Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which of the options below would you buy?

  • Option #1. I don't need 4K video right away.

    Votes: 19 38.8%
  • Option #2. I may need 4K video later.

    Votes: 13 26.5%
  • Option #2. I need 4K video.

    Votes: 11 22.4%
  • I'm not buying an Apple TV4.

    Votes: 6 12.2%

  • Total voters
    49

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
662
2,968
What is 1K video output?

1080p is 1920x1080.
4k is 4096 x 2160.

If we're trying to make a "k" analogy here, 1080p is more like 2K. Or we can just refer to it properly, and say 1080p.

Technically DVD was 1K and BD is 2K. 4K is the horizontal resolution equivalent. They've smartly moved to just using UHD. Should have done it before 4K got locked into all of our heads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneMadRssn

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
The gooberment blew this. They could have sped the transition by going with 480p to begin with then expand the resolution capability over time as the technology allowed. Multichannel providers waste a silly amount of bandwidth on legacy channel duplication. This would have pushed everyone to widescreen almost immediately, then it's an issue of compression methods and format growth over time. Products would have been available with higher resolution capability for those who wanted to make the investment. Instead it took 15 years to transition because the cost of getting to HD at the time was prohibitive.

Yes. In hindsight, there should have been ways to take advantage of ever-improving compression options so that the transition could have easily kept evolving. The underpinnings of 1080i/720p over the air are already pretty outdated with no replacement mandates to do anything about it.
 

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
662
2,968
Yes. In hindsight, there should have been ways to take advantage of ever-improving compression options so that the transition could have easily kept evolving. The underpinnings of 1080i/720p over the air are already pretty outdated.

Yeah. It's crazy. I remember crawling up on the roof with an antenna just to get two channels. We're close to 15 years on and they're behind the curve. OTA was beautiful when you could get it, but so many have compressed the hell out of it with sub channels that I'm not sure it's even HD anymore.
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5

Ouch is right. So what new generation of relatively mainstream streaming (or set top) box is NOT 4K once this one arrives? Looks like a great box. For being a relative flea vs. the behemoth that is Apple, Roku sure does keep their train running. Focus really works wonders.

And for me this is Deja Vu: flashing back to Apple clinging to 720p while pretty much everyone else had moved on to 1080p. Of course, around here, many were making the same arguments made against 4K now aimed at 1080p back then... until Apple rolled out the "3" and then all that anti-1080p sentiment just vanished... only to be reborn recently to recycle the very same arguments again, now against 4K.
 

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
662
2,968
Ouch is right. So what new generation of relatively mainstream streaming (or set top) box is NOT 4K once this one arrives? Looks like a great box. For being a relative flea vs. the behemoth that is Apple, Roku sure does keep their train running. Focus really works wonders.

And for me this is Deja Vu: flashing back to Apple clinging to 720p while pretty much everyone else had moved on to 1080p. Of course, around here, many were making the same arguments made against 4K now aimed at 1080p back then... until Apple rolled out the "3" and then all that anti-1080p sentiment just vanished... only to be reborn recently to recycle the very same arguments again, now against 4K.

Yeah. I love our iPads, they just work so well with the phones and our primary use is taking iTunes on the road. Dumping an ecosystem would be a pain at this point, but damn. Apple is pretty much freezing our house to physical media with digital copies for Apple devices. Here's to hoping for a shorter AppleTV product cycle.

Roku just nailed it. NVIDIA did too, but they're in a pretty crowded market. Apple should start thinking about an open playback app for other devices. I know they want a closed ecosystem, but if people start jumping ship...

I'm also not so sure we're seeing the end of physical media so much as we're seeing the end of the home PC. It won't be long before we are plugging our phones into a dock with a monitor and keyboard. I don't even get on the PC at home more than once or twice a month and even then it's just for work. Imagine sitting in front of your TV editing pictures or doing a spreadsheet.
 
Last edited:

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
Don't forget Amazon's new box too: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/17/4k-fire-tv/ with 4K and Alexa voice functions

The good news is this: if we look back at what preceded the "3", both iPhone and then iPad were able to shoot 1080p BEFORE Apple decided to upgrade the "2" to the "3". Conceptually, next Fall's iPads inherits this Fall's iPhone camera so the wait for the "5" is probably next Fall, or not too many months thereafter. Of course, I base that on a historical sample of just a single instance so who knows.
 

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,289
1,292
Lots of us have 4K TVs (or even 5K iMacs). And we've either been shooting 4K on 4K camcorders and (the other guys) smart phones for the last few years or we've started shooting lots of 4Ks on our new iPhones (millions and millions of us apparently bought a 4K-capable (new) iPhone in the very first weekend it was available). As such 4K content will explode on sites like youtube. iMovie & FCPX will edit our 4K home movies shot with our new iPhones and we'll wish we had a "just works", easy way to display that 4K on the 4K TVs we have or will buy soon (I don't know where you are but where I am it seems there are more 4K sets in the stores than 1080p, and prices are much more interesting than typically implied around here).

Besides, Apple goes 4K and that lead will drive followers to roll out 4K content. Apple goes A9 and loads of followers code apps for A9. Apple goes smart touch and loads of followers code for smart touch. Apple goes Apple Pay and lots of partners pile on in support of Apple Pay. Apple goes retina and loads of followers develop for retina. Apple goes TouchID and developers embrace TouchID. See the pattern?

On the other hand, no partners lined up in support of Apple Pay BEFORE Apple chose to develop it. No partners coded for A9 before Apple chose to develop it. No partners supported smart touch before Apple chose to develop it. Nobody coded for retina before Apple chose to go retina. Nobody supported TouchID until Apple chose to embrace that. Again, see the pattern?

If Apple had embraced 4K here (like they did in just about everything else they sell), the Studios would have wanted to roll out 4K content in the iTunes store. It makes zero sense for the Studios to roll out 4K :apple:TV content in the iTunes store until there are 4K :apple:TVs that can play it. Apple should lead the way there (again, they've already embraced 4K in just about everything else). Some of us are grumpy about this because A) we believe Apple SHOULD lead the way and B) after 3 years since the prior :apple:TV rolled out 1080p, we expected Apple to go ahead and make the jump instead of another round of 1080p. Plus some of us with 4K sets are hungry for more 4K content and would rather buy/rent it from Apple than Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and the new 4K Blu Ray discs.

I don't have an ATV and wont have one. I do however set them up for friends and clients. To your point - Apple wasn't going to go 4k until iTunes had a sufficient amount of 4k media available to rent or sell. Remember, the ATV is nothing more than a vehicle to get people into iTunes and no more. Every bell and whistle is only there to keep the non-tech type and the die hard Apple lovers happy. Please don't get me wrong, this was the same way Kodak sold film - by making those Kodak Instamatic Cameras in the 1960's. It was a brilliant marketing move. What we see now is that Apple is being caught with its proverbial pants down as Amazon Fire and Nvidia Shield TV and others take up the slack and do 4k. The sad part for the consumers is you wont find Amazon Prime on ATV, you wont find iTunes offerings on Amazon or Nvidia and so forth. As for me, I'll continue forwards with Nvidia Shield, get an Amazon Fire for a family member (who is heavy into Amazon Prime) and they both do Netflix and most Vudu is pending. We are set without the ATV for now.
 

jerwin

Suspended
Jun 13, 2015
2,895
4,651
Yes. In hindsight, there should have been ways to take advantage of ever-improving compression options so that the transition could have easily kept evolving. The underpinnings of 1080i/720p over the air are already pretty outdated with no replacement mandates to do anything about it.
1080i looked pretty impressive, when enough bandwidth was dedicated to it--15 Mb/s. Trouble is, many of the stations decided that 8 Mb/s was enough, because they wanted to squeeze in multiple 480i subchannels.
My apple TV PBS channel looks amazing compared to the muddy "720p" mess that WETA-26 deigns to broadcast.

H.264/H2.65 is much more efficient, than MPEG-2 which only holds up when given massive amounts of bandwidth--such as a bluray disc or a full atsc channel.
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
To your point - Apple wasn't going to go 4k until iTunes had a sufficient amount of 4k media available to rent or sell.


That "until there's 4K content in the iTunes store" argument sounds so logical but think about it: suppose we could wave a magic wand and convert EVERY SINGLE VIDEO in the iTunes store into a 4K version for Apple TV right now. What would happen? Nothing. Why not? Because the hardware must LEAD. It makes no sense for a 4K :apple:TV to wait until there is lots of 4K content for :apple:TV in the iTunes store as that will never happen (nobody can make a dollar on making 4K versions for :apple:TV of everything in the iTunes store until there are 4K:apple:TVs in homes. One (the hardware) must roll out ahead of the other (the software). It never works the other way.

How many apps are in the iPhone app store that run only on the A10? None. So Apple shouldn't develop the A10 right? They should wait until there are many A10-dependent apps in the app store first and then develop the A10, right? Of course not. The hardware must always lead the software.

Or both roll out together at the same time. Had Apple chose to make this one 4K-capable, some Studio(s) would have wanted to try to be first with some 4K content to exploit it. If they made some profit on 4K versions, other Studios would have rushed right in behind them. Instead, no Studio has ANY incentive to put any 4K in the iTunes store because there's no 4K :apple:TV hardware to drive purchases or rentals.

Why? Look no further than the :apple:TV4 games that were developed by the third party presenters. Not a single person can buy one of those games right now (so not a dollar can be made up until the launch) but the programmers chose to develop for :apple:TV anyway. Why? So they could be among the first with games available for it. Movie & TV Studios would have done the same with their "software" if this one had rolled with 4K capabilities- maybe not ALL of them right out of the gate, but not everything in the iTunes store is available at 1080p either. Much like those game coders, SOME Studios would have jumped right on it if Apple chose to go there with this one.
 
Last edited:

mmomega

macrumors demi-god
Dec 30, 2009
3,879
2,089
DFW, TX
My guess is Apple is setting the stage for 4k for the next refresh. Very similar to the AppleTV2.
When it was released it was 720p then a little over a year later the 1080p version was released. I can see this happening with this new model as well.
I'm not trying to guess if it will be around a year later(more like 2) but I can see Apple making the upgrade when there are more 4k distribution options out there.
 

Supermallet

macrumors 68000
Sep 19, 2014
1,808
1,445
My guess is that Apple will release a new ATV next year, and it will do 4K and HEVC. I'm betting that Apple is working with the studios right now on getting 4K content so when they do announce the next ATV, there will be a large selection of 4K movies available on day one.
 

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
662
2,968
My guess is that Apple will release a new ATV next year, and it will do 4K and HEVC. I'm betting that Apple is working with the studios right now on getting 4K content so when they do announce the next ATV, there will be a large selection of 4K movies available on day one.

Likely. I'm disappointed in the Amazon thing today more than 4K. I had high hopes for the App Store and the possibility of an all in one box where Siri would cross search apps for content. Amazon will stop selling AppleTV on the 29th so my guess is ATV4 drops then or the 30th. There is no doubt some back door discussions are going on that we're not aware of on app integration and my hunch is something broke down between Apple and Amazon. Were it not the case, I don't think Amazon does this. It just doesn't make any sense. Because of Netflix I can survive without Prime, it's just a nice plus that comes with a service we pay for simply because we order a lot of stuff completely unrelated to media. It makes me wonder about availability of other media apps to gain access to the digital copies I have on UV. I'm really done with needing multiple devices to access all my content. The situation isn't helped by the fact that most of the studios have punted iTunes digital copy in favor of UV. It's been a joy having BDs for the home and Vudu/iTunes/Prime for the road. It would be nice to access them from ATV when I just don't feel like flipping through the BD collection.
 

Supermallet

macrumors 68000
Sep 19, 2014
1,808
1,445
Yes, this is the downside of all of these media groups releasing competing products. Amazon is a retailer but it's also a content provider. Netflix can be available on any platform because all they're offering is content. They may offer competing content to Amazon or Apple, but they're such a big selling point that both companies make more money working with them rather than against them.

On the other hand, Apple and Amazon both have content delivery services, hardware and software. They both have huge customer bases who are embroiled in their respective ecosystems. Apple takes a gamble by saying no to Amazon, and Amazon takes a similar gamble. The hardcores on each side may write off the other.

So the question becomes, what will win out? ATV will undoubtedly be the smoothest of all the experiences, because that's Apple's strength. Siri will be more advanced than Alexa or Roku's voice search. But for someone who doesn't have a lot of iTunes purchases, how much more compelling is the ATV? The thing about Amazon is if I have Prime (and I do), then I don't have to have ANY media purchases with Amazon to take advantage of Amazon Prime video, since it's another Netflix style service.

The one thing Apple has not done is release a streaming service. There's no exclusive Apple content (other than iTunes Extras, but that's a pittance). The only way that the ATV is compelling enough from a content perspective is if one has been or wants to buy most of their content from iTunes. Otherwise not playing ball with Amazon (and potential future competitors) makes the ATV look like a bad buy.

This is why a company like Roku can thrive. They're only competing on hardware, but companies like Amazon are more interested in selling services than the hardware, so Roku is no threat to them. In fact, Roku is a boon, because it's another way to get Amazon Prime video into your home.

It may be that Apple wants to play ball with Amazon and Amazon is resisting because Apple TV isn't nearly the market leader that the iPhone/iPad is. Or it may be that Amazon wants their service as widely available as possible, but Apple doesn't like having a direct competitor on their system. If that's the case though, why allow the Amazon video app on iOS? Or Google Maps? So something tells me that it's Amazon trying to edge out Apple in this case. It likely has to do with Apple demanding a cut of all sales through their apps. That's why all of Amazon's apps direct you to Amazon's website to make purchases, and there's no webkit on the ATV.

As a result of all of this, I may just end up with a Roku 4. I'll probably wait until the next ATV is out before upgrading from my Roku 3 though. Who knows what could happen by then.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.