Upcoming Apple TV loses 1080p playback, gains apps... and will be renamed iTV | Hacker News Reader

Upcoming Apple TV loses 1080p playback, gains apps... and will be renamed iTV

engadget.com

29 pointsyanowitz51 comments

Open articleView on HN

Apple TV is only 720p for video now. The only thing that's 1080p is the menu!

Surely that's so they can release the iTV 2.0 w/ 1080p in a few months for a few hundred more bucks?

Right now their top purchase/rental resolution is 720p.

Yes, and people running third party OS extensions can only get 1080p to play with the aid of that broadcom card.

It seems odd that AppleTV was ever advertised as 1080p...

Consumers will probably like this, geeks probably won't.

The current model is x86 based (1 GHz or so, single core, something like a Celeron M) and runs a stripped down version of OS X. It's a bit underpowered, but with some work loading things it can run standard OS X apps. QuickTime can handle the same codecs used on OS X. With the current model, the more powerful but more costly Mac Mini is an alternative.

As described, the new model has a much less powerful and Mac-binary incompatible CPU, but it will use MUCH less energy and can handle h.264 playback with hardware decoding. That'll pretty much rule out adding codecs for those XViD .AVI videos many have laying around. Lack of an Intel CPU lowers cost significantly. It seems it could run app store stuff except for the input device hmmm.... maybe it should have a touch screen? Add video out somehow to an iPod touch?

Apple so far has stayed clear of directly supporting off-air or cable-tv PVR functionality. The USB tuners from Elgato Systems work well ("Eye-TV"), but with a Core 2 Duo it would take a dedicated hardware compressor to shrink archives down to h.264 etc at a decent quality level and in a reasonable amount of time.

Locked down like an iPad/iPod touch/iPhone, much of the geek appeal would be gone. The thought of a browser without ad-blocking alone is a big deal to some. (perhaps someone can fine a clear way to do some ad-blocking in a router with open-source firmware?)

Hopefully whatever Apple does will allow access to plenty of tv content that isn't costly. DRM issues (and poor support of video that people already have) could be a negative.

It'll probably have (DRMed) HDMI output but no VGA or DVI. Or maybe Apple will prove us all wrong and do something really surprising?

There are always some ways around things:

Ads: Atomic Web on the App Store includes and ad blocker though I do like the idea of taking care of it at the router level.

XVID/DIVX: The free app ServeToMe does real time transcoding. You install the server app and the client just streams H264. Works surprisingly well.

Hacking: Jailbreaking is about the same as rooting an "open" device. I'd bet those guys would have a bunch of emulators and other forbidden apps out within a week or two of its release.

ServeToMe does iPhone-resolution encoding... I doubt it would be easy to do 720p h264 in real-time.

Those "saved" DIVX/XVID are usually SD, not HD. And even if it was HD, in home environment the bandwidth is not an issue and for the intermediate consumption you can transcode to I-frame only stream.

I've used TVersity to transcode and stream 1080p in real-time through my xbox.

I was hoping for a refresh of the apple TV product line. Its too bad there is no 1080P playback, thats a dealbreaker for me.

720p is fine for a consumer device as long as the usability is there. That's why I still prefer VHS tapes to DVD, despite the lower image quality.

720p is fine for a consumer device as long as the usability is there. That's why I still prefer VHS tapes to DVD, despite the lower image quality.

How long has it been since you had a complete physical checkup?

Hmm... probably about 15 years.

On balance I find tapes easier to use and less frustrating.

I am not prevented from skipping the FBI warnings, studio logos, legal disclaimers, previews, and other nonsense.

VHS tapes are much more robust. I've never had to clean one, or have it not work. DVDs have conniption fits over a few fingerprints, and if they get scratched, forget about it.

And if you do have to remove and clean a DVD to resolve a freeze-up, you then have to navigate through menus to get back to where you left off. With VHS, you can stop the tape, remove it, turn the player off, and come back later and pick up exactly where you left off.

Yeah the VHS picture is not as good as a DVD, no argument there. But for a typical Hollywood movie on a TV at home, it's good enough. Certainly no worse than the haphazard stutters, pixelization, and freezes one experiences in a typical DVD viewing.

Now, consider the iTV. Fingerprints and scratched media, not going to be a problem. Picture quality, at 720p, good enough for the masses, especially for a $99 device. If they can bypass the studio-imposed inconveniences and make using it a frustration-free experience, they will sell plenty of them.

What percent of people still use VHS tapes? Your personal opinions are a poor predictor of how the mass market will accept a product. Your choices seem relatively well-reasoned, but they are odd.

When I watch a Disney movie there's a 50/50 chance it's either VHS or through my xbox 360.

I despise the FBI warnings; I'm from Canada, try and catch me! We're apparently the kingdom of video pirates as is, obviously the FBI warnings aren't doing shit here as is so why do I have to sit through them, plus a bunch of other anti-piracy warnings, sometimes in like 5 different languages.

I haven't switched over to bluray yet. Too expensive and the extra image (1080 vs 420) isn't worth it for 90% of movies and TV shows for me and those that are I can stream 1080p through my xbox.

I sometimes want to scream when the DVD player won't let me skip all the crap at the beginning and go straight to the menu. A VHS player just does what it's told! (That said, my VHS player is in the attic.)

stop, stop, play

And the nice thing about the iTV is that it can play anything it (or Jobs) wants before playing your movie.

Mandatory 15min previews of new Pixar movies before you can watch your download? No roblem.

Yes, but that's not what the market(ing) is telling the consumers.

Same. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who wanted the 1080p on the old model. I wonder what the rationale is in not having it.

Probably because people don't receive beyond 720p in most areas (I know I don't) through digital cable or satellite. However, I receive 1080p by streaming through my xbox, so Apple TV won't even have a hope of being a replacement.

It is probably rude, but I'm still too curious and have to ask: what part of the world are you living in, where you don't get 1080p satellite coverage?

Canada! Say hello to the bullshit of a government supported monopoly that is Bell. Even the other satellite companies don't provide 1080p, IIRC there is one within Canada, but most people I know who are receiving 1080p are catching US signals to get it (better selection anyway I guess).

Our government prevents outside companies from entering the markets and make it damn-near impossible for internal companies from entering the market too to ensure Bell, Rogers and Telus keep their monopolies. Telus barely has a TV service. Rogers has cable, but are locked out of many areas, thankfully my area I get Cogeco which provide relatively cheap, very good quality internet.

I don't watch live-TV for shows I need in 1080p anyway, so I deal anyway. I don't exactly want adverts when watching a SG:U in 1080p; kills the experience.

Nintendo seems to sell a lot of devices at lower resolution (480p). It'll be interesting to see what kind of cost/performance tradeoff Apple makes.

I think that's acceptable for video games, especially the sort of video games that Nintendo makes. For video content I don't think so. I'll watch upscaled DVDs for certain types of content (e.g. don't really care if episodes of Big Bang Theory are in 1080p), but for movies with great cinematography I want as much resolution as possible.

Nintendo is specifically targeting the mainstream consumer. Apple likes being a premium brand. Not supporting 1080p doesn't fit with being a premium product.

Just out of curiosity what content would you be watching on an appple itv device that's at 1080p? The vast majority of its content is delivered via IP and 1080p video which streams at about 45Mbps isn't really realistic to be moving around on most networks. Most 1080p video is still going to be distributed the old fashioned way... On blu-Ray.

IIRC Sony is selling 8Mbps 1080p content on the PS3. I think Apple is genuinely behind in this case.

What is the notable quality difference between 8Mbps 1080p and 8Mbps 720p scaled to 1080p?

Bingo. thats the point you can't deliver 8Mbps 1080p of any decent quality. In fact 1080p at 8Mpbs is generally worse quality then 720p upscaled.

It's realistic enough that it's perfectly doable on Pirate Bay. Apple could have been innovative here and offered a (legal) BitTorrent network for downloading HD content.

I _think_ that a lot of non-technical people (even Apple fans) will have a hard time buying accessories for their shiny new "Full HD" flatscreen TV, and then buying an Apple TV that doesn't support it. Unless they reduce the price to the point where it's a no-brainer.

Fortunately, I'm still able to buy an Apple TV that supports 1080p without problems, called a Mac Mini :)

I disagree that its perfectly doable on pirate bay. Downloading and watching 1080p movies via the pirate bay is even an edge case for that service.

Take a look at their "High Res" movies

http://thepiratebay.org/top/207

First the majority are in 720. The ones that are in 1080 tend to be 10GB to 50GB in size and downloading them can take days (I've tried - on a decent cable modem connection). Then you need to store these beasts which means some sort of multi-terabyte storage server - or burning them to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk. A perfectly acceptable alternative but then you're not usually using an Apple "iTV" as your playback device.

So so far this is so far out as an edge case that Apple's choice still makes sense.

Well currently in Itunes you can watch/download video in 1080p? Seems like that would be the place where I would start. I'm not certain I care so much about streaming, but I do care about playback. I'm doing my best to not by physical media, so playback of high quality content is important.

HD Movie rentals from iTunes is 720p

Let's forget the fact that ITV is a TV channel in the UK... Not confusing at all

For all short pithy names there is a collision somewhere. It's not really that big of a deal.

Yes.

Change your channel's name. Not that big of a deal.

From: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/steve-jobs-to-develop...

Change your channels name. Not that big of a deal.

I doubt it'll be releasing in the UK as iTV, as ITV owns the trademark and has done since forever. The confusion will be great enough that ITV could easily get an injunction in place to prevent the sale of the device so as not to weaken their brand name.

Why? Well because ITV is a video providing service, iTV is a video receiving service. You might get away with it, if ITV hadn't actually tackled the video receiving end of the market when they launched their Freeview (which they still partly own) which was a set-top-box for the receiving of free digital images.

There's going to be no Apple vs Apple in this case.

Unless of course apple licenses the trademark. These things can be settled civilly.

Indeed, prior to Freeview (and after ONDigital), they called the service ITV Digital, if memory serves.

Wait a second, if it's going to have apps, what is the controller going to be like?

My guess: iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad is going to learn a new trick. Imagine a driving game where the controller is your iPhone (accelerometer and gyroscope for control) the screen can be used to control gear, and watch stats. If this is going to be true, the new Apple TV will seriously be something unique!

And no doubt it's still slow as molasses. Sorry, I'll take my Mac Mini w/HDMI, running Plex any day.

The current Apple TV certainly is too slow. But the A4 in the iPhone 4 isn't slow at all driving media on its retina display...

Seems kind of strange to open the device up to such easy criticism. iTV? It doesn't even have 1080p!

This is Apple, no cut&paste on the original iPhone, no USB on iPad. I'm guessing the user experience wasn't what they wanted either with the performance of the playback, or with the speed of the download/streaming of 1080p from the store.

The app bit makes it clear this is set to be a direct competitor to Google's Android based TV solution.

Also interesting to move it to iOS4, the first previously OSX device to move to iOS? A sign of things to come?

If you are insinuating that the Mac lineup will be moving to iOS, I think you might be more than a bit off.

Coincidentally, the Apple TV device came up in random office discussion yesterday, and general concensus was that it should have been called iTv. Maybe Apple has secretly bought my company?

iTV? That's going to cause some confusion in the UK.

http://www.itv.com/

Damn, I was rooting for "iTube"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com