen over the next several years and I expect Apple to be right in the middle of that change rather than leading it. *shrug* And upgrading every few years isn't upgrading 'constantly.'
I agree that 4K support would be very nice for future-proofing but the lack of it isn't a crisis. That future isn't here yet.
It'll happen over the next several years and I expect Apple to be right in the middle of that change rather than leading it. *shrug* And upgrading every few years isn't upgrading 'constantly.'
I agree that 4K support would be very nice for future-proofing but the lack of it isn't a crisis. That future isn't here yet.
show me your skeleton
Member
will itunes convert video files? i appreciate the fact that this is a pretty google-able question, haha.
I wouldn't consider it "quick" to dump a port that's been been around since the 1980s and available to users of Apple TV since the very first model in 2007 and waited until the market for receivers that actively use optical had essentially completely changed over to HDMI-based solutions being available.
4K has value for recording for the same reason high-res digital photography had value even during a time when displays were barely 1080p. More pixels meant more flexibility for editing purposes, and higher pixel density meant a pristine image being recorded for playback. Never mind that people are filming things on their iPhones that end up in independent films, and theatre projectors are 4K by necessity.
As for "future-proofing", by the time most people actually get around to buying 4K televisions, there will be other technologies that will come about that will obsolesce the ATV4 anyways. People will likely refresh their ATVs for those changes and features long before they have to switch them out for 4K functionality.
Remember, the average time people refresh their TV purchases is 7 years, and even 1080p screens don't have a 100% adoption rate in the market right now, while 4K displays price themselves out of mass adoption at their current price tags.
Apple is doing what it always does: make changes and add features only when the market is ready and capable to accept them on a mass scale.
And on another topic, 4K video has another issue: the current minefield that is royalty rates for H.265/HEVC.
Apple could instead do something downright unholy in the tech world and eventually opt to throw its weight behind a competing format like VP9/VP10, or do something even more drastic like make its own 4K video codec (perhaps in... *shudder* partnership with Samsung), giving them a large plurality of video playback devices that support the codec and offer it on a hardware decoding level, all while making it an open source royalty-free codec (or at the very least, cheaper than H.265), which would offer a distinct advantage over VP9/VP10 that Google can't offer to the same degree.
4K and the actual video standards are very close to being set in stone, but there seems to be a lot of pushback for H.265 because it's not yet as established as H.264 became and the royalty rates have become massively unappealing. John Carmack recently came out and said Oculus VR might not use H.265 because of all of this royalty mess. And he's undoubtedly not alone in those concerns. The extra dollars Netflix and Amazon will have to shunt into royalty payments for 4K video doesn't do good things to either of their pocketbooks.
So until the codec format is clearly defined with a winner, iPhone 6S using h.265 may just be a temporary stop-gap for folks who use iPhones in the indie film industry until the true codec to succeed H.264 shakes out of the tree. So to loop it back to your point, supporting 4K now doesn't actually "future-proof" anything until that is decided, anyways.
No, a tool like HandBrake will still be required to convert to M4V. Or use Plex to play them back.
show me your skeleton
Member
well! this all seems like a hassle/entirely designed for someone deeply entrenched in the itunes ecosystem. hmmpf, really wanted a shiny new piece of tech.
infiniteloop
Member
Plex plz
Interesting. Seems Amazon isn't even confident that 4K will be a distinguishing factor, since it's pulling their major competitors off of Amazon, citing "consumer confusion" because they can't play Amazon Instant Video content, just like the previous models couldn't for about 2 years. Hmmmm...
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/amazon-apple-tv-chromecast/
And with Chromecast being one of the removed devices, a device which Google does not throw limitations upon that would prevent the app from existing anyways, it's clearly a move to shuffle the competition out of the picture.
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/amazon-apple-tv-chromecast/
And with Chromecast being one of the removed devices, a device which Google does not throw limitations upon that would prevent the app from existing anyways, it's clearly a move to shuffle the competition out of the picture.
So is the new Apple TV now going to be able to access iTunes libraries on its own?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that until now you weren't able to stream movies directly from an AirPort Time Capsule via iTunes. Instead you had to have a Mac or iOS device running that would play those files and then stream that to the Apple TV. A bit inefficient. Although I guess there are third party solutions for this, but I would actually prefer iTunes for this.
Also help me out here, this problem can be resolved with the right Apple TV and does not require a new AirPort revision, correct?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that until now you weren't able to stream movies directly from an AirPort Time Capsule via iTunes. Instead you had to have a Mac or iOS device running that would play those files and then stream that to the Apple TV. A bit inefficient. Although I guess there are third party solutions for this, but I would actually prefer iTunes for this.
Also help me out here, this problem can be resolved with the right Apple TV and does not require a new AirPort revision, correct?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Still wondering this myself, or at least any nas drive.