Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Begins Accepting Online Orders for New Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm really debating whether I should spring for one of these or just get the last gen. I don't do a lot of gaming but binge-game every now and then on whatever platform is in front of me. I usually just watch Netflix, Amazon prime, and would love to be able to airplay from phone/ipad. Wonder if there'll be kid games for my almost-five-year-old... ehhh..... I should probably just get the new one... (32 GB)
I bought the device using apple pay and the full amount showed as pending on my card statement immediately. Wonder if there will be any change in that authorization as they begin to ship it.
Folks. This is when it begins i.e. serious tracking, plane / flight tracking, paranoia.
Jk
If you're familiar with content creation and post-production, surely you realize that there are reasons to capture and edit in 4k that have nothing to do with the resolution at which the content will ultimately be viewed. 4k capture and editing offers greater flexibility in post-production, such as for zooming, cropping, image stabilization, and still image capture.
That fact that Apple offers filmmakers that flexibility by embracing 4k in those contexts has nothing to do with whether it makes sense for a end-user playback device to support that resolution.
Does anyone know if it is possible to migrate all my subscriptions over from an ATV 3 to the ATV 4?
I would rather not have to re-subscribe to all my different accounts.
Or do we have to start from scratch? Seems there would be a way to backup settings and then restore them to the new ATV just like we do with iPhones.
Possible?
I would rather not have to re-subscribe to all my different accounts.
Or do we have to start from scratch? Seems there would be a way to backup settings and then restore them to the new ATV just like we do with iPhones.
Possible?
You totally miss the point of my comparison of looking at similar priced products and what they are priced at for the AU market to give us a better indication of what everyone expected, the ATV 64gb selling for $279!
I read some where that Apple has this excellent option of putting together all the logins at one place so that you dont need to scramble each app for a login. But cant say much until we get our hands around the device!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Agreed but probably NONE of the iPhone 6s "videographers" know what content creation or post-production is. They just shoot amateur video at 4K on their new iPhones and those with 4K sets expect to play it back (often without any editing at all) at 4K. They are not cinematographers such that they can critique their "shoots" with expert eyes trained in top studios. They just shoot 4K and want to see 4K on the 4K set they bought.
My point is that had Apple embraced 4K here, the profit motive of the Studios trying to capitalize on the opportunity would have put 4K in the iTunes store quickly. Instead, there continues to be NO profit motive to even test 4K for
TV in the iTunes store. Why? Nobody has an TV capable of 4K on which to play anything in 4K. Nobody can make a nickel on TV 4K content in the iTunes store even if ALL OF IT was converted with 4K options tonight.We can spin 1000 reasons against 4K today but next year, when Apple rolls out the "5" "now with 4K" watch all that spin evaporate. Magically, lots of 4K will just show up in the iTunes store. Magically, the internet everywhere will just be able to handle 4K video streams. Magically, we WILL see the difference at our average seating distances. Magically, "the chart" will no longer be slung around. And most magically of all, Apple will have pretty much none of the anti-4K crowd bashing them for embracing 4K... which, again, they've done in pretty much ALL of their other stuff... including their most important product.
This very same scenario already played out ahead of
TV 3 embracing 1080p with the "720p is good enough" crowd arguing why nobody needed 1080p. Same arguments. Same evidence. Same supporting points... until Apple rolled out their endorsement of 1080p in that "3" and then crickets. Apparently 4K- like 1080p back then- makes no sense right up until Apple launches a product that has it. Then, it makes perfect sense: "shut up and take my money."
Last edited:
I don't know about the apps either, but I do know that you don't watch Netflix, you watch Walking Dead, or House of Cards, or whatever. This finally lets you start from the beginning and say "I want to watch Walking Dead" and remove the hunting through all the channels (and typing it out) to find if it's available. That's a huge plus already for me.
$270 in Auatralia, you know what you can do with it Apple, $99 for the ATV3 now nearly 3 times as much for this thing, I often wonder why I hate Apple so much.
My bad - I was probably answering a question from Facebook on a similar topic. the price ranges are quite crazy.
Yes that's called air play and you can do that on current apple Tv's and not just the new ones.
Isn't a lot of things way more expensive there? Isn't a PlayStation 4 way more expensive there too?
I seem to remember someone saying they flew to the states once a yr just to buy electronics and saved money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do consumers expect the screen on the very iPhone they shot that 4k video to be able to play it back at 4k?
What about still photography? Should the screen resolution of an iPhone 6S be 3024x4032 to properly display the 12mp still images it can capture? Are consumers upset that photo printers can't resolve the 12mp of detail they were promised in an 8x12 print?
You can't "magically" see detail that your eyes can't resolve. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the "same arguments" were not made against 720 and 1080. With those resolutions, the argument was "the differences aren't significant enough to be worth it." With 4k, for many applications, the argument is "there is no perceivable difference." It's clear that, at common viewing distances, the human eye can resolve differences between standard def and 720, and differences between 720 and 1080. That's not necessarily the case with 4k.Magically, we WILL see the difference at our average seating distances. Magically, "the chart" will no longer be slung around. And most magically of all, Apple will have pretty much none of the anti-4K crowd bashing them for embracing 4K... which, again, they've done in pretty much ALL of their other stuff... including their most important product.
This very same scenario already played out ahead of
Would you argue that if, five years from now, there is a hypothetical 32k image standard, that people "WILL see the difference at our average seating distances" over 4k? Do you think that your eyes have infinite image resolution power? At some point, the human eye cannot resolve any additional detail, and knowledge of human vision suggests that at many common viewing distances, 4k will not reveal any additional detail.
As I was careful to point out in my previous post, that doesn't mean that no one will benefit from 4k. People running front projectors or sitting very close to large flat panels would be able to see a difference. But compared to HD resolutions, which offered perceivable benefits at many common viewing distances, 4k promises perceivable benefits to a significantly smaller subset of television viewers. 720/1080 was like color television: it benefitted nearly everyone. 4k is a niche feature that benefits certain consumers with certain viewing setups.
This isn't "4k bashing." There is no "anti-4k crowd." No one would object to Apple including 4k support (except as a matter of price). But for many people, there is also no reason to object to Apple deciding not to include 4k support.
Last edited: