Apple and Amazon Confirm Amazon Prime Video on tvOS Supports 4K HDR and 'Up Next' in TV App

Mac 128 said:
It wasn't promised at launch, but it was promised "later this year". It's a little disingenuous to make that promise in early September and then wait until mid-December to deliver on it. Regardless, anybody who bought an ATV 4K based on Apple's promises, DID contribute to the bottom line and DID boost Apple's record profits regardless of being a "blip" or no. Apple could have been honest about the lack of features, and let consumers make the choice to buy at a later date. But they knew what they were doing. They're a business after all. And that's likely why we had to wait for Apple to get the 11.2 update pushed out before Amazon app could be released, making them the more likely culprit here than Amazon, which far too many on these forums are eager to pin the blame entirely on, without any facts supporting it, or even looking at it from all sides, and all the possibilities.
Click to expand...


1. I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means. You correctly state that the Amazon Video app was only promised "later this year." With the ATV 4K launching at the latter part of September what did you think "later this year" meant? Seems to me "later this year means sometime between the start of November and the end of December. And, hey, what do you know -- it was released in early Dec. Doesn't seem disingenuous to me, seems in-range of what Apple advertised.

2. Sorry, the cumulative sales of ATV 4K did not have a meaningful impact on Apple's 4Q earnings. First, it only launched 8 days before the end of the quarter. Second, it resides in Apple's "Other" category which accounted for 6% of Apple's earnings, unchanged from the previous quarter, and we know from Apple's "between the lines" statement and other data that Apple Watch is responsible for a large chunk of this revenue. The only category that had a net increase over the previous quarter was Mac, which is what gave Apple it's record quarter as people were waiting for the iPhone X. It was Mac sales that help push earnings. ATV box revenue 4Q was a blip in the shadow of iPhone, services, and Mac.
 
The Thursday night football game is also showing as up next in the sports section of the tv app
 
Chupa Chupa said:
1. I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means. You correctly state that the Amazon Video app was only promised "later this year." With the ATV 4K launching at the latter part of September what did you think "later this year" meant? Seems to me "later this year means sometime between the start of November and the end of December. And, hey, what do you know -- it was released in early Dec. Doesn't seem disingenuous to me, seems in-range of what Apple advertised.

2. Sorry, the cumulative sales of ATV 4K did not have a meaningful impact on Apple's 4Q earnings. First, it only launched 8 days before the end of the quarter. Second, it resides in Apple's "Other" category which accounted for 6% of Apple's earnings, unchanged from the previous quarter, and we know from Apple's "between the lines" statement and other data that Apple Watch is responsible for a large chunk of this revenue. The only category that had a net increase over the previous quarter was Mac, which is what gave Apple it's record quarter as people were waiting for the iPhone X. It was Mac sales that help push earnings. ATV box revenue 4Q was a blip in the shadow of iPhone, services, and Mac.
Click to expand...

My statements are factually correct. Full stop.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sony Android TV. It took a long time for Amazon to implement 5.1 on that too. I wouldn’t blame Apple on this one.
 
"we’re excited to bring"
"nothing that excites us more"
"delighting our customers"
"we are thrilled"
"exceptional viewing experience"

And next: the weather app.
 
Mac 128 said:
My statements are factually correct. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Yes, your facts were correct. It's your analysis of them that is 100% wrong.

1. You acknowledge Apple never gave a specific time, only a time range, for the Amazon release. That release happened within that time range. You have zero reason to bitch.

2. Sure, your ATV 4K purchase contributed to Apple's 4Q bottom line... about $30 in profit. If Apple sold 5% the last week of 4Q that would be about 5m units based on total sales average sales past two years. That's $150m profit... compared to nearly $11b profit overall. So please get off your high horse that your ATV 4K purchase, or all ATV 4K purchases combined during the last week of 4Q was financially meaningful to Apple.

Now it's a Full Stop... or as journalist and PR types would write: -30-.
 
Mac 128 said:
Ag
It wasn't promised at launch, but it was promised "later this year". It's a little disingenuous to make that promise in early September and then wait until mid-December to deliver on it. Regardless, anybody who bought an ATV 4K based on Apple's promises, DID contribute to the bottom line and DID boost Apple's record profits regardless of being a "blip" or no. Apple could have been honest about the lack of features, and let consumers make the choice to buy at a later date. But they knew what they were doing. They're a business after all. And that's likely why we had to wait for Apple to get the 11.2 update pushed out before Amazon app could be released, making them the more likely culprit here than Amazon, which far too many on these forums are eager to pin the blame entirely on, without any facts supporting it, or even looking at it from all sides, and all the possibilities.
Click to expand...

You need to be honest here. Is there anything that would make you happy? There is nothing, nothing at all, disingenuous about promising "later this year" and delivering it "later this year."
[doublepost=1512650728][/doublepost]
Mac 128 said:
My statements are factually correct. Full stop.
Click to expand...

"Later this year" and delivered in December were factually correct. Your feeling "dirty and used" is your own choice, your own interpretation of the facts. The fact is that they promised it in 2017, and they delivered it in 2017.
 
newellj said:
You need to be honest here. Is there anything that would make you happy? There is nothing, nothing at all, disingenuous about promising "later this year" and delivering it "later this year."
[doublepost=1512650728][/doublepost]

"Later this year" and delivered in December were factually correct. Your feeling "dirty and used" is your own choice, your own interpretation of the facts. The fact is that they promised it in 2017, and they delivered it in 2017.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That's you're OPINION ONLY.

Selling a product by teasing a key feature in early September, but not releasing it until almost mid-December (consider December 22nd is the de facto end of year for such things), is disingenuous. Releasing the update by the end of October, beginning of November, is stretching the limits of good faith, but acceptable -- releasing it a couple of weeks after a major holiday is taking advantage of the customer.

MANY customers would not have bought the ATV 4K when they did, had Apple fully disclosed its limitations and given a realistic timeline of the release of key features. Period. I would have saved myself $200 in mid-September, and maybe bought it this week. But then Apple wouldn't have had the millions of sales at the end of their 4th quarter, boosting their year end profits, however insignificantly.
 
Mac 128 said:
Wrong. That's you're OPINION ONLY.

Selling a product by teasing a key feature in early September, but not releasing it until almost mid-December (consider December 22nd is the de facto end of year for such things), is disingenuous. Releasing the update by the end of October, beginning of November, is stretching the limits of good faith, but acceptable -- releasing it a couple of weeks after a major holiday is taking advantage of the customer.

MANY customers would not have bought the ATV 4K when they did, had Apple fully disclosed its limitations and given a realistic timeline of the release of key features. Period. I would have saved myself $200 in mid-September, and maybe bought it this week. But then Apple wouldn't have had the millions of sales at the end of their 4th quarter, boosting their year end profits, however insignificantly.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion, it's the English language, but it would be the same in any other language.

If people needed reassurance that it would happen before the end of the year, they could, and should, have waiting until the availability was announced. Anything else is on them, purely and simply. Apple has absolutely not taken advantage of anyone here.
 
jujufreeze said:
HBO is crap. No 4k or HDR content even for HBO originals, more expensive than Netflix and horrible app ui. If not for GOT I'd have cancelled
Click to expand...
I watched season 7 of GOT and cancelled. Will renew for Season 8 next summer. Save some money when nothing else is on worth watching.
 
newellj said:
It's not an opinion, it's the English language, but it would be the same in any other language.

If people needed reassurance that it would happen before the end of the year, they could, and should, have waiting until the availability was announced. Anything else is on them, purely and simply. Apple has absolutely not taken advantage of anyone here.
Click to expand...

Your opinion also. It's business, sales and marketing. The device was promoted with a feature, with vague marketing with plenty of wiggle room, which allowed for broad interpretation and reasonable expectation for delivery of said feature. But those who think Apple can do no wrong, without giving them an honest appraisal of the situation will always defend them, despite the fact they are a business, whose number one priority is themselves. This is nothing new.

The facts are that Apple promoted a feature that was not yet ready, and delivered it at virtually the last opportunity prior to the end of the year. Since Apple is a company that normally does not publicize features prior to releasing them, one must wonder why they did it with the launch of this product. If Apple was being honest with its customers, they would have said it would be available at the END of the year. But then maybe some customers would have bought a Roku, or Amazon Fire, rather than wait that long.
 
jujufreeze said:
HBO is crap. No 4k or HDR content even for HBO originals, more expensive than Netflix and horrible app ui. If not for GOT I'd have cancelled
Click to expand...

You seem to have a strange idea as to what's crap. Most of the stuff HBO pumps out is head and shoulders above what other 'original programmers" are putting out even if it's not 4K. The vast majority of HBO content goes to HD customers. NetFlix in 4K is about $13 a month now without anywhere near the original content of HBO.

That said, I subscribe to everything, HBO (Directv), NetFlix, Amazon, VUDO. Probably a couple of others to boot. Yeah, I have a LG 4K that workd great, but I'm more interested in the content than how many ZILLION colors it pumps out.
 
I had a play with it last night, and other than the 5.1 sound issues, it looks like a decent enough 1st attempt. Very much like the FireTV interface, which I didn't really mind. To say it's not usable because of the 5.1 issue is just crazy.
 
StarShot said:
You seem to have a strange idea as to what's crap. Most of the stuff HBO pumps out is head and shoulders above what other 'original programmers" are putting out even if it's not 4K. The vast majority of HBO content goes to HD customers. NetFlix in 4K is about $13 a month now without anywhere near the original content of HBO.

That said, I subscribe to everything, HBO (Directv), NetFlix, Amazon, VUDO. Probably a couple of others to boot. Yeah, I have a LG 4K that workd great, but I'm more interested in the content than how many ZILLION colors it pumps out.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for HBO to have not even announced original 4k content late 2017- hell the Apple 4k TV came out and HBO conspicuously does nothing to take advantage. Netflix and Amazon have put out some quality original content (as well as crap), at least they demand most of their originals are shot in 4k HDR/Dolby Vision. HBO has also been far from "superior" lately, (i.e. Vinyl, True Detective Season 2, later seasons of Boardwalk Empire, etc.) If not for catching up on Game of Thrones I'd have cancelled months ago. They're riding their coattails instead of innovating the medium of television like they used to.
 
Last edited:
jujufreeze said:
There is no excuse for HBO to have not even announced original 4k content late 2017- hell the Apple 4k TV came out and HBO conspicuously does nothing to take advantage. Netflix and Amazon have put out some quality original content (as well as crap), at least they demand most of their originals are shot in 4k HDR/Dolby Vision. HBO has also been far from "superior" lately, (i.e. Vinyl, True Detective Season 2, later seasons of Boardwalk Empire, etc.) If not for catching up on Game of Thrones I'd have cancelled months ago. They're riding their coattails instead of innovating the medium of television like they used to.
Click to expand...

How is HBO going to deliver this 4K HDR content to its subscribers?
 
Mac 128 said:
I see. Except, you realize HBO is predominantly a cable and satellite subscription service?
Click to expand...

I have HBO Now, an online subscription service that costs me $14.99/month, no cable. For the money it's not unreasonable to ask for 4k/HDR content.
 
jujufreeze said:
I have HBO Now, an online subscription service that costs me $14.99/month, no cable. For the money it's not unreasonable to ask for 4k/HDR content.
Click to expand...

HBO has around 50 million subscribers. You are one of only around 2 million subscribers using the stand-alone app without a cable or satellite subscription. While you may feel you're entitled to 4K HDR content, it really doesn't make good business sense for HBO to support that infrastructure for barely 4% of its subscriber base. The vast majority of it's customers are cable and satellite subscribers, who are likely less concerned with the delivery method than the programming. Even the percentage of HBO Now subscribers who watch on a television (much less a UHD HDR/DV capable one), versus a lower-res computer or mobile device is probably much smaller.

As 4K HDR TV sales increase and cable and satellite step up to the plate to offer 4K options, as well as cord cutters signing up for HBO Now, HBO too will migrate toward higher quality picture standards. I'd be willing to bet GOT, West World, and other current series are being finished in 4K HDR, in preparation for the move, but HBO simply isn't offering it.

For the time being, it's not surprising at all. HBO does not compete with Netflix and Amazon on the same platform, and given the quality of their programming, is not really in any jeopardy by not rushing to deliver 4K HDR content. HBO Now, is a startup at this point, with plenty of time to grow into a more mature streaming platform as consumer patterns shift, something that is demonstrably not happening over night, nor warrants the kind of investment support a 4K HDR/DV infrastructure would necessitate.
 
Last edited:
Mac 128 said:
HBO has around 50 million subscribers. You are one of only around 2 million subscribers using the stand-alone app without a cable or satellite subscription. While you may feel you're entitled to 4K HDR content, it really doesn't make good business sense for HBO to support that infrastructure for barely 4% of its subscriber base. The vast majority of it's customers are cable and satellite subscribers, who are likely less concerned with the delivery method than the programming. Even the percentage of HBO Now subscribers who watch on a television (much less a UHD HDR/DV capable one), versus a lower-res computer or mobile device is probably much smaller.

As 4K HDR TV sales increase and cable and satellite step up to the plate to offer 4K options, as well as cord cutters signing up for HBO Now, HBO too will migrate toward higher quality picture standards. I'd be willing to bet GOT, West World, and other current series are being finished in 4K HDR, in preparation for the move, but HBO simply isn't offering it.

For the time being, it's not surprising at all. HBO does not compete with Netflix and Amazon on the same platform, and given the quality of their programming, is not really in any jeopardy by not rushing to deliver 4K HDR content. HBO Now, is a startup at this point, with plenty of time to grow into a more mature streaming platform as consumer patterns shift, something that is demonstrably not happening over night, nor warrants the kind of investment support a 4K HDR/DV infrastructure would necessitate.
Click to expand...

In other words "You entitled peon, HBO is cable, HBO Now is just a beta service that doesn't pretend to compete with the likes of Netflix , Amazon or Hulu. You should be grateful you have access to HBO at all".

You have a mindset of old cable TV, which is losing millions of subscribers each year.
I've had HBO Go and HBO cable before and simply didn't see the value of continuing the subscription, so transitioned to Hbo Now. While you may consider me an outlier, the fact is $14.99 is steep for a service that wants to attract more "cord-cutters", and doesn't offer content in a format that is widely adopted by other online distribution platforms in this realm.
 
Last edited:
jujufreeze said:
In other words "You entitled peon, HBO is cable, HBO Now is just a beta service that doesn't pretend to compete with the likes of Netflix , Amazon or Hulu. You should be grateful you have access to HBO at all".

You have a mindset of old cable TV, which is losing millions of subscribers each year.
I've had HBO Go and HBO cable before and simply didn't see the value of continuing the subscription, so transitioned to Hbo Now. While you may consider me an outlier, the fact is $14.99 is steep for a service that wants to attract more "cord-cutters", and doesn't offer content in a format that is widely adopted by other online distribution platforms in this realm.
Click to expand...

Those are your words, not mine.

All I'm doing is pointing out the reality of the situation. Sorry you don't understand it. HBO has iron-clad contracts with the cable and satellite companies. HBO is not allowed to compete with them at a more advantageous rate than that offered by the cable and satellite companies. You're lucky you even have the option at all, since the cable and satellite companies could simply dump HBO in the event of a breach, which would immediately eliminate 96% of HBO's income source, and leave them scrambling to sign up their customer base on HBO Now.

Cable and satellite companies charge about the same amount of money ON TOP OF the basic cable subscription. I just checked the list price on DirecTV and it's $17.99/month, and $15/month at Spectrum. The difference is, with HBO Now, if you want any other programming, you have to go out and get it a la carte, if it's available. Cable and satellite companies did not want HBO Now, but they worked out an agreement. And once you already have Cable and satellite providing most of your viewing content, there are packages which make HBO and the other premium channels much more affordable.

Now my guess is that HBO is gearing up for the eventuality of offering 4K HDR streams, once they are allowed, and/or have built the infrastructure to handle it. They have a lot less experience with streaming than Netflix and Amazon, as it's not their primary business model, so they aren't going to move as fast to roll it out, for that reason, or a contractual restriction with the cable and satellite providers. Certainly cable and satellite are scrambling to offer 4K HDR, so as not to get left out, and they will likely do everything in their power to offer it exclusively via the traditional platforms before they let HBO scoop them on it via the internet. That or these distribution companies will simply throw in the towel and charge you more for your internet service. Now that net neutrality is in jeopardy, a very likely scenario.

Hulu doesn't have 4K HDR either. Or at least if they do, I can't find it. CBS All Access is building their new streaming service without offering 4K HDR at present, and charging the same as Netflix for much less content. So no, not every streaming service out there is offering necessarily more than HBO, nor 4K HDR content. Indeed, even Netflix and Amazon's selection is limited. And what good does it do me, if I don't care for the content that is?

Again, I get what your beef is, but there are often factors that dictate these things, which you're simply choosing to ignore. In the end, most people are concerned about the content, not the format. I have a 4K HDR TV, and some 1080p material from Amazon looks as good as any 4K HDR material I've seen from them. So ultimately it's the content the service provider is valuing, regardless of the delivery method. And really, that's how it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top