Skip to Content

Does the Apple TV need 1080p?

by Richard Gaywood Aug 13th 2010 at 4:00PM

Engadget's tasty scoop on Wednesday suggests that the long-rumoured but still-mythical Apple TV hardware refresh would lack 1080p output. As is fairly routine now, weblogs, forums, and Twitter exploded with "ZOMG APPLE #FAIL" and similar thoughtful criticism. But assuming it's true, is this really that surprising? Everyone automatically assumes 1080p is the natural choice but I'm not sure it's that simple.

Notwithstanding (slightly dubious) recent rumours of a new video codec capable of pushing out 4096x2160, iTunes today can only offer high definition video in 720p. To move that to 1080p would require 2.25 times more disk space on the iTunes servers and the same increase in data bandwidth between those servers and the paying customers. Those are not cheap investments.

In turn, consumers would see a similar increase in streaming requirements. Xbox Live can stream 1080p video, but it requires 8-10meg broadband, which leaves an awful lot of people out in the cold. It has the option of downloading instead, but if you're out in the sticks on a 2meg stream you're looking at more than eight hours to download your film at 1080p. You'd best plan your Friday night viewing before leaving for work on Friday morning.



Would 1080p video be a significant upgrade for ordinary consumers compared to 720p? Probably not. At typical screen sizes and viewing distances (say, sitting eight feet from a 40" screen) the extra visual fidelity is quite subtle. I can certainly see it, and I get plenty of chance to do so as I move back and forth between Bluray content at 1080p and console games at 720p; but it's not the night-and-day step up that moving away from standard definition is. For most people with typical Internet connections, the extra pretties probably aren't worth the extra download time.

Would 1080p video attract more videophiles, though? Again, probably not. Let's assume a hypothetical iTunes 1080p format roughly equivalent to the Xbox 360 one, which weighs in at around 5-10Gb depending on the length of the film. This is still far short of the 20-30Gb that a Blu-ray disc will typically devote to the film itself, and with that comes a drop in visual quality -- again, one that's fairly subtle, but by definition if you target the videophiles you have to cater to some demanding customers.

So no, videophiles would continue to favour disk formats for their film watching. I certainly would, although my reason for preferring Blu-rays isn't because I'm some sort of gourmet movie watcher (I watch too many films with Jason Statham in to claim that title with a straight face) but is mostly because I have bitrate OCD and I am irrationally reassured by watching the best quality possible.

But what about other content? So far we've only talked on content coming from the iTunes store, rather than, say, content streamed over a network from a computer. Well, the plain fact is that Apple isn't making any money from that content. In fact, let's be honest with ourselves and admit many people with Boxee or XBMC on their Apple TVs are mostly streaming bootleg videos they've grabbed from BitTorrent; no-one's making any money off that. If Engadget's scoop is accurate, this new device will cost just $99; we're clearly in a razors-and-blades business model here and Apple will push iTunes purchases through this device as hard as possible. The company has no margin in supporting anything beyond that.

And finally, there's that price point of just $99; that's not very much. Processing 1080p instead of 720p needs more powerful processors which cost more to make. This is clearly a budget-conscious device and there can't be much wriggle room in that budget.

There's a lot of reasons Apple wouldn't want to bother with supporting 1080p, and very few reasons why it would.

UPDATE: commenter Jack Bauer has pointed out his current-model Apple TV offers a 1080i output mode. Whilst that's true, it causes the device to upscale the same old 720p content and doesn't actually increase picture quality at all -- in fact, introducing interlacing might well make it look worse. It's mostly there to maintain compatibility with older TVs that only support 1080i. In general you want any devices between your video content and your TV itself to pass the signal through without modification, so if you're watching HD iTunes content, you're better off setting your Apple TV to 720p.




View Tags

Related Stories

Categories

Apple TV

Engadget's tasty scoop on Wednesday suggests that the long-rumoured but still-mythical Apple TV hardware refresh would lack 1080p output....
 

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

98 Comments

Filter by:
Jenny

It's funny that the countries who do have high speed internet, can't even get the content needed to take advantage of what Apple offers. I have a 100Mbps (70Mbps actual) download speed and yet there's nothing in the Japanese store regarding movies.

As for the Blu-ray/DVD debate, it would make more sense for me to buy a blu-ray player here, buy the Japanese movies I like, then if/when my visa can't be renewed, I can still use it in the states since the region codes are the same. Only thing I would have to worry about is finding a player with a worldwide power requirement.

August 17 2010 at 10:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Shane

It's not that the content been delivered to the device needs to be in 1080p, its the fact that the device should be capable for supporting that output.

Not all people will want to play content via a stream, but may wish to be able to play content they already have (although the ability of the device to actual perform this is till in question).

Yes, it should be capable of delivering true 1080p (not upscaled) and allow users to choice how they want to scale their content.

August 15 2010 at 10:55 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
philasan

Look, I've been renting 1080p movies from the Playstation network and not only does it look fantastic, you can start watching it while it downloads. The whole experience is slick...

Now why wouldn't Apple, with all its resources, talent, and experience serving up content, be able to offer something comparable? It's like what George said above... it's astonishing that Apple can take away an option and have ya'll defend it so rigorously. With fans like you guys, who needs to innovate?

August 15 2010 at 10:13 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
George

Wow. Only Apple can take an existing product, remove features and have most of its user base defend it for doing so. And this is just a rumor too. Apple removes a feature that, on the surface anyway, would make the product seem like it was worth more and then says the lowered spec is just what you need. Suddenly, the better spec falls out of favor.
If they removed the feature because the 'iTV' is going to be not much more than an iPad without the touch screen, then what does that say about the iPad? Too slow to properly decode a video at 1080p? I hope there are other reasons. I hate to think the shiny new device I bought (32gb iPad) is slow...

August 15 2010 at 2:16 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Steve D

1080p is True HD... Anything less is well, less....

But, I understand that 1080p at excellent Blu-Ray quality levels may be nearly impossible to 'stream' on the wimpy internet connections most people (in the USA at least) have as an option to get. Still, not a good reason to not support it at all.

August 14 2010 at 1:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Joe

Look, Full HD (1080) is not worth for streaming content over the internet, I agree, not yet anyway.
But how about the stuff I OWN? I have a lot of movies in Full HD and I don't want to transcode, read this carefully: I don't want to transcode.
Whatever iDevice that doesn't or can't handle Full HD is not going to be part of my entertainment setup.
The Apple TV is not just for streaming content over the internet, but also streaming your own content over the local network, that's why some people say that, no 1080p means fail.
But let's wait and see... after all, this is just a rumor.
If it turns out to be true, then I will build my own HTPC, even if I have to use *gasp* Windows. Sorry about that.

August 14 2010 at 1:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
andrei.timoshenko

Give people the choice. Do what the iTunes Trailers website has been doing for years now - those who are able to stream 1080p, stream 1080p, those who are not, stream 720p or lower. All of this requires so little additional resources at the margin for Apple that I would be incredibly surprised if they do not do it.

Apple is right in its approach that technical specifications are only a means to an end (the end being a perfect user experience) and not an end in themselves. However, I really struggle to see what UX tradeoffs there are from offering the choice of 1080p.

August 14 2010 at 11:57 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
James Gowan

If I buy video from iTunes to play on my AppleTV, I had better be able to view in on my iPhone, iPad, iPod touch too -- VERSATILITY, people. You might want Apple to offer all their content in the highest quality, but it needs to be a file that is a happy medium for all their devices.

Baby steps. I was talking with my wife last night about when, in 1995, I upgraded my Mac's 8MB of ram to 32MB of ram and it cost me $1,500. Now 4GB on most macs is standard.

You're day will come. Patience, grasshopper.

August 14 2010 at 11:39 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Edsel

To the question of Apple TV needing 1080P my answer is a resounding ho-hum.

Bad content is horrible to watch at any resolution. Good content is pleasurable on a 19" B&W television.

August 14 2010 at 10:48 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Edsel

To the question of Apple TV needing 1080P my answer is a resounding ho-hum.

Bad content is horrible to watch at any resolution. Good content is pleasurable on a 19" B&W television.

August 14 2010 at 10:47 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.