the new apple tv - 1080p isn't needed

[Markusp]

Funny - movies sound and look exactly the same on the Revo as the did on the Mini so your analogy doesn't work. The Revo is not the MP3 you suggest.

I agree however if you need the Revo to do anything other than XBMC it is quite useless, unlike the Mac Mini as the Atom processor is very slow. The Revo works because of the pairing with the Nvidia package.

 

[gianly1985]

Funny - movies sound and look exactly the same on the Revo as the did on the Mini so your analogy doesn't work. The Revo is not the MP3 you suggest.

I think there's been a misunderstanding , the second part of my answer is not about the Revo vs Mini but about the positioning of the "720p AppleTV" (or whatever it will be called) vs the Mini in the apple line-up.

I'll edit to make it clearer.

 

[Markusp]

Ahhhh - I understand now. Thanks.

 

[DCBass]

I don't understand...

†his is what i think Apple think about the whole situation.

if DVD's playback 480i and there isn't a single Apple device with blue-ray, why bother going to 1080p? It's a 'waste' (in Apple's eyes) since they don't ship a blueray player and those who have bought an external one are so few.

When apple start streaming 1080p, then we'll get it..in the meantime, what's the point (apart from those few people who have hd camcorders/BR etc but i am assuming they are a minority?) It doesn't fit in with Apple's methodology of giving us open systems. If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do, you're not buying 1080p so it's a waste building that into the atv. By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

If apple stream 1080p content (which they're not going to do at this point in time) then it's reason enough to give it to the public.

Besides, I'm sure atv will be hackable and the JB teams will have 1080p shortly after release...

I'm sorry, OP, but the whole premise of your argument for why Apple should leave out 1080p is apologetic at best.

How is it "open" for Apple to restrict the functionality of a device that would maximize it's quality for several of it's potential consumers merely because they don't sell any of their own media at that level of quality? As others have pointed out, there are several other sources of content other than Apple's that people may wish to use their "iTV" with. There is no reason a 1080p "iTV" wouldn't be able to handle Apple's own 720p content. Apple is not generally known for their "good enough" approach. Also, what's with the "If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do..."??? If Apple was truly "open" the iTV would be just as compatible with other source content as their own.

By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

I'm sorry, but why is it a good thing for Apple to perhaps intentionally cripple it's product just so that it can sucker people into buying more units the next year. Not very admirable, imo, and I cannot fathom why a suckered consumer would celebrate this maneuver. Even a long-term stockholder would not appreciate this sort of dishonest marketing.

The only rational argument I can see for Apple not shipping with 1080p is if they are committed to the $99 price point (like they supposedly were with the iPad at $499) and the cost of the necessary hardware to make this a smooth experience does not allow them to meet this price point. Why bother then? Why not wait until 1080p becomes more cost-effective (probably only a year or two)? --> Google TV. Gotta get out in front while you can.

Of course this is all speculative, it is Macrumors after all. We shall see where the cards lie when there's an official announcement.

I mean no offense, OP, but as much as I may like some of Apple's products, I cannot stand when folks blindlessly praise a company for any move it makes, wise or otherwise, justifying everything with apologetic arguments. This goes for Apple or any other company that folks tend to put upon the "can do no wrong" pedestal.

- DCBass

 

[TwoBytes]

no offense taken! This is a great thread with lots of interesting and well thought out points. It's all speculation and i'd like 1080p but if we don't, i'll be happy still.

RE apple and it's 'admirable' quality of crippling products? I agree. Look at the whole iphone/MMS/Video recording scenario...but it's Apple's way.

I do however stick with the argument for the vast majority, we don't need 1080p, agree with tdmac with all his points (no loss < 50", HD space, and the only true 1080p sources are from a BR player as you bypass the converters)

We'll see what happens soon i expect!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

this is what i think Apple think about the whole situation. if DVD's playback 480i and there isn't a single Apple device with blue-ray, why bother going to 1080p? It's a 'waste' (in Apple's eyes) since they don't ship a blueray player and those who have bought an external one are so few.

This same kind of thinking could apply to almost every product Apple creates then. No need for faster processors in Macs, since only the minority might actually use them. No need for better graphics cards in Macs, since only the minority of hardest core gamers, etc might actually fully utilize them. No need for various features in iPhones, iPads, and iPods, as only the minority might actually use them, etc.

Justifications of why not to include readily available technologies is trying to justify a poor decision (in 2010) on Apples part if the rumor pans out.

When apple start streaming 1080p, then we'll get it...

Content owners have no reason to even test the potential profitability in 1080p TV content, until there are 1080p TVs capable of playing it. What good would it do for- say- Warner or Paramount to insert 1080p movies for TV TODAY if there are no TVs through which to play them?

As you can see, this is not a chicken & egg question. Apple must lead by selling the hardware. When there is enough 1080p TVs in place, some content owner will be tempted to test 1080p content sales & rentals in the iTunes store. If it proves profitable, others will quickly follow.

Otherwise, money to buy a box to hook to the TV keeps flowing toward products like BD players- some of which are incorporating other TV-like media features- instead of flowing into Apple's pockets. A 1080p-capable competitor gives the content producers another medium through which to test sales of 1080p content, without having to give a cut to Walmart & Best Buy, nor pay for packaging, physical distribution, etc.

Until 1080p TVs are entrenched, those who want 1080p video for their 1080p HDTVs pretty much have to spend their money on something other than Apple's solution. If Apple (really Jobs) is so anti-BD, the best thing he could do is give the marketplace an alternative option for the masses- a way to get 1080p content on the HDTVs without having to buy a BD player and BD media. Until then, he/Apple cedes maximum quality to the "bag of hurt".

in the meantime, what's the point (apart from those few people who have hd camcorders/BR etc but i am assuming they are a minority?)

The point is that 1080p is the current MAX standard, and the MAX standard readily available in consumer TVs. It's probably as good as it gets for the masses for the next decade or so, until the next standard gains enough traction. When each TV is sold, that 1080p "full HD" pitch is a big piece of the pitch. Even Joe Sixpack can grasp that 1080p is "more" than 720p. When he buys the little boxes to hook to that TV, he probably has enough tech knowledge to seek out 1080p boxes, which is currently BD players, and a few channels on Satt/Cable. A 720p MAX box from Apple falls short of that.

Another point is that there is lots of content available in resolutions above 720p: Quicktime Trailers on Apple's site, Youtube videos, vodcasts, etc. And these exist BEFORE there's a 1080p TV on which to enjoy them. If Apple leads with the hardware, the number of units sold will be an enticement for much more to offer the option. Else, buyers may seek their 1080p box via added features within BD players, or other dedicated boxes like WD Live and similar.

It doesn't fit in with Apple's methodology of giving us open systems. If you buy content from the store like i hope most of us do, you're not buying 1080p so it's a waste building that into the atv.

It is not an open system when consumers are locked into a single source of delivery for the content. iTunes is great and all- and I myself use it with my TV, but things would be much more "open" if I could also use content via apps or otherwise from sources like netflix, blockbuster, hulu, etc. Yes, there's some hacks for some of that, but I wouldn't call Apple iTunes an "open" system relative to the TV.

By not giving 1080p it gives them the platform for them to introduce it to us another year and market/sell even more units...

Yes, but one might argue, we've already done that with the TV that exists today... and since 2007. It's time for that next system to come out with playback specs better than the one they delivered in 2007.

Would we be so quick to "forgive" them with this kind of justification if they were using 2007 tech in new Macs, iPhones, iPods, iPads, etc?

Besides, I'm sure atv will be hackable and the JB teams will have 1080p shortly after release...

No, if the hardware is too weak for 1080p, it's not likely a hack can make it stronger. Some argue that the current TV has the hardware to be able to play >720p, but no one has been able to hack it to do so, and still keep the interface, etc that makes it pretty great (otherwise).

If Apple rolls this one out as "720p is good enough" again, they won't get my money (and I'm a huge fan of TV, owning 2 of them myself).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

FWIW, a Blu Ray rip is 20-40 gigs, while a 720p encode of that for Apple TV is 2-4 gigs. The bandwidth required to download a 1080p movie simply doesn't exist for the home consumer, and won't for a long time to come. Thus 1080p for Apple TV is wasted cost/effort. It's not even practical to rip and store full 1080p versions of movies, as you'd fill up a 2TB HDD with less than 100 movies and choke your network trying to stream them.

Really? Are you comparing the size of uncompressed BD 1080p rip to a thoroughly compressed Apple (barely) 720p file to make this point? You do realize that some 480i DVDs when ripped will come in bigger than 2-4GBs, right?

If you would compare Apples to Apples, it would be the file size of a (barely) 720p file vs. the same as a 1080p file (just the video, no extras, both encoded and compressed with h.264). In other words, rip a master file from a BD disc then pump it through Handbrake or similar to yield 2 files: one at 720p and one at 1080p. Of course, the 1080p file will be larger, but it will not end up as 10X larger for the average movie. The larger (but not THAT much larger) file gets those who want maximum picture quality on their HDTV a superior picture, in exchange for the tradeoff of a little more hard drive space. These days, big hard drives are CHEAP. IMO, it's a great tradeoff... if we only had a Apple/iTunes-friendly way to push them to our 1080p HDTVs.

However, for those happy with Apple 720p "as is", no loss to you should they roll out a 1080p TV. More horsepower can play your smaller 720p files to their maximum potential. But it doesn't work the other way.

I realise that some/many people have 1080p-capable camcorders. But the same issues apply here too. You're unlikely to have a significant library of 1080p camcorder files, because it's impractical to store that much.

I'm one of those people, and speaking from direct experience, this is not true. Again, yes a 1080p or 1080i rendered file is going to be bigger than rendering it down to 720p or Apple's 960 x 540 option in iMovie (what I call Half HD). But the average file size is certainly not 10X bigger. I have dozens of hours of home movies and they all fit in a folder on one 2TB hard drive, along with lots of movie rips, lots of iTunes music, etc.

If I'm willing to chop the resolution on down to 480i or VHS resolution or 320 x 240, etc, I can end up with files way smaller than Apple's 720p. But those will pay in terms in how nice the picture looks in exchange for smaller and smaller files to store. No one seems to argue for Apple to go back to 480i resolution in the iTunes store, do they?

You can shoot in 720p, probably not be able to tell the difference in quality, and store 10x as much footage.

No, it's easy to see the difference. I've tried every method to MAX out the TV I have now relative to playing back 1080i then 1080p home movies captured in the last few years. Whether I render them in 720p or 960 x 540, it is obviously inferior to hooking the camcorder directly to the HDTV and watching the full 1080 footage. Everyone in my household notices.

On a related observation: the current TV is "strong" enough to play back DVD rips at full quality. In other words, Handbrake rips look just as good to all eyes in my household as the original DVDs. But those same eyes can easily see the difference between original camcorder video, 720p and 960 x 540. Why? TV has the hardware capable of DVD resolution, but not 1080... and contrary to many apologists on this topic (and, of course the "chart"): it is pretty easy to see the difference for even the most untrained eyes.

720p (with upscaled 1080p output) on the ATV/iTV is all that the vast majority of the market needs, because that's all the vast majority of the market are going to be feeding it.

Then, I suppose 486 or Pentium processors are good enough for computers, because the majority of market doesn't tax those with how they use their computers? I suppose 3G is overkill, because the majority of the market doesn't push it to its limits? Etc.

Besides the idea of wanting to support whatever Apple thinks with any logic- sound or not- why do we accept 2006 capabilities in this ONE thing from Apple, then gripe & complain about the lack of 2012 chips, graphics cards, etc in Apple's other major deliverables?

Even if we want to drink the koolaid, there is no downside to desiring 1080p playback in the next-gen TV. Those that believe this "720p is good enough" will still get what they want at the fullest level it can be realized. And those that want a little more can find what they are looking for too in a new, terrific product from Apple. Apple wins by selling more units to both camps rather than catering to just the "720p is all I need" crowd.

It's not like using 1080p chips instead of 720p adds cost or yields a higher retail price (we can easily see that many other manufacturers are selling little boxes with 1080p playback capabilities for retail prices well south of TV retail. I'm sure Apple can do it too).

 

[Scarpad]

Okay, I have been reading all this information from various sites for a while now and I think it seems the big picture of the whole ecosystem is overlooked.

To start off with the 720p vs 1080p is not a big issue in my opinion. The reason for this is because you have to look at the apple ecosystem as a whole and the benefit of that. IF you buy a HD [720p] movie from iTunes. Your able to access and watch this same movie (due to the fact a SD version is included also) on virtually any apple device and pc. You can play it on your TV, ipod, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and last but not least Windows PC's. Meaning you buy one piece of content/movie and you can virtually have it anywhere with you. The reason there staying 720p is for compatibility sakes, they don't want to start having to say: Device A, C are supported but devices B and D are not. Where as as it stands now, Device A,B,C,D are all supported. Now I have a few HD movies, purchased through iTunes, and the quality is pretty good. Sure there are better things out there. I know this for a fact. I also have a popcorn hour and many 720p / 1080p rips of some bluerays that I have. I would say that iTunes HD is not as good as some of those persay, but for convience/quality. It's pretty damn good. If your a true videophile/audiophile yeah it probably isn't good enough. (I have a 42" 1080p LCD HDTV, not a top end model but decent)

Like I said the big part of it is the ecosystem and it all working together pretty seamlessly. My only gripe with it really is the DRM (also prevents using like boxee to play the media instead). But all things considered thats not really that bad if you think about it as that allow you to set it too 5 computers. But that doesn't have a limit on other devices, as long as they sync to one of those 5 computers. meaning I could have a streaming TV in every room of the house and never have a problem with the limit, I could even setup a computer at a relatives house and use one activation and potentially allow them stream to every room in their house because TV's don't count towards the activation/licensing.

Okay this is about the whole cloud people keep talking about it and using to much bandwidth. I for one think it will be an assisted cloud. What I mean by this is that my itunes library at one point was 500 + GB after encoding all dvd's and hd video I could. But this cloud assisted library would most likely be for only purchased content. Point number one being that number alone that I have is way to big to ever conceivably fit onto current TV and who knows how much it will grow in the future. So the new TV would work just like the current one, and how I use my library is from streaming from my Mac! The whole idea with the cloud storage I feel would be for more mobile usage and only paid itunes content. If your on the go and say you own 50 GB of iTunes paid music (I realize thats a lot of money), that will not fit onto your 16 GB iphone now will it? So this is where streaming comes into play, where iTunes Cloud would allow one to stream all music/movies/videos/etc purchased from itunes to stream to your mobile device. Obviously you'd have intelligent sync at home so that way the most listened to content is stored on the device itself. But this is how I see the cloud storage working, you keep it all locally at home via download, but can stream from the cloud when mobile!

And lastly about the new device and people saying there are better solutions out, roku/ps3/xbox 360/vudo/etc. I don't think there is one that gives you as many options. Buy a movie from xbox 360 zune market place, can only watch/view on your xbox that I know of (I don't have a zune so I could be wrong, so it may be able to watch it on a pc? or zune ?). Buy a movie from the PSN download store in HD. Only watchable on PS3 (maybe psp again I don't really know). Or buy a movie on vudoo and only viewable on vudoo! I don't know about everyone else but I see a huge trend your locked into each platform. Now thats not to say it isn't the same for iTunes. But iTunes allows one to watch it virtually anywhere while as your stuck on vudoo, on just your tv if thats what you get which just Sucks!!!! Now for the whole netflix streaming, it's pretty sweet but there are problems with content providers with it. Some movies not available for streaming or they publishers could decide to pull there content anytime. At least with itunes if I buy it and download it, and for whatever reason they pull say music or movie from itunes for purchasing. I can still watch it cause I still own it much like a DVD or blueray because I have the file still (like a physical disk). Now thats not to say Apple could shut down all DRM activations and etc and really screw you over, but at this point I would find that highly unlikely compared to when Microsoft did that with there Playforsure or whatever DRM it was called.

So for purchasing digital downloads, I really see iTunes as the best in the current market. When looking at all the aspects. If the new TV will run apps then I'm sure we can expect netflix/Hulu and more to show up on it. .

I gander at my writing and see that wow this was really long, I don't know how many people I could expect to read the whole thing but this is my big take on the whole situation. I have some more thoughts on it, but for now that's enough for one post lolz.

No If I buy Say Warehouse 13 in HD for $2.99 I get a full 1080p version, I Can go to my Zune Software and DL to my Zne HD a 720p version and a SD for no exta cost. And I can Re Downoad it as well,

 

[Flynnstone]

No, it's easy to see the difference. I've tried every method to MAX out the TV I have now relative to playing back 1080i then 1080p home movies captured in the last few years. Whether I render them in 720p or 960 x 540, it is obviously inferior to hooking the camcorder directly to the HDTV and watching the full 1080 footage. Everyone in my household notices.

Bingo.
I have a 1080p TV. The only reason I haven't purchased an AppleTV is that it doesn't do 1080p.
Presently I grab a laptop and use it for displaying 1080p content. I also use it for iTunes rentals, but it kind of a pain.
For me, I will not buy a 720p AppleTV for my 1080p TV.
I will buy a a 1080p AppleTV if and when it comes available.

 

[iTiki]

i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

Please, do yourself a favor and buy some glasses. You will be amazed at what you have been missing. There are cheaper cuts of meat and box wine, too. For most of us, we prefer something better...

 

[Flynnstone]

Originally Posted by bigpatky
i don't even know why the current apple tv has to do 720p. 480i is fine. i enjoy dvd quality. think about the bandwidth. 2-3 gigs for a 720p movie when it could be 400-500 mb for 480i? what a waste. plus, my hd camcorder records just fine in standard def and if i save them in sd, i can save 10-20x as many videos in the same space.

Please, do yourself a favor and buy some glasses. You will be amazed at what you have been missing. There are cheaper cuts of meat and box wine, too. For most of us, we prefer something better...

I took the first quote to be tongue in cheek.

 

[Revels]

1080p is great. Stick Avatar on and sit back and marvel at it.

But 1080p streamed isn't going to work for a fair while. Internet speeds are progressing so fast that it won't be long until we look back and think how silly it was that we had to wait while something buffered.

If Apple offer an 'all you can watch' subscription then I'll jump at it. 720p is fine for me for my weekly shows and new movies. I like having everything at the click of a button and being able to pick a film and watch it straight away is a real plus for me, that's far more important than 1080p.

I never rip anything at that anyway, the space it takes up is huge!!

 

[TwoBytes]

yep, disappointed, no 1080p...but...did you see iron man being played on steve's gigantic projector? Looked pretty good to me at 720p...

 

[tommylotto]

Point 1: The 720p downloads from the iTunes store look every bit as good as the bluray disk FROM NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES. If you can tell the difference, you are sitting too damn close. (Or you have a really, really big screen)

Point 2: I use MakeMKV and handbrake to encode 1080p BluRays for the current AppleTV. The resulting 720p files look every bit as good as that downloaded from iTunes (thus from normal viewing distances as good as the bluray).

Point 3: I too like to get real close to my 1080p flat screen see the difference and feel all superior, but I know you can't tell once you get back to the couch.

Summary: I too would have preferred it if it played my 1080p MKV's or at least 1080p m4v's as it would save encoding time, but in the grand scheme its no big deal. Access to content, convenience and download times are more important.

BTW my LASIK corrected eyes are 20/10, so toss that argument out.

These comments only concern downloaded content, not broadcasted HD, which has lots of problems as transmitted.

 

[Icaras]

Point 1: The 720p downloads from the iTunes store look every bit as good as the bluray disk FROM NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES. If you can tell the difference, you are sitting too damn close. (Or you have a really, really big screen)

No I am not sitting too damned close, but I do own a pretty big screen, a 60" KURO display, and 720p and 1080p is readily distinguishable from the couch. Comparing iTunes HD to blu-ray is a joke.

I did read your last sentence however, and it seems the doctor messed up on your lasik eye surgery if you're mistaking iTunes quality to Blu-ray quality. I'd get a refund if I were you, or find a good lawyer.

 

[Flynnstone]

I have a 60" 1080p Sony and am disappointed that we didn't get 1080p

But at $99, I ordered one.

 

[auero]

I don't understand why a Blu-ray rental from blockbuster is 4.99 here and that comes in 1080 with DTS-HD, DB-HD, TRUE HD, etc.. and for the same money I'll stream a movie from Apple at lower quality, and different sound. For the regular consumer it might not be a difference but for us home theater/movie junkies, it does matter. We spend a lot on our equipment and want it to look and sound great.

 

[gugy]

Right now I am looking into the MacMini.
I know it's way more $$$ than AppleTV but lack of external drive support, 1080p and variety of codecs is a turn off.
At least I can throw any codec at the Mini and will play. Also I hope Apple eventually updates Front Row. I heard Plex and XMBC can have a steep learning curve. I need something simple so wife and kids don't get discourage using the device.

 

[hfletcher]

- 1080p looks better than 720p. FACT. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses

- True 1080p content (i.e high bitrate blu-ray quality) comes in at MASSIVE file sizes. Even on a 50mb connection, downloading something like 20gb of video will take ages.

- But, Apple should have allowed 1080p content to play back on the device - I suspect the only issue is the firmware which would need an update to allow this.

 

[raygungirl]

Does this mean that the Netflix streaming videos won't be in 1080p through the Apple TV? Or just the videos through iTunes? If the Apple TV won't be able to do Netflix in 1080p, I won't bother to get one. :\

I really wanted one, especially for the price, but at this point I'm spoiled by all the easily accessible (and often free) HD out there. (HD antenna = better over-air HD than we get with our cable company.) If Netflix WILL be in 1080p, I'm totally getting one of these. $99 flat fee > $60/yr Xbox Live subscription to be able to stream Netflix.

Also, I'm not sure if the Xbox currently streams Netflix in full 1080p or not, but it certainly looks like it to me. So the Apple TV would have to do the same for me to justify buying one. We have a nice TV and it deserves HD.

Edit: I stand corrected, Netflix's HD is supposedly only 720p on Xbox (for now), but it looks so good on our 40" Sony that I couldn't tell. I'm actually kind of shocked. Now that I think of it, it isn't quite as insanely sharp as Blu-ray, but on our size TV, it's very hard to tell the difference. http://mashable.com/2010/02/08/netflix-1080p/

 

[nelmat]

There is a lot more out there than apple downloads and disc-based media. And what about the future?

I certainly wouldn't consider iTV if it didn't support 1080p - there's plenty of competition that does.

More interested to see what it supports in terms of new software/streaming services and how it interacts with the wider web community and household devices.

Could you name a single company who stream video at 1080 please? I know plenty of boxes with 1080 out, but not a single content provider who streams it.

 

[nelmat]

Does this mean that the Netflix streaming videos won't be in 1080p through the Apple TV? Or just the videos through iTunes? If the Apple TV won't be able to do Netflix in 1080p, I won't bother to get one. :\

I really wanted one, especially for the price, but at this point I'm spoiled by all the easily accessible (and often free) HD out there. (HD antenna = better over-air HD than we get with our cable company.) If Netflix WILL be in 1080p, I'm totally getting one of these. $99 flat fee > $60/yr Xbox Live subscription to be able to stream Netflix.

Also, I'm not sure if the Xbox currently streams Netflix in full 1080p or not, but it certainly looks like it to me. So the Apple TV would have to do the same for me to justify buying one. We have a nice TV and it deserves HD.

Netflix streaming video isn't in 1080p anywhere. The networks simply don't have the capacity and very few people have the dl speeds or bandwidth required for this.

 

[nelmat]

- 1080p looks better than 720p. FACT. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses

- True 1080p content (i.e high bitrate blu-ray quality) comes in at MASSIVE file sizes. Even on a 50mb connection, downloading something like 20gb of video will take ages.

- But, Apple should have allowed 1080p content to play back on the device - I suspect the only issue is the firmware which would need an update to allow this.

lol - yes 1080 looks better than 720. The 4096 that apple and youtube are currently rolling out looks even better.

It's all irrelevant. Maybe apple should release a box that plays 4096 as well?!

There's no point increasing the price point of a unit at this stage that won't be able to realise 1080 playback for at least the next couple of years (the lifespan of this product revision).

 

[raygungirl]

Netflix streaming video isn't in 1080p anywhere. The networks simply don't have the capacity and very few people have the dl speeds or bandwidth required for this.

Yeah I just did the research myself and discovered that. I'm seriously shocked, I'm really a stickler about video quality (it irks me when it's not up to snuff, or god forbid the aspect is wrong), so I'm embarrassed I couldn't tell the difference.

It definitely explains why Apple didn't think it was a big deal to worry about 1080p, though. It really isn't that noticeable to most people, or on small-ish TVs. (We used to have a 65", and I think we'd be able to notice on that, but on the 40"? I seriously can't tell.)

 

[jp102235]

1080p means nothing

I don't understand why anyone would be against 1080p capability. You are not forced to store and view 1080p contents if you don't want to. And those that have 1080p TV and 1080p contents (e.g., home movies, YouTube, Blu-Ray rips) can enjoy 1080p if they want to.

I can give you a good reason: its disingenuous. The only 1080p content is either home movies or bluray - ATV is not optimized for either (bit rate limitations bring it far below the 40Mbps and 19Mbps that bluray and OTA provide). The "HD" that is sold by Apple,dish, direcTV and comcast is NOT HD at all. it is "HD-lite". Current DVD offers better bitrate than what is being sold to us as HD - even at 1080p. Buying a wd tv live because it does 1080p is quite silly in my opinion (it cannot support the bit rate of "true HD") as you will gain ZERO benefits (better image quality) to the improved resolution.

bottom line: 1080p does not guarantee a better image.
-so don't waste $ on hardware to generate it if your source material can't anyway-

jp