|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 10, 2015 15:35:50 GMT -5
I stream Netflix and Amazon through my Sony BRD player, I only use Apple TV for MLB.TV and I only use Roku for Acorn. I'm strange, I know.  I was surprised that my Oppo only has Netflix |
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Sept 10, 2015 15:43:10 GMT -5
That's an interesting feature, not that it's that hard to hit rewind. When you ask Siri to rewind and replay the scene, AppleTV will temporarily show the subtitles on the screen. So you get to hear and/or read the dialog you missed the first time. I believe the reason for this is because: - the vast majority of AppleTV users do not have 4K TV's (yet) and streaming providers are just now starting to offer 4K service.
- ISP are starting to clamp down on bandwidth (which 4K streaming uses quite a bit of). While 4K streaming is a major thing in circles of AV people like us, for most of the users they don't care.
- Let's not forget Apple is still working on their own broadcasting service and they don't have 4K content in iTunes.
- And in this day and age, a piece of technology the size of a hockey puck that costs $150 is seen as a throw away device. I'm guessing most people who purchase the new AppleTV will happily purchase a new generation of the device in 2 years when Apple offers 4K content, more streaming providers have 4K content, and Apple possibly introduces their broadcasting service, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 10, 2015 16:19:13 GMT -5
I believe the reason for this is because: - the vast majority of AppleTV users do not have 4K TV's (yet) and streaming providers are just now starting to offer 4K service.
- ISP are starting to clamp down on bandwidth (which 4K streaming uses quite a bit of). While 4K streaming is a major thing in circles of AV people like us, for most of the users they don't care.
- Let's not forget Apple is still working on their own broadcasting service and they don't have 4K content in iTunes.
- And in this day and age, a piece of technology the size of a hockey puck that costs $150 is seen as a throw away device. I'm guessing most people who purchase the new AppleTV will happily purchase a new generation of the device in 2 years when Apple offers 4K content, more streaming providers have 4K content, and Apple possibly introduces their broadcasting service, etc.
The problem with that thinking is that they miss out on all people having a 4K TV, where a 4K capable Apple TV would also work for people without a 4K TV. I pretty sure that normal people who are not that much into AV are much more interested in 4K than you think but they are not much interested in the ever increasing number of surround channel, Atmos, etc. The sales stats pretty much support that, where 4K sets are selling pretty well and so are soundbars, etc, where surround systems are selling less, at least here in Europe. As for bandwidth restrictions, that seems to be US problem, where we see the opposite in Europe, South Korea, Japan and many other places. Apple do not have any 4K services yet. Again a mistake, same like not providing CD quality in iTunes and their streaming service. |
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Sept 10, 2015 17:30:55 GMT -5
Their $149 and $199 price points are too high as other similar devices are $99 or less. I'm also not sure why they didn't simply supply a USB 3.0 and or ESATA port and forgo the internal storage options... seems silly if you can't use Plex or Kodi (XMBC) to stream content from a NAS or other local repository. Is that fancy remote really necessary? If apps are their future direction for TV, they should reduce the price and supply an app for control purposes...
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 10, 2015 18:05:02 GMT -5
I think the $99 price for the previous model was a good buy, without the App Store. For $149 you now have another platform for developers, and we've seen that Apple devices attract the most and best Apps. So comparisons to other devices aren't totally relevant, though it will be interesting to see what types of Apps will drive you buying the higher memory model. Will it be so you can download before you play, instead of streaming live? Or will there be games or other Apps that need more space? As for UHD, I personally will not likely be able to stream it any time in the near future, I'm topped out at 6Mbps steady, with 10M bursts. Maybe with a day of downloading before playing (or when Dish offers something). Here though I think cost is the reason the new ATV isn't 4K, if people are objecting to $149, the 4K cost would surely push it over $200. They needed to rev the ATV and it's still too early for 4K, maybe when they have their own TV to hook it to. |
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Sept 10, 2015 18:17:19 GMT -5
But Apple is keeping the older model at $69, so I assume the OS will be made available for ATV3 and therefore the same apps would be available on both platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Sept 10, 2015 18:19:10 GMT -5
I think the $99 price for the previous model was a good buy, without the App Store. For $149 you now have another platform for developers, and we've seen that Apple devices attract the most and best Apps. So comparisons to other devices aren't totally relevant, though it will be interesting to see what types of Apps will drive you buying the higher memory model. Will it be so you can download before you play, instead of streaming live? Or will there be games or other Apps that need more space? As for UHD, I personally will not likely be able to stream it any time in the near future, I'm topped out at 6Mbps steady, with 10M bursts. Maybe with a day of downloading before playing (or when Dish offers something). Here though I think cost is the reason the new ATV isn't 4K, if people are objecting to $149, the 4K cost would surely push it over $200. They needed to rev the ATV and it's still too early for 4K, maybe when they have their own TV to hook it to. A note on prices: The Apple TV has been $69 since April. The new one comes in 2 models. $149 and $199 for 64G! I don't care about 4K right now. I don't have a 4K TV and the file size is massive. If bet those interested in 4K amounts to < 5% of users. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 10, 2015 18:37:30 GMT -5
I don't care about 4K right now. Ditto Ditto Ditto In Australia <0.1% of users Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by dudeisms7 on Sept 10, 2015 18:38:02 GMT -5
I believe the reason for this is because: - the vast majority of AppleTV users do not have 4K TV's (yet) and streaming providers are just now starting to offer 4K service.
- ISP are starting to clamp down on bandwidth (which 4K streaming uses quite a bit of). While 4K streaming is a major thing in circles of AV people like us, for most of the users they don't care.
- Let's not forget Apple is still working on their own broadcasting service and they don't have 4K content in iTunes.
- And in this day and age, a piece of technology the size of a hockey puck that costs $150 is seen as a throw away device. I'm guessing most people who purchase the new AppleTV will happily purchase a new generation of the device in 2 years when Apple offers 4K content, more streaming providers have 4K content, and Apple possibly introduces their broadcasting service, etc.
The problem with that thinking is that they miss out on all people having a 4K TV, where a 4K capable Apple TV would also work for people without a 4K TV. I pretty sure that normal people who are not that much into AV are much more interested in 4K than you think but they are not much interested in the ever increasing number of surround channel, Atmos, etc. The sales stats pretty much support that, where 4K sets are selling pretty well and so are soundbars, etc, where surround systems are selling less, at least here in Europe. As for bandwidth restrictions, that seems to be US problem, where we see the opposite in Europe, South Korea, Japan and many other places. Apple do not have any 4K services yet. Again a mistake, same like not providing CD quality in iTunes and their streaming service. 1: as someone who has watched apple for decades...they're never first, they usually show up with a better 2nd. 2: you're all talking like 4K is this wide spread thing. It's cert a thing, and it's cool.... But 4k is still just ripples in ocean. Most people do not, nor will they have 4K sets.... And in reality, probably won't for a long long while. I support being an early adopter and all. But let's reflect on when HD got announced, then when it got prevalent, then got officially adopted, then normalcy..sadly that was a crazy long time. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 10, 2015 18:40:33 GMT -5
... The Apple TV has been $69 since April. ... Right, I was just saying that I thought it still a good buy at the higher price. |
|
|
|
Post by dudeisms7 on Sept 10, 2015 18:45:07 GMT -5
The problem with that thinking is that they miss out on all people having a 4K TV, where a 4K capable Apple TV would also work for people without a 4K TV. I pretty sure that normal people who are not that much into AV are much more interested in 4K than you think but they are not much interested in the ever increasing number of surround channel, Atmos, etc. The sales stats pretty much support that, where 4K sets are selling pretty well and so are soundbars, etc, where surround systems are selling less, at least here in Europe. As for bandwidth restrictions, that seems to be US problem, where we see the opposite in Europe, South Korea, Japan and many other places. Apple do not have any 4K services yet. Again a mistake, same like not providing CD quality in iTunes and their streaming service. 1: as someone who has watched apple for decades...they're never first, they usually show up with a better 2nd. 2: you're all talking like 4K is this wide spread thing. It's cert a thing, and it's cool.... But 4k is still just ripples in ocean. Most people do not, nor will they have 4K sets.... And in reality, probably won't for a long long while. I support being an early adopter and all. But let's reflect on when HD got announced, then when it got prevalent, then got officially adopted, then normalcy..sadly that was a crazy long time. Basically when you dumbest neighbor with modest income, who isn't really into these things goes out and buys a 4K TV..... Yeah that the barometer for 4K really being a thing |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Sept 10, 2015 19:19:03 GMT -5
I think the $99 price for the previous model was a good buy, without the App Store. For $149 you now have another platform for developers, and we've seen that Apple devices attract the most and best Apps. So comparisons to other devices aren't totally relevant, though it will be interesting to see what types of Apps will drive you buying the higher memory model. Will it be so you can download before you play, instead of streaming live? Or will there be games or other Apps that need more space? As for UHD, I personally will not likely be able to stream it any time in the near future, I'm topped out at 6Mbps steady, with 10M bursts. Maybe with a day of downloading before playing (or when Dish offers something). Here though I think cost is the reason the new ATV isn't 4K, if people are objecting to $149, the 4K cost would surely push it over $200. They needed to rev the ATV and it's still too early for 4K, maybe when they have their own TV to hook it to. A note on prices: The Apple TV has been $69 since April. The new one comes in 2 models. $149 and $199 for 64G! I don't care about 4K right now. I don't have a 4K TV and the file size is massive. If bet those interested in 4K amounts to < 5% of users. . Boulderdash! With that argument, we should not bother with hi Rez audio because "not enough" people listen to it. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 10, 2015 19:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dudeisms7 on Sept 10, 2015 19:34:56 GMT -5
Cool..but they called it a bullish optimistic study. Untill the content widely gets pushed by cable providers and broadcasters... I'm glomming onto those two adjecgives... Bullish and optimistic |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 10, 2015 19:50:34 GMT -5
Cool..but they called it a bullish optimistic study. Untill the content widely gets pushed by cable providers and broadcasters... I'm glomming onto those two adjecgives... Bullish and optimistic "Furthermore, the estimate of over 30 million units is still subject to a lot of potential upward accounting: The actual number of 4K units sold by the end of this year could end up being considerably higher. This is in fact not unlikely at all given that it’s exactly what happened in 2014 as predictions made earlier in 2014 on total 4K TV sales for that year ended up being surpassed in reality by the fourth quarter." You say "they called it a bullish optimistic study", which "they" are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 10, 2015 19:55:16 GMT -5
A note on prices: The Apple TV has been $69 since April. The new one comes in 2 models. $149 and $199 for 64G! I don't care about 4K right now. I don't have a 4K TV and the file size is massive. If bet those interested in 4K amounts to < 5% of users. . Boulderdash! With that argument, we should not bother with hi Rez audio because "not enough" people listen to it. Or "I can't have it yet, therefore all others don't want it...."  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 10, 2015 20:10:51 GMT -5
Are they real 4K units or faux 4K  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 10, 2015 20:11:14 GMT -5
No Toslink
No USB
NO 4K
No Sale
Edit:
i have a Samsung BLU-Ray player that has the ability to download 100s of different apps and its a few years old?
Why couldnt a brand new product have this ability?
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 10, 2015 20:12:29 GMT -5
Are they real 4K units or faux 4K Cheers Gary The world is flat.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 10, 2015 20:13:39 GMT -5
Don't need it Don't need it No content Ordered Cheers Gary |
|
