Amazing people just can't stop complaining about the lack of a single feature that people don't necessarily need and that it's $50 cheaper as a starting price?
Even with the *same* features it's $30 cheaper than the previous Apple TV 4K and you get double the storage...
If you have a Samsung TV then HDR10+ is comparable to Dolby Vision. Samsung TV does not support Dolby Vision. So this is a big thing for Samsung TV owners that have amazon prime and view their content. Amazon prime is one of the few streaming services that use HDR10+. Perhaps apple will add support in their streaming service in the future but now amazon is the one for HDR10+ content. Dolby vision has won the standard war with the consumer.
If you use a streaming TV service ATV is going to be much faster changing channels, pulling up the guide, etc.
If you watch videos you host on a local server, the ATV will load them up a lot quicker.
If you only use it to occasionally watch Netflix a $40 Roku is adequate. If you stream all of the time, the quality of life improvements you get with an ATV, Shield, Amazon Cube, or other higher end streaming device is worth it.
Just a shameless cash grab... Apple knows anyone with a proper home theater wants this thing on ethernet, so they gate it behind the 128GB upgrade, which almost nobody even needs.
If you have a Samsung TV then HDR10+ is comparable to Dolby Vision. Samsung TV does not support Dolby Vision. So this is a big thing for Samsung TV owners that have amazon prime and view their content. Amazon prime is one of the few streaming services that use HDR10+.
I've had all the Apple TV models. The CPU upgrades always make the navigation more responsive, and less likely to hang when you're bouncing around the UI. So yes, give me all the CPU, I can handle it!
I don’t understand this point. Are the previous iterations now made unavailable to you? You still have the option to get what you want so how is this a “cash grab” beyond the level of any new product for sale?
I have two ATV 4K 2021s currently. One is in main living room attached to Ethernet. The other is in my master bedroom connected by Wi-Fi. There is one bedroom between the Wi-Fi router and the bedrrm TV. When I run a speed test on the Wi-Fi version I get 320Mbps down, which is what I am supposed to get. However, given the nature of Wi-Fi, I sometimes still get slight buffering on some channels and degrading of the stream on Wi-Fi. Most of the time it's fine. But that is why I would connect to Ethernet if the option is available. For me, it's a more consistent stream, no matter the speed.
I have two ATV 4K 2021s currently. One is in main living room attached to Ethernet. The other is in my master bedroom connected by Wi-Fi. There is one bedroom between the Wi-Fi router and the bedrrm TV. When I run a speed test on the Wi-Fi version I get 320Mbps down, which is what I am supposed to get. However, given the nature of Wi-Fi, I sometimes still get slight buffering on some channels and degrading of the stream on Wi-Fi. Most of the time it's fine. But that is why I would connect to Ethernet if the option is available. For me, it's a more consistent stream, no matter the speed.
Roku- which is quite great by the way- can't leap the wall(ed garden). Anyone with much behind that wall can only use AppleTV.
Else, I don't see why anybody would buy Mac over PC... or iPhone over Android... or iPad over Amazon tablets... etc. For some, the unique value benefits justify the choice... or an Apple logo/halo. For others, the cheaper option(s) can do what they want to do with any of those devices just as well.
I happen to have both Roku and AppleTV and am certainly no fanboy. Objectively, both are great. I favor AppleTV mostly because of walled garden stuff. But if they all conked today, I could readily embrace Roku as a terrific #2.
Admittedly I haven’t used a Roku but we have the latest Amazon Firestick 4K on the bedroom TV and the difference is like night and day. Performance of the firestick is garbage compared to the Apple TV we have in the lounge. Bedroom TV is used intermittently so I deal with it but they are not even slightly comparable performance wise and thats before you account for the Apple integration you get on the Apple TV in terms of the Photos, Apple TV+ and fitness plus etc.
Pragmatically once loose Ethernet then can have some problematical issues.
Thread
"... Thread is a low-power and low-latency wireless mesh networking protocol built using open and proven standards. Thread solves the complexities of the IoT, addressing challenges such as interoperability, range, security, energy, and reliability. Thread networks have no single point of failure and include the ability to self-heal. ..."
Thread solves the complexities of the IoT, addressing challenges such as interoperability, security, power and architecture requirements.
www.threadgroup.org
Can have a mesh network but if there is no backhaul back to the Internet all have is a totally isolated mesh to nowhere else. If the Wifi can't get a signal or isn't sufficient for backhaul ,then Ethernet is a better (more robust) option.
If the purpose of the AppleTV is to be a smart home hub then Ethernet is more prudent foundation. ( camera videos being streamed back and encoded-uploaded from AppleTV. )
There is likely other folks that aren't doing any Smart home at all. The AppleTV is playing the Roku/FireTV stick role only. May or may not want something deployed in that context to play a Thread router role. Also more likely to get this "video stream only" role with multiple AppleTVs where as just one if the house is probably sufficient as a Thread router. So Apple going for the more expensive "one home hub" and the lessor expensive spokes around the hub with the Wifi only model.
Deployment wise though most deployments are to single AppleTV and no Thread centric "smart home hub" . WiFi 6 is fast enough and more mesh routers around to blanket the dwelling.
Decent chance this has some tie in with directions coming from Matter.
www.gearbrain.com
www.androidcentral.com
