4k TVs are so advanced, whats the point of Apple TV 4k?

[err404]

For me it’s really just for iTunes since I buy so much of my stuff on there. If it wasn’t for that, I probably wouldn’t care too much about Apple TV. Someone please tell me I can get iTunes stuff on smart TVs now. PLEASE

For movies, use Movies Anywhere to access your library from other services. There is no solution yet for TV shows.
I think a lot of the long term value in streaming boxes comes from the length of time you own a TV. Even if your TVs smart functions were great when you bought it, how long s o you think it will hold up before performance lags, or new services are unavailable.
Do you expect the hot new new streaming service launching in 2020 to run well, if it at all, on your high end smart TV from 2015?
Tech is constant march forward and having the UI separate from Display can greatly extend the life of the display.
Honestly I feel like this conversation can only happen at the launch of a new spec like HDR/4k since this forum is a self selected group of people who have very recently bought new TVs. However we are not representative of the market at large.
I think most people here going the smart tv route today, will be happy to have streaming devices on the market in a few years to give that TV investment a shot in the arm.

 

[brentsg]

Long term speaking this is going to be an issue for Apple TV. Having an add on unit simply isn't going to be a long term play because TVs like Samsungs and LGs will continue to improve with software and apps leaving a standalone unit like Apple TV obsolete in some ways. This isn't just singling out Apple TV but ALL units like Roku. TVs are just too advanced at this point and will continue to gain ground. It will be like streaming vs discs in some ways. It will be one less remote and one less device and once less cable that people need.


I am assuming Apple will actually release a TV that has all of this built in to create a more unified TV/Internet experience and shake up the TV market.

The argument usually goes the other way. Your TV will get support for a couple of years, then the OS and apps will stop getting updated. You won't replace your TV often, so devices like the Apple TV will keep your streaming fresh.

 

[PowerGala]

It’s a matter of personal preference, but I still prefer a dedicated device over consoles and smart TVs. The biggest issue is long term App support. I know that the Apple TV 4K will be supported for years to come while many, if not all the Apps on my 2010 Panasonic 3D TV are disabled and never really worked right in the first place.

I’m also not a huge fan of Google, so I’d rather not use the Google Apps on my new 4K Sony. For people who like Google, I’m sure it’s fine for now until it’s no longer supported.

I still feel that a dedicated device typically does a better job than a device that’s trying to do things it wasn’t really designed to do. I think it’s better that TV manufacturers are letting companies like Google and Roku handle the streaming stuff, but the Apple TV 4K was built for streaming. It’s fast, it fits well with my other Apple devices and it does a very good job at streaming.

It may be a little pricey, but in the long run I enjoy it. To each their own.

 

[Juicy Box]

It’s a matter of personal preference, but I still prefer a dedicated device over consoles and smart TVs. The biggest issue is long term App support. I know that the Apple TV 4K will be supported for years to come while many, if not all the Apps on my 2010 Panasonic 3D TV are disabled and never really worked right in the first place.

I’m also not a huge fan of Google, so I’d rather not use the Google Apps on my new 4K Sony. For people who like Google, I’m sure it’s fine for now until it’s no longer supported.

I still feel that a dedicated device typically does a better job than a device that’s trying to do things it wasn’t really designed to do. I think it’s better that TV manufacturers are letting companies like Google and Roku handle the streaming stuff, but the Apple TV 4K was built for streaming. It’s fast, it fits well with my other Apple devices and it does a very good job at streaming.

It may be a little pricey, but in the long run I enjoy it. To each their own.

IMO, I think that you got the major points.

I understand the appeal of only using the TV's OS, but the issues with doing that have not been solved just yet, and maybe it never will.

I remember an article I read not too long ago, about a panel at some electronic conventions (I will try to find it and post a link). The panel was discussing whether or not smart TVs will still be smart in the future.

The ultimate answer that the panel came up with was that TV will remain smart for now, but the fact it was something that was being debated at a electronic convention really shows the uncertainty of the future of OS and app development for the smart TV market.

One issue that was mentioned was that TV manufacturers' profit margins are already really tiny. Having to invest money for R&D, and long term support of the smart TV's OS will make the tiny profit margin even smaller.

I think this was the biggest reason why updates just stop after a relatively short period of time.

 

[redkamel]

I've been using an apple tv for the last few years very happily with my (now) dinosaur-ed old TV. Having bought a lovely new LG 2017 4k tv, the OS on it seems pretty damned good: Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, NAS streaming with Plex, BBC iplayer, etc all in fabulous resolution and the TV seamlessly picks the correct resolution without me having to guess or change settings.

So I'm just wondering since everyone talking on here about the Apple TV 4k must equally have a new TV with an equally good inbuilt OS, what are you all doing by adding an extra box? What is the value that you see, other than adding itunes as a subscription source which is no big deal given all the others out there, and adding some games which equally seems no big deal if you have a proper gaming machine under the telly.

Am I missing something? Genuinely, I expected to hop out and buy a new apple 4k box to fit underneath the new tv and am struggling to see a reason why. Plus I see all these complaints about it not really handling the resolution or the colour stream or the sound particularly well...

lack of malware, increased privacy, customer support, a usable UI, "Hey Siri" multi app search

 

[Mac 128]

For movies, use Movies Anywhere to access your library from other services. There is no solution yet for TV shows.

Movies Anywhere doesn't support all studios for all movies in your library. For instance, there's no Paramount movies from my iTunes library available in MA, while this may eventually expand, it may be a while before all studios sign on. Moreover, you don't get 4K movie support via MA, even if you own it on iTunes. My 4K movies are all HD only under other services. And as you point out there's no TV episode support. There's also no music support, for accessing your music library on other platforms. And we haven't even touched on games.

The bottom line is that anyone who has invested in Apple's iTunes and iOS ecosystem will be left mostly high and dry without an Apple TV 4K to integrate it into their home entertainment system. Alternately, someone could buy a Lightning/USB-C to HDMI adapter for their iPhone or Mac, and simply access everything from their other devices. Of course there's no 4K that way either.

 

[ZEEN0j]

Apart from what everyone else is saying of why they use an Apple TV. I love that there’s an app from my tv provider. I’ve disconnected my box and just use the Apple TV. One less remote and one more HDMI input. Apple TV remote in control center is sweet as well.

 

[Macalicious2011]

It’s a matter of personal preference, but I still prefer a dedicated device over consoles and smart TVs. The biggest issue is long term App support. I know that the Apple TV 4K will be supported for years to come while many, if not all the Apps on my 2010 Panasonic 3D TV are disabled and never really worked right in the first place.

I’m also not a huge fan of Google, so I’d rather not use the Google Apps on my new 4K Sony. For people who like Google, I’m sure it’s fine for now until it’s no longer supported.

I still feel that a dedicated device typically does a better job than a device that’s trying to do things it wasn’t really designed to do. I think it’s better that TV manufacturers are letting companies like Google and Roku handle the streaming stuff, but the Apple TV 4K was built for streaming. It’s fast, it fits well with my other Apple devices and it does a very good job at streaming.

It may be a little pricey, but in the long run I enjoy it. To each their own.

I agree with most of what you are saying but Samsung and LG have massively stepped up their game. Their recent TVs have good UI for smart TV functions. Panasonic and Sony are lagging behind though.

 

[Novus John]

The ultimate answer that the panel came up with was that TV will remain smart for now, but the fact it was something that was being debated at a electronic convention really shows the uncertainty of the future of OS and app development for the smart TV market.

One issue that was mentioned was that TV manufacturers' profit margins are already really tiny. Having to invest money for R&D, and long term support of the smart TV's OS will make the tiny profit margin even smaller.

I'm wondering why the TV manufacturers aren't considering releasing barebones TVs, no receiver, no special modules, no smart functions, no speakers, nothing fancy or stupid, just the display and a set of standard input/output ports. In my setup, I've already replaced everything except the TV-matrix, I don't even use the TV remote anymore, and yet I've paid for the whole setup. In the future when I decide to buy another TV I will have to pay yet again for the same things that I won't be using.

I'm sure you could skim somewhere between $50 and a $100 by removing the unnecessary parts. There is logic somewhere in their decision not to do this but I don't know where.

 

[err404]

I'm wondering why the TV manufacturers aren't considering releasing barebones TVs, no receiver, no special modules, no smart functions, no speakers, nothing fancy or stupid, just the display and a set of standard input/output ports. In my setup, I've already replaced everything except the TV-matrix, I don't even use the TV remote anymore, and yet I've paid for the whole setup. In the future when I decide to buy another TV I will have to pay yet again for the same things that I won't be using.

I'm sure you could skim somewhere between $50 and a $100 by removing the unnecessary parts. There is logic somewhere in their decision not to do this but I don't know where.

In reality the cost is probably no more than $20 to the manufacturer, but they can sell it as a $50 to $100 feature upcharge. So long as nobody sells a dumb display they can get away with it.

 

[bruinsrme]

Not really into Samsung’s approach to apps.
Apple covers all my computers, phones and tablets.
As mentioned above the integration, it’s simplified my existence.
Plus I can purchase discounted iTunes card and save on rentals, subscriptions and so on.

Plus apples GUI is cleaner and easier to use
Imo

 

[priitv8]

I'm wondering why the TV manufacturers aren't considering releasing barebones TVs, no receiver, no special modules, no smart functions, no speakers, nothing fancy or stupid, just the display and a set of standard input/output ports.

They are releasing them. They are just called Professional Displays.
Like these.

 

[doobydoooby]

In the end I found one very good reason to choose an apple tv over the inbuilt LG software: Infuse. There is no equivalent on the LG tv. I tried the plex app on the TV running a Plex server from my NAS but something struggled along the way - the picture was frequently pixelated, presumably because the NAS doesn't have the processing power required for a Plex server. But with Infuse on the apple tv everything is absolutely perfect, immediate, problem free. That one thing made my mind up.

 

[Marshall73]

Android TV on the Sony sets is a disgrace. Once amazon appears on the Apple TV I’m disconnecting my Sony from the network.

 

[ErikGrim]

They are releasing them. They are just called Professional Displays.
Like these.

But by calling them pro they are really more expensive? Got it.

 

[Novus John]

They are releasing them. They are just called Professional Displays.
Like these.

Kinda but not really. They are sold as displays for businesses and have therefore specifications that are useful for that type of work. Some can't even be calibrated properly or have very bad backlight illumination, are manufactured with old display technology, etc. And they often cost more than your average tv, so I wouldn't call that a success.

 

[priitv8]

But by calling them pro they are really more expensive? Got it.

Yeah. Pro means "making money".

 

[Juicy Box]

I'm wondering why the TV manufacturers aren't considering releasing barebones TVs, no receiver, no special modules, no smart functions, no speakers, nothing fancy or stupid, just the display and a set of standard input/output ports. In my setup, I've already replaced everything except the TV-matrix, I don't even use the TV remote anymore, and yet I've paid for the whole setup. In the future when I decide to buy another TV I will have to pay yet again for the same things that I won't be using.

I don't disagree. I am sure I am not the only one that doesn't use the smart features and tuner. Although, it couldn't be called a TV if it was missing the tuner.

I'm sure you could skim somewhere between $50 and a $100 by removing the unnecessary parts. There is logic somewhere in their decision not to do this but I don't know where.

The 80/20 rule probably applies to TVs, meaning 80% of the cost comes from 20% of the components.

So removing unnecessary things may bring down the cost, but I am not sure by how much. But if it would come down to saving a few bucks vs getting extra features that I would never use, I would go with the savings.

 

[Plutonius]

I've been using an apple tv for the last few years very happily with my (now) dinosaur-ed old TV. Having bought a lovely new LG 2017 4k tv, the OS on it seems pretty damned good: Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, NAS streaming with Plex, BBC iplayer, etc all in fabulous resolution and the TV seamlessly picks the correct resolution without me having to guess or change settings.

So I'm just wondering since everyone talking on here about the Apple TV 4k must equally have a new TV with an equally good inbuilt OS, what are you all doing by adding an extra box? What is the value that you see, other than adding itunes as a subscription source which is no big deal given all the others out there, and adding some games which equally seems no big deal if you have a proper gaming machine under the telly.

Am I missing something? Genuinely, I expected to hop out and buy a new apple 4k box to fit underneath the new tv and am struggling to see a reason why. Plus I see all these complaints about it not really handling the resolution or the colour stream or the sound particularly well...

I would also buy a 4K Roku before getting an Apple TV.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

I would also buy a 4K Roku before getting an Apple TV.

If you use an iPhone or Mac or iPad or have Apple CarPlay in your car, then there's one thing that ATV really shines at and there's nothing to match it and that's its instantly recognisable, pleasure to use USER INTERFACE!
It's very easy to get complacent when you use Apple every day and forget how incredible their UI's are. I was unfortunate to use a friends Levosomething 13" tablet thingy with some detachable keyboard with its Windows OS and let me tell you, it was truly the most repulsive 'thing' that i've ever used in my life. Twice or three times heavier than my MacBook 12", horrible over saturated screen, picture judder on panning on YouTube videos. It was his work tool and he totally agreed what a pile of junk it was after the elegance and grace of his iPad.

It instantly made me realise why I love using a Mac and why the ATV is a premium priced product. It's beautifully made. It's damn fine. Apple are investing in this model. They want to make it the best streamer on the market with frequent TVos updates, auto frame switching etc. It's a true quality product. I loved ATV2, 3 and 4 and now, the best just got better.

Atmos is on its way, and who knows in 2 years time, we may see the ATV 6 with HDMI 2:2 and true lossless audio for film which along with super fast internet, will be Apples 4K UHD BluRay killer.

 

[Tinmania]

Audio. Connecting a box to your receiver instead of your TV is going to give you better audio.

I don't believe it will give you better audio, certainly not as a blanket statement. I have my smart tvs connected to sound via HDMI ARC (or optical in one case) and the audio system passes the same feed as if I went through a streaming box--even if the audio originated from a streaming box. And this works perfectly with the TVs' own apps, OTA, game consoles, or streaming boxes. The "receiver" is back to handling what it should handle: audio (and not video, combining/switching multiple inputs, etc.). Less wires, less aggravation, and excellent audio.



Mike

 

[priitv8]

Mike,

I don't believe it will give you better audio, certainly not as a blanket statement. I have my smart tvs connected to sound via HDMI ARC (or optical in one case) and the audio system passes the same feed as if I went through a streaming box--even if the audio originated from a streaming box. And this works perfectly with the TVs' own apps, OTA, game consoles, or streaming boxes. The "receiver" is back to handling what it should handle: audio (and not video, combining/switching multiple inputs, etc.). Less wires, less aggravation, and excellent audio.

It is not that simple, unfortunately.
The problem here is, that from ARC you can get out only the codecs & bitrates your TV firmware supports. For whatever reasons, the TV support for audio formats seems to be far more limited than that of contemporary AVR-s. For example, my own Bravia does not handle any of the lossless audio formats (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-MA, let alone object-based audio like Dolby Atmos, DTS:X or Auro 3D). Hence the receiver would only receive the downconverted or -stripped version of it. Eg when you'd play a DTS-MA track via ARC, only the DTS core layer will be passed, all high-bitrate lossless enhancement streams get stripped.
This can be fairly easily investigated by looking at EDID your TV and HDMI-equipped AVR will return.
My 2016 Sony Bravia supports these forms of audio:

Data Block Collection #2 - Type 1
    Audio Type Block
        Supported format:    Linear Pulse Code Modulation (LPƒ), on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz
        Supported samples:    16 bit, 20 bit, 24 bit

        Supported format:    AC3, on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz
        Maximum bitrate:    640kHz

        Supported format:    DTS, on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz
        Maximum bitrate:    1504kHz

        Supported format:    DD+, on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz, 48kHz

My 2017 AVR supports these (plus Atmos and DTS:X that are not specifically mentioned in EDID. They ride on the back of DD+, TrueHD or DTS-HD streams):

Data Block Collection #2 - Type 1
    Audio Type Block
        Supported format:    Linear Pulse Code Modulation (LPƒ), on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz
        Supported samples:    16 bit, 20 bit, 24 bit

        Supported format:    AC3, on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz
        Maximum bitrate:    640kHz

        Supported format:    DTS, on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
        Maximum bitrate:    1536kHz

        Supported format:    DD+, on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz, 48kHz

        Supported format:    MLP/Dolby TrueHD, on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz

        Supported format:    DTS-HD, on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz

        Supported format:    DTS-HD, on 8 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz

        Supported format:    One-bit audio (SACD), on 6 channels
        Supported freq:        44.1kHz

 

[Juicy Box]

If you use an iPhone or Mac or iPad or have Apple CarPlay in your car, then there's one thing that ATV really shines at and there's nothing to match it and that's its instantly recognisable, pleasure to use USER INTERFACE!

This is a good point.
As a very long time user of Apple products, I have been very frustrated with Apple for the last 4-5 years, for many different reason.

Over the past year, I have been giving serious though to leaving the Apple Ecosystem, but there are many things holding me back.

One of the things is how well all their devices work together. Another being that the UI still seems better than the competition on most devices, although, not on everything.

I am still exploring what else is out there, such as I am slowing switching over to PLEX instead of iTunes, but right now, I feel like Apple still has the better UI than the competition.

It's very clear that Apple are 100% behind the Apple TV 4K

I have to disagree with you about this, I don't think it is clear, and I doubt it is 100%. The ATV could use a little more love from Apple.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

This is a good point.
As a very long time user of Apple products, I have been very frustrated with Apple for the last 4-5 years, for many different reason.

Over the past year, I have been giving serious though to leaving the Apple Ecosystem, but there are many things holding me back.

One of the things is how well all their devices work together. Another being that the UI still seems better than the competition on most devices, although, not on everything.

I am still exploring what else is out there, such as I am slowing switching over to PLEX instead of iTunes, but right now, I feel like Apple still has the better UI than the competition.
I have to disagree with you about this, I don't think it is clear, and I doubt it is 100%. The ATV could use a little more love from Apple.

[doublepost=1509551442][/doublepost]Hi Vertical Smile The reason that i'm so confident is the fact that the TvOS is getting as many updates as iOS now. I think they've made a beast of a streamer with the A10X chip. The fact that they've listened to feedback which must of been huge regarding the auto switching too.
I ordered mine yesterday and I'm excited - I feel that it's going to be a funky little box and I look forward to further TvOS updates for it

 

[Mac 128]

I'm wondering why the TV manufacturers aren't considering releasing barebones TVs, no receiver, no special modules, no smart functions, no speakers, nothing fancy or stupid, just the display and a set of standard input/output ports. In my setup, I've already replaced everything except the TV-matrix, I don't even use the TV remote anymore, and yet I've paid for the whole setup. In the future when I decide to buy another TV I will have to pay yet again for the same things that I won't be using.

I'm sure you could skim somewhere between $50 and a $100 by removing the unnecessary parts. There is logic somewhere in their decision not to do this but I don't know where.

Part of me wonders how much more it would cost to support essentially double the current models they sell, simply without the smart features. Retailers have to stock twice the inventory, and deal with customer exchanges without having stock in a smart model, when they have 6 non-smart models sitting there. Whatever they make up in cost savings from eliminating parts, they have to make up in increased costs elsewhere, loss of volume part discounts, and potentially even lost sales when the model a customer wants isn't readily available.