AAPL stock: Click Here |
|
Tips and Deals ---- For Sale & Free Items ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: MartyStickle
Date: September 09, 2015 03:37PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 03:49PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: mikebw
Date: September 09, 2015 03:55PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: jdc
Date: September 09, 2015 03:57PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 04:02PM
|
Quote
mikebw
I would go all in for the 64GB model, only $50 more. Wonder why they didn't use the A9 chip as in the new iDevices?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: September 09, 2015 04:10PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 09, 2015 04:17PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 04:18PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: September 09, 2015 04:27PM
|
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
mikebw
Wonder why they didn't use the A9 chip as in the new iDevices?
So they can offer you an upgrade next spring ("AppleTV - now with the A9 chip!")
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: MartyStickle
Date: September 09, 2015 04:33PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 04:35PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 04:43PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: michaelb
Date: September 09, 2015 04:44PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: MartyStickle
Date: September 09, 2015 04:47PM
|
Quote
silvarios
Quote
MartyStickle
So again, If I'm not into gaming, why is the larger unit needed?
Asked and answered?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Bernie
Date: September 09, 2015 05:00PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: pdq
Date: September 09, 2015 05:34PM
|
Quote
mikebw
Wonder why they didn't use the A9 chip as in the new iDevices?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 05:52PM
|
Quote
MartyStickle
Well, I guess the question is, how much space would be needed by a decent collection of apps. I have a feeling for what's required for an iOS device (certainly more than 16 meg), but it's unclear how much space the ATV apps will require. Of course, the point that it's only $50 difference does make sense. What's going to be stored on the device? It's not like you're going to put your photo library or music on it, right?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 05:56PM
|
Quote
pdq
Quote
mikebw
Wonder why they didn't use the A9 chip as in the new iDevices?
Here's my conspiracy theory. The new ATV was designed on a schedule to be introduced at the WWDC last May (thus the conference logo with the ATV outline):
...but there was some last minute blow up with the networks or other media folks that led them to hold off the intro until now. The delay was not enough time to engineer the A9 into it, so they stuck with the A8.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 06:17PM
|
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
pdq
...but there was some last minute blow up with the networks or other media folks that led them to hold off the intro until now. The delay was not enough time to engineer the A9 into it, so they stuck with the A8.
That makes sense.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 06:39PM
|
Quote
silvarios
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
pdq
...but there was some last minute blow up with the networks or other media folks that led them to hold off the intro until now. The delay was not enough time to engineer the A9 into it, so they stuck with the A8.
That makes sense.
There's no Sling TV or Sony Vue like package here, right? So Apple was planning on more, didn't get it, and then shipped a year old design? That's actually more disappointing. Sad Panda
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 07:05PM
|
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
silvarios
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
pdq
...but there was some last minute blow up with the networks or other media folks that led them to hold off the intro until now. The delay was not enough time to engineer the A9 into it, so they stuck with the A8.
That makes sense.
There's no Sling TV or Sony Vue like package here, right? So Apple was planning on more, didn't get it, and then shipped a year old design? That's actually more disappointing. Sad Panda
"A year old design" is stretching it. More like three months, given that the device was originally supposed to debut in June of this year.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 07:43PM
|
Quote
silvarios
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
silvarios
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
pdq
...but there was some last minute blow up with the networks or other media folks that led them to hold off the intro until now. The delay was not enough time to engineer the A9 into it, so they stuck with the A8.
That makes sense.
There's no Sling TV or Sony Vue like package here, right? So Apple was planning on more, didn't get it, and then shipped a year old design? That's actually more disappointing. Sad Panda
"A year old design" is stretching it. More like three months, given that the device was originally supposed to debut in June of this year.
Okay, three months old at least. Then again, that's a year old chip, so…
The iPod touch (same chipset) with screen, camera, and more sensors is only $100 more than the Apple TV (given the same storage amount). Seems like taking out all those parts and adding the A9, wouldn't see much of an increase in price and shouldn't require a major redesign. No? I just don't get why Apple is designing their brand new TV box around a year old chip. Apple could have easily launched the development platform for the new Apple TV at WWDC and still had the A9 box ready to go for the holiday buying period, no?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 08:17PM
|
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Nathan, I am neither an electronics engineer nor an Apple employee; I take it by your questions that neither are you. Among other things, that means that neither of us is qualified to speak to why Apple released the new AppleTV with the A8 processor instead of the A9. While the theory posited above by pdq makes the most sense of any I've heard, the fact remains that no one outside of Apple knows the answer to this question.
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Thus, your regrettable tendency in this thread to answer your own questions with other questions to "make" your point is, at best, speculative and, at worst, specious. Cut it out.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Bimwad
Date: September 09, 2015 09:08PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 09:12PM
|
Quote
Bimwad
Cutting edge hardware it's not. Suited to its task, certainly.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Bimwad
Date: September 09, 2015 09:26PM
|
Quote
silvarios
But now Apple is pitching the Apple TV as a gaming system. Is a year old chipset the best option for a gaming console? 200MB app limits the best option? The old systems made sense. Specs were clearly decent for the task on hand. Now, with general purpose apps and games I'm genuinely curious to see how the system performs.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: decay
Date: September 09, 2015 10:02PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: September 09, 2015 10:15PM
|
Quote
silvarios
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Thus, your regrettable tendency in this thread to answer your own questions with other questions to "make" your point is, at best, speculative and, at worst, specious. Cut it out.
I'm sorry, I respectfully decline to stop asking questions, answering them, and furthering discussions. That's the whole point of a discussion. I offer something, you offer something, someone else offers something. When in doubt, phrase something as a question to garner responses, no? <-- See, that's an invitation to disagree or agree. Keeps things civil and interesting.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 10:56PM
|
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Legitimate questions? Always welcome. The problem, Nathan, arises when you couch your anti-Apple rhetoric in the form of "questions" supported by "facts" which, in reality, you have no idea are true or not.
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Everything you state in the post I replied to is total speculation on your part, yet somehow, based on this "evidence," you arrive at the conclusion that the new AppleTV is not good enough -- practically obsolete the day it is announced, in fact -- and then play coy when someone calls you on it. That's problematic.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 11:27PM
|
Quote
decay
how big are the largest iOS apps for iPad or iPhone?
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 09, 2015 11:30PM
|
Quote
Bimwad
Can you name any games that struggle with the A8, now, or within the next year? Free of any power conservation requirements, is the A8 in the ATV 4 running at the same speed as that in the iPhone? Does it have enhancement tweaks, despite remaining on the previous platform?
Arguing specs is fun, but it's all theoretical. If it will run the most demanding games available, it's good enough, unless some developer is planning to unload their equivalent of Crysis for iOS.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: bhaveshp
Date: September 09, 2015 11:49PM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: jdc
Date: September 10, 2015 01:56AM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 10, 2015 02:19AM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 10, 2015 02:28AM
|
Quote
bhaveshp
Apple is not positioning the new Apple TV to compete against the full blown console systems, so they've positioned the device at a much lower price point for the much larger "casual" gamer market ala the Wii. I'm guessing it is probably close to the PS3 in performance, but of course much more power efficient.
Quote
bhaveshp
The choice of using an A8 chip vs A9 obvious: purely monetary, maintaining profit margins. Why would they put their most cutting edge chip in a $149 product vs a $649 product?
Quote
bhaveshp
The 200mb App size limitation is a challenge to developers, but Apple has told them to design their apps to keep users engaged while the Apps download resources. Given this is a streaming box, downloading graphics, levels etc. over broadband is a reasonable tradeoff vs Apps for cellular mobile devices.
Me, I'll be saving $50 for now and will get the 4k A9 equipped version in 2 years.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: bhaveshp
Date: September 10, 2015 03:44AM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 10, 2015 04:27AM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 10, 2015 07:42AM
|
Quote
RAMd®d
You know what's problematic? The inability for people on this board to treat threads as islands and not bring their crap from thread to thread.
Well if that ain't the Mistress of Irony bitch-slapping you in the face.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: sekker
Date: September 10, 2015 07:56AM
|
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: silvarios
Date: September 10, 2015 08:34AM
|
Quote
RAMd®d
The choice of using an A8 chip vs A9 obvious: purely monetary, maintaining profit margins. Why would they put their most cutting edge chip in a $149 product vs a $649 product?
And in a $149 product that doesn't need the most cutting edge chip in the first place.
Apple will be selling a *lot* more iPhones than ATVs.
The ATV isn't a game console. It's a streaming device that will play games. Those demoed look pretty good though not geared for adults. The A8 is more than enough for the ATV. There's no need to waste the A9 with it's built-in M9 on the ATV. It makes no sense whatsoever to divide the output of them between the two devices.
Re: ATV $150 or $200?
Posted by: Robert M
Date: September 10, 2015 03:39PM
|