Apple Unveils a More Powerful Apple TV
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I did try out the Plex app that runs on the Amazon Fire box (Android), but it was slow and didn't feel very nice. Not sure if that's because it's a different, less-optimized codebase, or the Fire is just underpowered.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone was able to use the SDK to write a XBMC-like app.
You can license movies from creators in ways other than the general release, and I have worked with content obtained this way in auditorium film screenings. You definitely wouldn't use an Apple TV for that, though, you use high-end rackmount DVD/Blu-Ray players, HDCP media servers, or specialized cue playback software so that the audience doesn't see you fumbling with controls - they're on a dedicated interface. Granted there are scenarios other than public exhibition, but if it's for consumption in your living room then it's pretty much by definition general release.
Apple is one of the first movers in killing physical media. At this point I don't think you can even buy a Mac with a built-in DVD drive; facilitating playback of ripped DVDs would be pretty low on the priority list.
Closest thing I can anticipate would be a way to play videos from your Photos library - intended for the ones you shot on your iPhone. It would probably be possible to import an unencumbered video file there, and stream it across your house with Home Sharing, which has been built into the iLife suite for a few years.
Yeah, you still can. But probably for not much longer. Your overall point is quite valid. http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/
If Apple doesn't allow this, I'm not buying an Apple TV.
Uhm what? I know the studios are doing their best, but fortunetly non-DRMed video isn't illegal yet. Ripping your own dvd, recording from tv, public domain or cc licensed footage, buying from independent distributors or the authors themselves, video blogs, conference recordings and learning material etc.
Tell me with a straight face that Apple gives a shit about DVDs.
>recording from tv
Fumbling around with capture cards is roughly the opposite of the Apple TV's ethos.
>public domain or cc licensed footage, public domain or cc licensed footage, buying from independent distributors or the authors themselves, video blogs, buying learning material etc.
Vimeo is already a pretty polished UX for most of the independent film use cases. Offline is a concern on mobile devices but not really relevant to the Apple TV.
Also, let's be realistic here, people aren't watching public domain content on their couches day in and day out, they're watching big-name TV shows.
If I got videos from a kickstarter?
If I make videos myself and want to show them to friends?
Are stand up comedy fans, kickstarterers, and film creators not part of Apple's target market?
They are, but only if they buy/sell on iTunes.
Someone correct me if this is no longer true, or if I misunderstood it from the DeCSS days.
the limitations aren't technical, they are overzealous UX and business limitations.
Apple TV has a difference audience, than XBMC and PLEX, which I doubt will manage to get. All in all it's not a very successful product so far, we'll see now.
Watching subtitled video is the main reason I have a Mac Mini plugged into my TV.
Plus the fact that some content is not readily available in my country, plus the fact that I must change format for huge load of media makes the entire thing a deal breaker.
I won't even start mentioning what XBMC can do that AppleTV can not because it's embarrassing.
I guess it depends on your definition of "successful". Apple TV has sold over 25 million units. http://recode.net/2015/01/27/apple-tv-hasnt-changed-in-years...
It seems casual games are the desired inroads to mainstream.
AppleTV has the biggest market share in streaming devices at around 40%...
You have a promising career ahead as an Apple analyst.
It's not like Apple has ever been late to a party (phones, anybody?) and redefined and entire already-saturated market.
Apple TV just.. doesn't.
Don't think "Apple TV," think "Apple bigass interactive application substrate."
"Apps...on your TV!" has been a promise on multiple platforms for a few years now and it seems like nobody really cares past the first couple of weeks they have the device.
Not-console-manufacturers have been trying to break into this market for ages by making a TV viewing device that also happens to be a casual gaming console (/app platform), but it seems that people who want gaming on their TVs buy gaming consoles, while people who want TV on their TV buy things that let them watch TV, and there isn't enough overlap between the two for One Grand Unified Device to capture the market. Microsoft really went hard-in on the married TV and gaming concept with the XBox One, and it's been a massive flop compared to the PS4 (with the PS4 outselling it 2:1).
I don't think it's an issue of "nobody's done it right yet" - I think it's actually two separate markets and attempts to marry them just can't force those two markets to both want the same thing.
Every "Smart TV" has garbage software features. Some become completely unusable during the hour it takes them to download and install weekly updates.
Apple creates new markets by switching the equation from 90% hardware/10% software focus to 70% software/30% hardware focus.
As for the xbone, that's more of a marketing/positioning argument. Just because a game console can be a home media center doesn't mean people will buy it for one. xbones are for teenagers who want to be racist over their headset connections online.
There's a very good argument to be made that the reason nobody wants "apps" on their TV is because the experience can be charitably described as utter shit.
Smart TV's are known for awful UI's with awful lag, high end consoles such as the Xbox One stutter and hitch on their simplistic home screens, experiments such as Google TV have failed for the same reason, set-top boxes from outfits like DirecTV have the same problem, lag, lag, and more freaking lag.
If anyone can put a decent user experience on this whole idea, it's Apple. After this, expect the rest of the market to shape up quickly.
I do hope Google was taking some notes during this keynote. Siri's interaction in Apple TV is far superior than Android TV's Google Now integration. Hopefully that changes with the work in contextual awareness they've been doing and Now on Tap in Android 6.
Sometimes being familiar with features prevents people from realizing that most people can't use them, or that they're not well implemented.
To put it another way, people who have 4k TVs today - the luxury market - may be put off of the new Apple TV because of its lack of support for their higher-end devices. I'm not sure that's a desirable effect.
Apple's brand image is "luxury"
Ultimately, it'd presumably add cost for a feature useful to few people. Connectivity for 4k also remains a mess; there's HDMI 1.4 (24hz at 4k, so not good enough; the interface presumably runs at 60fps like all other Apple interfaces), and HDMI 2.0, which does support 60hz at 4k, but which is somewhat rare, and has its own problems: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world...
I expect in a couple of years when 4k TVs are more common, content exists for them in significant amounts, and the connector standard (possibly HDMI 2.0a?) is sorted out, they'll support it.
That puts 4K squarely in the "middle class" market, if you ask me, and if Apple TV doesn't support it, that means they aren't even targeting middle class. They are basically targeting poor people with an expensive luxury item that can run apps (half of which, like Netflix and Hulu, already run on most users' smart TVs). Their marketing strategy is borderline nonsensical.
Of course, some rich people are racing-car enthusiasts, or audiophiles, or whatever else—and it seems to be more common in the high-end, simply because more of the rich can afford to actually get these things when they want them. But that doesn't mean that the desire is a rich-people thing, or that making something super-duper-high-numbered will make it sell more to the rich.
(Of course, if you give the thing a super-duper-high-numbered price tag, you might inspire some rich people to get it as a Veblen good, which can often look like a desire for the bleeding-edge. You'll frequently find things purchased in this way being underutilized—4K "Veblen TVs" purchased in order to watch 480p Seinfeld re-runs and so on.)
You can buy a 50 inch 4K TV nowadays for under $1,000. 4K is going to explode in the next year or two, and if the new Apple TV doesn't support it, I won't be buying it. Period.
They are going to miss the boat if 4k explodes this black friday.
At which time they will no doubt support it. Right now it'd be an extra expense of use to very few users, and they'd have to deal with the connectivity problem.
Is that brief standing-too-close moment worth the massive increase in bandwidth required?
The only reason you can't tell the difference is because you are probably watching 1080p content that is being upscaled.
Watch TRUE 4K content on a 65+ inch television, and it's like looking through window. It's amazing.
4K TV's aren't going to "explode", they are going to continue to be a slow trickle.
http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/articles/15-years-after-launc...
Similar as pushing 2k/4k screens to mobile phones - marketing and sales.
>60" TVs are a thing, but they're a serious niche, especially outside the U.S., where homes tend to be smaller. Apple would simply be adding cost to work for the tiny amount of the market who both want a really huge TV, and happen to have gotten a 4k one, and they'd probably have to release a hardware revision or so anyway in a year or so she the connectivity issues around 4k resolve themselves.
I mean, aren't they are supposed to be releasing cutting edge technology here? Why are they releasing a set top Apple TV that can't even display the content that the new iPhone and iPad can CREATE and edit?
I want to be able to record 4K videos on my iPhone, then turn around and play them on my 4K TV, without having to leave the Apple ecosystem.
It is a huge, glaring flaw in their ecosystem if I can't do that.
I'm not saying this a valid excuse for omitting 4K support. However, for the most part I don't think the infrastructure is really there for the wider population. I live out in the sticks and barely get 3Mbps.
Perhaps we might see 4K come to the Apple TV next year either as a software upgrade on current hardware or with better GPU/CPU to support it.
Probably a chicken and egg problem, why upgrade to fibre many people will think when you have no need for it apart from slightly faster large file downloads
That said, 25Mb/s is at the lower end of the FTTC service. I can imagine a lot of households will max out at around 40Mbps due to distance from the cabinet and cross-talk on busy lines (though vectoring should help somewhat). I would like to see what G.FAST can deliver but unshielded copper phone lines can only take you so far.
Simple step by step tutorial allows you to load Kodi from FireTV through any app icon.
doesn't really bring anything new to the table. It
might be best of breed in terms of polish and features
It is. That's exactly how Apple revolutionizes anything - by making it fun, and natural, to use. Just like tablets, mp3 players, and smartphones existed before Apple got into them.
This is what they do, it's what they always do, and yet people are surprised by it every time.
What they didn't look at was how great the UI was, how well it integrated with their Mac (and eventually PC) and how much better the same features that already existed elsewhere were.
I believe the same rules apply here. And the app store will be the best in town. Again.
The fact that most of HN seems to hate or deride these features (like the Live Photos thing) tells me that they'll likely be a huge success and all be using them in a year.
If the fact that gifv videos are already everywhere (Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, Vine-sorta-kinda) didn't tip you off. It seems like people are starting to think of short, usually-silent, looped videos as just what you take to preserve a moment, instead of a photo.
Tech-savvy crowds are often the worst arbiters of taste, certainly the worst predictors of it.
Form and function are one.
I mean, you said it's identical...
I was really hoping to hear about a deal with ESPN to bring ESPN directly to viewers without a cable subscription.
If they ever offered an individual subscriber deal they sure as hell wouldn't do it for $6.50 per sub per month.
That's always kind of been Apple's thing, though. The controller does look somewhat original.
> What happened to Apple revolutionizing the way people pay for/consume content?
I suspect that the content providers looked carefully at what happened to the music industry when they played ball with Apple (especially the unilateral killing of DRM on iTunes; the last holdouts were supposedly told to drop the DRM or be kicked off) and decide that they don't want any of that, thank you very much.
edit: While everyone here seems to disagree, many indie devs have been waiting for this for a while. It will essentially be the biggest indie console market. Ouya was unproven hardware and lackluster adoption. Innovation wise, sure, there's nothing new here in hardware nor software. But in terms of form factor, dev kits, and market, this will be very different.
Not really. The Wii has had this stuff for a long time, and for a more direct comparison, so has the Roku 3. Neither has changed the world, and while Apple has a greater chance of doing so, success is far from assured.
In any case, it wasn't what I was referring to. I'm referring to the idea of bringing the iOS marketplace to the big screen. It's the most adopted marketplace of both users and developers and while there isn't much to show for it now on the Apple TV I think time will bring many options of entertainment.
Does it really? I think the failure of greatly hyped consoles like the Ooya have demonstrated that there isn't actually much of a market for this. Hardcore gamers already have fully-powered systems. Casual gamers don't care about playing on their TV.
I'm looking forward to getting my phone back.
Apple TV brings a different form factor to a marketplace that is already successful, just like the iPad did to the iPhone.
Is that really true though? Seems like an under serviced market to me.
Wii Sports says otherwise.
All the fun things are on PC, not because of hardware, but because of openness of the ecosystem. You just cannot innovate in the self censorship environment of a walled garden.
Perhaps a lot of what Apple showed off is already developed into Now on Tap (part of Android 6).
Hard to know, though. Haven't seen any android blogs report on it.
Edit: I'm also incredibly infuriated that Netflix works in Apple's Universal Search but not Google's. That is infuriating.
This seems counterintuitive to me -- you'd think Apple has an incentive to push people toward iTunes instead of Netflix, but I can't figure out why Google would want to obscure that content.
* Universal Search (nope)
* Recommended to Watch (nope)
* Using your phone as a keyboard (LOL NOPE GOOD LUCK WITH THAT PASSWORD BRO)
Their app doesn't have ads, thank god, so I'm trying to figure out what the motivation would be. Is it just trying to get people to watch Netflix content they wouldn't have otherwise seen?
If they just become a cog in a larger search wheel then you'll just go directly to the one show you want to watch.
* Universal Search - which they're doing with everything else - the user is trying to find a very specific content.
* Recommended Shows - the user is looking for things to Watch
Netflix could easily plug into both of these to capture the user - but they plug into neither and instead opt to create a suboptimal flow for the user.
What they're doing here is that, when on Android I search for a Show I never see a "Watch on Netflix" button.
And there's never interesting movies to watch on Netflix highlighted on my homescreen.
They're not doing themselves any favors by NOT having this functionality.
I suspect they are - their catalogue is strong enough (and paid for) that people will seek out the app when they realise it is not included in the recommended watching list.
Their strength these days is not their catalog size, which is constantly shrinking, but their original programming.
Which is exactly the type of stuff they should be surfacing in the OS itself - as it's what makes people stay with Netflix.
Yeah, that's a good way to say it. It just seems as they don't even believe in their products themselves, whom they're for and how/if they'll maintain it. They're great at making "tech demos" (for IO specifically), but products? Nope, sorry.
Also upcoming public awareness about ads/tracking and how to block them might bring significant changes in their revenue success.
But you're 100% right. The user experience for glass and google fi have both been pretty horrible. They don't even have a mechanism to receive feedback, yet they are purporting that I am "beta testing" for them.
I have a feeling when they want to know whats good or bad at about a product, they look 95% at a database.
The Roku is in a unique spot: it's got a channel store, so it can be expanded easily, and it can be operated with only a TV (no phone or tablet required), but isn't to the point where it can run full apps. It'll be interesting to see what happens, given the Fire TV (excluding the stick, which is closer to a Roku) and current iterations of the Android TV have been sales disappointments.
I think Google was forced to give up on AndroidTV and just expects people to buy the Nexus Player for $69. Considering how much better the Nexus experience is on phones compared to the skinned Android versions, in the end, I think this is probably the better move. Especially when I can just unplug it and move it to a different TV. I don't want my TV buying choices to be limited to whatever model supports Android TV.
Not to mention, the low end is probably dominated by the Chromecast. I have two, they're great. I don't need yet another box or remote in my life. I just want TV's with Chromecast (or a cross platform equivalent built-in). I don't need more smart devices. In fact, I need less. The internet of things is greatly over-rated.
This post cord-cutting TV world is pretty awful. I don't want to have to download an app for every video provider, if they even have one for my platform at all.
They aren't. The idea is to get you using one and then make money from that usage.
Until you can ask Siri to buy you laundry detergent in your next subscribe-and-save order, Amazon wants to own whatever you use instead of Siri.
1. I can’t search across both Netflix and Amazon Instant Video, instead I have to search both one after the other.
2. I like how you can ask Siri “what was that?” or “what did they say?”. I’ve been watching House of Cards and found myself asking that question quite a bit. On Fire TV, this involves rewinding, turning on subtitles, catching the missing text and at last turning subtitles back off again. Such a chore! I really like how Apple solved this problem. I have yet to see a similar feature in Fire TV.
Regardless, the new TV just bought has netflix etc. and controls stereo cia CEC. Stereo supports airplay, so I expect in future my bar to buying another box is very high. Asking Siri does sound convenient, but not sure worth it to have yet anoyher device to deal with. Wife is exceedingly happy to have one remote that "just works" compared to the mishmash of deviced I had prior to buying new stereo and "smart" tv that support CEC.
I've got a Chromecast and it works fine, for the streams it supports. But does AppleTV content justify the extra cost?
I've got the previous version of Apple TV and a Chromecast. Long story short, I use both devices exactly the same. The only differences really is how I communicate with each device - remote control for Apple TV vs phone/computer for Chromecast. The Apple TV does do streaming much smoother than casting from Chrome, and of course you can use any window, not just a website.
I think like most things though, it depends on the person. I'm a medical student, so it's not like I have free time to kill playing games on a new platform or discovering new shows.
Of course, the apps and games on the new Apple TV change the game entirely... if any of that interests you.
(The framerate drops occur when navigating the interface, not when viewing content.)
The nexus player is on par with the apple tv/maybe a bit better and is half the cost of the apple tv.
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Servic...
I get why they dropped it - newer amps have Bluetooth or HDMI through ports. But I'm happy with the old amp and standalone HDMI splitters are chunky and expensive. Any other options out there?
> NILAY PATEL 11:01:09 AM PDT > It will play day or night shots depending on time of day. Sure. > CASEY NEWTON 11:01:08 AM PDT > "People are clapping for screensavers." -Walt Mossberg
And a TV remote without a power button?! That's bold.
"For what it's worth, this UI looks way more intuitive than the nightmare rodeo of the XBOX One or PS 4."
"You can quick rewind 15 seconds by asking "what did she say?" That's pretty cool."
"Pretty damned impressive.".
See what I did there?
I'm not sure about others but I hate using my phone as a remote: grabbing it, unlocking it, launching the remote app. And then having to think about its battery level (especially if using AirPlay). It's nice when you're in a tight spot (have to enter a sensitive password in front of friends, need to AirPlay a quick video), but a phone is horrible as a general purpose remote.
Natively the Apple TV (currently, don't know the new model) supports H.264, MPEG4, and MJPEG - all of which are trivially supported by actual chipsets.
Matroska/Ogg/Avi aren't as well supported (or well used, tbh.. other than Avi which is a container anyhow)
What I'm really curious about is if there will be any support for pairing multiple remotes. There could be a lot of Wii Sports knockoffs popping up that would want to take advantage of that...
Not to mention hooking my television up to the internet means I'll be getting ads from the software (Hulu, broadcast commercials) AND the hardware. No thanks.
The TV works much better as a dumb TV, so I just use a Chromecast and Blu Ray player instead. When those get too dated, they'll be cheap enough to replace.
My coworker uses a Roku despite the Plex app on his tv, apparently that's pretty clunky.
This is especially true if the gaming aspect takes off; a 150$ box that is refreshed every year or so looks more attractive than something built into your 600$ TV that is supposed to be replaced every 15 years.
EDIT: I've worked a bunch with bluetooth on iOS and I'm not super confident in it. IR anyday for me.
At work we have a bunch of apple tvs hooked up to presentation tvs/projectors and we all just use the hdmi cable to the screen directly. I do not trust Apple to have their wireless issues sorted out this time.
The physical audience was muted and Eddie Cue took the piss immediately afterwards.
Pundits are out in force suggesting that the new Apple TV is going to somehow put traditional game consoles out of business, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional console market and the difference between console games and casual gamers.
The iPhone and iPad has massively grown the casual gaming market, bringing whole new demographics into gaming, and it has disrupted the handheld gaming market, but it has not done so at the expense of console gaming. The core defining characteristic of casual gamers is the ability to get into, and out of a game quickly. They consume games in small bitesize pieces, waiting in line, in downtime between other activities, not in multi-hour binges. Being mobile helps this mode of consumption, because your mood for gaming can arise in many circumstances, and you can instantly satiate it on your mobile phone, without having to arrange TV time or disturb someone else.
By contrast, TV console gaming has a high transaction cost. You have to travel to your living room, turn on the TV, find the controllers, boot up the game, make sure no one else wants to use the TV for other purposes, etc. Moreover, console games are designed more as a TV experience, for someone to play 30, 60, 120, even 240 minutes at a time.
The new Apple TV, from it's leaked specs, is essentially a casual gaming machine hooked up to a TV. This might spell trouble for the Nintendo Wii, but Sony and Microsoft?
The Apple HW is no where close to current generation console level specs, and anyone creating content for it will be faced with casual gamer price expectations. How many publishers will want to spend tens of millions of dollars on triple-A titles and sell them in the app store? That would be like Marvel selling their next movie for 99 cents. Is EA going to put out a $1.99 version of StarWars Battlefront? They're not going to get console ports or exclusives of current games until they've exhausted the markets on other platforms.
So, without content to draw the people who want a 2 hour immersive gaming experience, they won't get console gamers. But what of casual gamers?
How many people will exchange the convenience of playing Angry Birds on their phone with playing it on their TV? My guess is, people have moved on from wanting to sit in front of their TV and that casual gamers are mostly mobile gamers.
I don't think this product fits either market very well, and the primary use case of it will remain video streaming, of which is is much more expensive (and less capable, no 4k streaming) than cheaper streamers already on the market.
There's a lot of potential for midrange semi-casual console oriented games like Rocket League or Starwhal here, and realistically, a surprising number of consoles are used mostly for that type of game.
I think there's also some long-term potential to hit the triple-A market, particularly if the console vendors keep up their current ~7 year refresh cycle. This is obviously a lot less powerful than current-gen consoles, it triple-As are still big sellers for last-gen consoles, and the gap will close as Apple refreshes this every year or so. It's far cheaper than a console, and also smaller and presumably silent. I think it'll find a place.
Sure, some games work well on the interface. But those games are exactly the games I don't want on a TV. Do I really want to play Papers Please on a TV with a tiny touch pad controller remote as opposed to on my lap?
This is too much of a compromise system that sucks at both ends of the spectrum. It's not as good as the iPad for touch games, and it's not as good at consoles at FPS, Strategy, Fighters, etc.
Are people really looking for a niche console inbetween?
There are plenty of iOS compatible controllers already available which presumably will work with this out of the box.
I see this as being potentially huge for people who want to play some console-y games but don't want to spend 400$ On a large noisy box. Also, it could potentially be big for indie devs who want to write console-y games; the current consoles are still not terribly indie-friendly, and in practice most popular indie console games started life as PC games.
That was a pretty clever idea by Nintendo.
Smartphones have already stolen away the casual gamer. The people playing call of duty and final fantasy are not the people who will be wowed by the apple TV.
If you look at sales data for the Wii, there is a ton of people who bought a Wii, which game with Wii sport and then bought very few games. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video...)
This will simply solidify that casual market into iPhone and Android apps. Consoles have nothing to fear IMO.
The old PS2 GTA titles had to be remastered for the iPhone and run fine on an iPhone 4.
I for one am sick of slow level loading and endless patches; every time I play on a console I want to throw something through the screen. And I've yet to see a single compelling PS4/XB1 title come out (I have high hopes for No Man's Sky).
For triple-A studios, the current-gen console hardware will likely always be a draw, though I'm sure this will get rereleases of old stuff, and possibly a downgraded version of new games (I suspect it isn't _that_ far from a Wii U, performance-wise).