OT: Apple TV? Who's using it? And 4k tv's too

[sales guy]

Just bought it for the wife for a present. We tried it at a family members. Liked it there. Who's using it and who hates or likes it?

OH!!! And 4k televisions? Anyone have one? Seriously looking at one.

[BrianVarick]

Personally I would wait a while to upgrade to 4k. There doesn't seem to be much product as if yet.

[sales guy]

Personally I would wait a while to upgrade to 4k. There doesn't seem to be much product as if yet.

Agreed, but the clarity on these things is insane. It actually stopped the wife in her tracks when she saw it.

[ColonelJLloyd]

We've been using AppleTV for a year and we like it. We stream stuff from the iPad and our phones to the TV using AmazonPrime and network apps. Just yesterday I ordered a Google Chromecast for the bedroom TV.

[gomango]

We've been using AppleTV for a year and we like it. We stream stuff from the iPad and our phones to the TV using AmazonPrime and network apps. Just yesterday I ordered a Google Chromecast for the bedroom TV.

Quick question if I may.

Do you also carry a cable or satellite contract?

Our kids would go crazy without cable sports, but if I could find a less expensive alternative it would be nice.

[gavingould]

have had appleTV for 3 years or so. do not have cable. mac household, so when i stream something (races on whatever feed) on the laptop or iMac i can just Airplay it to the big TV. we 'rent' or purchase stuff via itunes, watch netflix, hulu+ and whatever else is on there.

4k is a while out from being standard. i was a fairly early adopter of 1080p, 120hz LED TV and what i paid $3k+ for 5 years ago can be bested in picture quality by something for probably $800 or less now. nature of technology... blu-ray still isn't really a standard household item, a lot of people who would get into those just stream stuff now.

[MattTuck]

This is what the wirecutter (http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-tv-panasonic-st60/) says about 4K TVs. Basically, only go for it if you're a millionaire with hawk eyes...

Over the next few months, you’ll be seeing a lot of media coverage and advertising for Ultra HD “4K” TVs. These TVs have four times the standard HD resolution of 1080p. Your current TV is likely 1080p, which means there are 1,920 pixels across, and 1,080 vertically. Ultra HD “4K” TVs, have 3,940 across, and 2,160 vertically.

Don’t be fooled by the hype. There is no readily available 4K content yet. Sony, with their TVs, will be offering some downloads of select movies, but you can’t walk into a store and get a disc, nor can you stream 4K movies from Netflix or any other source. In addition, the current spec for HDMI only allows 3,840 x 2,160 with a maximum framerate of 30 frames per second. This is enough for movies, but not for 4K 3D, or any future increase in frame rate. Getting a 4K TV now could mean obsolescence in the future if new standards are implemented. This is cutting edge tech, that’s ahead of itself in terms of content. In fairness, the early HDTVs were the same way, but most people didn’t buy them until more content was available.

The claims about an increase in picture quality are somewhat dubious as well. Your eye has a limited resolution. The example I like to use is sitting in the sand at the beach. You can see the grains of sand beside you, but can you still see the individual grains of sand out past your feet? This is the issue with 4K TVs, your eye can’t resolve the increase in resolution in the sizes of many 4K TV. If you get a larger TV (much larger), or sit closer (much closer), there’s a benefit, but if you’re sitting 9 feet from a 50-inch TV, there’s no way you’ll be able to see the difference between 4K and 1080p (or 720p, for that matter).

Wirecutter contributor Chris Heinonen has an excellent 4K calculator to determine if you’ll get any benefit going with a higher-than-HD resolution display.

If you want to dive into the science behind it, check out my articles over at CNET, provocatively titled 4K TVs are stupid, and Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid.

Lastly, consider that all current 4K TVs are LCDs. In other words, all the picture quality negatives found with “normal” LCDs still apply. So they won’t look very good if you’re not sitting dead center, if there’s any motion on screen, it will blur, and the contrast ratios won’t be as good as other technologies.

There is one inexpensive 4K TV, a 50-inch Seiki, which is $1,400. However, it has its own set of problems. I have one of the first reviews up over at HDGuru.com.

This TV we’ve picked, on the other hand, will look better than just about any TV out there, and it’s far cheaper than most of the 4K TVs.

[William]

Don't mean to derail the topic....

Can anyone in-the-know tell me how Apple TV compares to Roku? I was checking out Roku at our parents place and have been interested in it. Being an Apple leaning family, I would be curious if they are similar or different?








William

[sales guy]

This is what the wirecutter (http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-tv-panasonic-st60/) says about 4K TVs. Basically, only go for it if you're a millionaire with hawk eyes...


Not a millionaire, remember, I work in the bike industry!!! But I do have hawk eyes.

[azrider]

Here is all you need to know about 4K Tv

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=4K+tv

[oldpotatoe]

Personally I would wait a while to upgrade to 4k. There doesn't seem to be much product as if yet.

Like it . Stream from iPhone/iPad, makes DVD/CD essentially obsolete. Movies, etc, easy.

[bcroslin]

Amazon reviews for the Samsung 85" 4k TV are classic (http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN85S9-85-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/product-reviews/B00CMEN95U).

[echelon_john]

We've had Apple TV since they first came out. We primarily use it to rent via the iTunes store and stream Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Lots of native apps for MLB, Hulu, etc., all of which require their own subscription but which will play through the box. Occasionally stream movies from one of the computers onto the TV via the Apple TV.

A lot of functionality for a relatively small outlay, IMO. You still need to pay for the underlying services, e.g. Netflix, rentals, etc. but the device works very well.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Quick question if I may.

Do you also carry a cable or satellite contract?

Our kids would go crazy without cable sports, but if I could find a less expensive alternative it would be nice.

Yes, we still have a Time Warner contract. Were it up to me we wouldn't, but I haven't convinced my wife. I hate the cable service. All I need is broadband. The local channels via one of the modern "antenna" thingies would give me 75% of the games I care to watch. I generally prefer to listen to my St. Louis Cardinals versus watch so I just use my satellite radio app for that.

I hear good things about AT&T U-Verse, but it's not available to me at this time. My neighbors across the street can get the service, but not my side yet.

I have an older 1080p LED TV and I don't want for more. I'm not looking for an excuse to spend more time in front of the TV.

[zap]

What I want (next purchase) as far as display is concerned….

…..more colours and improvements in displaying fast motion.

I also prefer plasma.

I don't think 4k has more colours…..and sadly, plasma might be dead for good.

[sales guy]

I hear good things about AT&T U-Verse, but it's not available to me at this time. My neighbors across the street can get the service, but not my side yet.




We have Uverse, as does our family who we saw the Apple TV at in St. Louis. We really like uverse, but we barely use all the movie channels. So that was one reason for getting Apple TV as we have hulu and Netflix and use those a ton. As well as all the movies I've bought due to travel use.

[sitzmark]

4K and 8K are stunning. Content - especially in the USA - will be a longtime in the making. The "pipes" in the US aren't what they are in Japan and Korea, so getting content delivered will be a problem for some time to come. SONY (and others) is working on a proprietary disc-based (hard drive) delivery system to bypass the inadequate infrastructure. Basically you rent hard drives rather than Bluray discs. 4K dense video takes a tremendous amount of bandwidth or oodles of time to download a single video. Upscaling engines in the 4K sets will "create' 4K from standard 1080, but it's like created 3D. Not sure about anyone else's 3D TVs, but a big meh for me - especially the 2D to 3D conversion. Not a 3D fan anyway.

Have migrated all devices from MS to MAC. iTunes/iCloud now being my backbone for central access to the same content regardless of device I have available at the time. Have Apple TV (ATV) connected to each media center/TV and have iTunes sharing activated so all content resides on iTunes server and doesn't need to be downloaded to each device. Saves storage space on iPhones/iPads. As long as WiFi or cellular access to internet is available all content is available.

Have two locations - one serviced by Verizon FIOS and the other by Time Warner. Each has app/stream options, but accessing rented/purchased content when not on the company's network is cumbersome. With ATV / iTunes I bypass that limitation.

ATV still regarded as the most robust platform. For apps / streaming most of the platforms are comparable. Lots of overlap of content. Each has an app or few that are exclusive.

AirPlay and AirPlay mirroring have more functionality for getting content off of mobile devices/laptops and onto the TV screen than the other platforms. Initially Chromecast didn't actually stream content from mobile devices to the TV screen. The mobile device instructed chrome cast where to access content on a server and stream it from there. Basically the same as using Youtube app on ATV, ROKU, or other and controlling it with your mobile device. There was talk of chromecast being able to support screen mirroring with Android 4.4.1. That would be the equivalent of Apple Airplay. Since I'm not Android based, I don't know if that has happened.

Quite a few small nuances to decide whether ATV, Chromecast, ROKU, GoogleTV, etc is the best platform for a given application. For the basics - Hulu, Youtube, Netflix, internet radio, etc. they all get the job done.

[sales guy]

Do I need a separate AtV box for each television?

[sitzmark]

Not if you run your ATV through an HDMI distribution box/AV receiver with multiple HDMI outs. Otherwise, yes.
Same for all "smart boxes".

[sales guy]

We have a Sony receiver that we got like 18 months ago. It's "smart". So I should be ok. And we have wireless uverse boxes around the house. S. We are wireless pretty much everywhere.

I bought it already. So I will have to figure it out when I set it up.

[sitzmark]

Think of the ATV as a "receiver". It tunes channels / apps and receives Airplay content via network, but it only distributes content through the HDMI (out) port. No different than a Bluray player.

[sales guy]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[malbecman]

We have ATV and a small antenna on the roof for OTA broadcasts and that covers all our watching needs. I don't miss cable at all.

I like being able to Airplay from my Mac or iPad onto the bigger screen of the TV. We were planning a trip and we could use the Maps app on the TV to discuss routes, look at places, etc, etc. Great for family discussions.

[gomango]

Yes, we still have a Time Warner contract. Were it up to me we wouldn't, but I haven't convinced my wife. I hate the cable service. All I need is broadband. The local channels via one of the modern "antenna" thingies would give me 75% of the games I care to watch. I generally prefer to listen to my St. Louis Cardinals versus watch so I just use my satellite radio app for that.

I hear good things about AT&T U-Verse, but it's not available to me at this time. My neighbors across the street can get the service, but not my side yet.

I have an older 1080p LED TV and I don't want for more. I'm not looking for an excuse to spend more time in front of the TV.

Thanks.

The day our youngest leaves for college in a few years will be the day cable goes bye bye.

My wife and I do not watch TV unless the Twins are on.

[rrudoff]

Well I just bought an 84" Planar Commercial duty 4k for work, still waiting for it to show up. I will let you know if it is amazing. I would certainly not spend $ 20k plus for my own TV! I also bought an 80" 1080P Sharp for testing, so I will have a comparison. We use these for interactive touch based workspace displays, so there is some use for the resolution (often put up high resolution images and the like) and it is possibly cheaper and certainly easier to setup than 4 55" screens.

[pmac]

Apple TV recently got a visibility upgrade, and it's more prominent on the Apple web site now. This raises the possibility that it's soon going to be more than a hobby for Apple, and that something new and maybe much better may be released before long. No idea how likely this is, and we have been very happy with the current incarnation.

[jlwdm]

I think 4K is going to happen faster than most people are suggesting here. Lots of 4K TVs at CES and lots of programming being worked on.

Jeff

[sitzmark]

Thanks.

The day our youngest leaves for college in a few years will be the day cable goes bye bye.

My wife and I do not watch TV unless the Twins are on.

The "problem" with cutting the cable is that as soon as you dump cable TV programming your service provider jacks your internet rate. At least FIOS and TWC work that way. So. I save maybe $5-$10/mo by nixing TV programming from my bundles - phone, TV, Internet.

Mktg depts have run the numbers and set pricing accordingly.

[technicolor]

We use it. Netflix for kids stuff. iTunes for movie rentals. Works great.

[djg21]

Just bought it for the wife for a present. We tried it at a family members. Liked it there. Who's using it and who hates or likes it?

OH!!! And 4k televisions? Anyone have one? Seriously looking at one.

I use an Apple TV3 for Netflix, etc. the only thing I don't like is that it doesn't allow streaming from Amazon. My understanding was the old ATV2 could stream all sorts of content after being jailbroken (these sell for hundreds of dollars on eBay). Unfortunately, the ATV3s cannot be jailbroken. I have been able to use Airplay to mirror streaming content from my iPad that is locked out of the ATV. My ipad was jailbroken, and I had to install a Cydia tweak to allow the iPad app to use airplay.

Apple does make it difficult.

[ColonelJLloyd]

I use an Apple TV3 for Netflix, etc. the only thing I don't like is that it doesn't allow streaming from Amazon. My understanding was the old ATV2 could stream all sorts of content after being jailbroken (these sell for hundreds of dollars on eBay). Unfortunately, the ATV3s cannot be jailbroken. I have been able to use Airplay to mirror streaming content from my iPad that is locked out of the ATV. My ipad was jailbroken, and I had to install a Cydia tweak to allow the iPad app to use airplay.

Apple does make it difficult.

I'm not sure what version Apple TV I have, but I stream from AmazonPrime from my iPhone and iPad.

Edit: I see. Yeah, I'm just using Airplay from my mobile devices.

[Bob Ross]

Don’t be fooled by the hype. There is no readily available 4K content yet. Sony, with their TVs, will be offering some downloads of select movies, but you can’t walk into a store and get a disc, nor can you stream 4K movies from Netflix or any other source. In addition, the current spec for HDMI only allows 3,840 x 2,160 with a maximum framerate of 30 frames per second. This is enough for movies, but not for 4K 3D, or any future increase in frame rate. Getting a 4K TV now could mean obsolescence in the future if new standards are implemented. This is cutting edge tech, that’s ahead of itself in terms of content. In fairness, the early HDTVs were the same way, but most people didn’t buy them until more content was available.

The claims about an increase in picture quality are somewhat dubious as well. Your eye has a limited resolution. The example I like to use is sitting in the sand at the beach. You can see the grains of sand beside you, but can you still see the individual grains of sand out past your feet? This is the issue with 4K TVs, your eye can’t resolve the increase in resolution in the sizes of many 4K TV. If you get a larger TV (much larger), or sit closer (much closer), there’s a benefit, but if you’re sitting 9 feet from a 50-inch TV, there’s no way you’ll be able to see the difference between 4K and 1080p (or 720p, for that matter).

Full disclosure: I work in the custom Audio/Video/Control industry, so we sell, among other things, 4k TVs.

That first paragraph from the Wirecutter article is spot-on. 4k is hype, and it's seriously premature hype. Now is not the time to buy a 4k TV unless you really really REALLY love the 10 or so movies that are available in 4k and won't mind watching them over and over and over again. Sure, in another year that might be up to 20, maybe 30 movies. How many times can you watch "Avatar" before you're ready to flip the channel?

But that second paragraph is a bit disingenuous...because it presumes people won't be buying huge 4k TVs, and/or that they won't be sitting an appropriate distance from whatever size TV they do buy. If you’re sitting "9 feet from a 50-inch TV" the problem isn't video resolution (be it 4k or 1080p or plain old SD), it's that you're too far away.

fwiw, with one exception every client of ours who's sprung for a 4k system got an 84" diagonal display or larger, and we designed their room such that the video image occupies a substantial portion of the viewer's visual field. That's the whole point of ultra-high rez: You can provide an immersive experience without the illusion of reality (sic) breaking down.

Now if only there were some content...

[jbrainin]

If only we could watch any HD content that wasn't massively compressed, then perhaps 4k might make sense at this time.

4K will eventually be a good thing, but the fact remains that even today we are unable to watch a proper HD signal at home on consumer equipment. BluRay is by far and away the highest quality HD content delivery format but it is still a massively compressed one whose image pales when compared against an uncompressed HD signal. Heck, it's even inferior to the image captured by an AVCHD camcorder.

The reason for this is that a fully uncompressed HD signal exceeds the bandwidth capacity of virtually all consumer gear as well as the maximum bandwidth that most people receive on their internet connections. Now we're going to increase the amount of data at least by a factor of 4 to deliver a 4k signal but we expect we are going to receive a proper image? How? It's just not gonna happen in the short term.

What is possible in the short term is that we can finally deliver an HD signal that is much less compressed and more faithful to an uncompressed original signal.

I'd really like to be able to watch an HD content without seeing rough gradients on the screen or without seeing the blocks that are the product of compression.

I have an MFA in computer art (with an emphasis on video) and am excited about the possibilities that 4k gives me for my future creations. Now if only I didn't have to spend over $10k on computer and RAID gear in order to make these creations…

[lookout2015]

Can anyone in-the-know tell me how Apple TV compares to Roku? I was checking out Roku at our parents place and have been interested in it. Being an Apple leaning family, I would be curious if they are similar or different?



I'm a cable industry guy so have multiple generations of both. Some purchased, others because of various lab trials I was doing at work. We use our Rokus and the AppleTVs mostly sit (well, other than the old one I rooted and use as a Linux server)

They're essentially similar products, but the primary difference is what content you're going to watch / where you get it from. Do you want large variety of sources built in native on the tv managed via remote? Or do you want to use the computer and reflect them to the TV?

Apple is strongly tied to iTunes (and also has Netflix for now until they have a messy divorce at some point in the future). But then allows AirPlay so anything you can stream on a laptop / tablet you can reflect to the TV

Roku has pretty much all content available via streaming other than iTunes, through native apps. So Amazon+Netflix+100s of niche/specialized 3rd parties, instead of iTunes... No AirPlay equivalent (though there are 3rd party apps that allegedly scratch that itch. No personal experience with them), or couple with a Chromecast. Roku also has the gaming thing though that's a gimmick that's not worth considering as a plus or minus

For us it comes down to this: we have little kids and when we're watching tv (which we only do via streaming now that college football is over) having it all native works much more conveniently than having to airplay. And the Netflix app on Roku works better for the kids to navigate and be in a curated kid-appropriate content subset than the Netflix app on Apple

For physical DVDs we have them all ripped to a network media server and stream them to the Roku. You can do that with AppleTV also but because of the other factors we just don't...