Apple Explored 4K Video Distribution in 2013

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Two different points though... size and 4K availability. I'm saying that most people won't be buying bigger screens this time around.

I agree. But again, you're making an argument against buying televisions (to which I can easily agree with you). The subject of this thread is about a new set-top box that doesn't require anyone to buy a new television to use it. It just has more robust hardware capable of sending 4K to a 4K TV is someone DOES have one.

When LTE phones first hit, not everyone had access to LTE signals. Should the phones have been delayed until everyone could use LTE signals (I don't think everyone has LTE signals even today)?

But, I guess unlike you, unless there is some actual difference to me visually, I won't give a rip if I have 1080p or 4K content. I'll pick the more convenient one (i.e.: the one that takes up less space on my storage or less of my data cap on the broadband).

Again, if Apple rolls out a 4K box, you don't have to buy a new TV to use it... just as when Apple rolled out a 1080p box, those with 720p HDTVs didn't have to buy new 1080p TVs to use it either. A new 4K TV will output 1080p and 720p to their fullest... just as good as Apple rolling out another 1080p-capped TV.

And, apparently, unlike you, I either can see a difference or think I can see a difference. So I'd rather Apple feed that reality or perception than cling to the same resolution they offer in the TV I already have (and have had for about 4 years now).

And, I guess IMO, Apple would be wise in waiting until the standards are set and there is more consumer demand before jumping in to fulfill a want that isn't a need.

USB-C, Thunderbolt 2 and soon 3, Skylake, A9, lightning, etc. Apple has grown so big and so powerful that they can go with a draft of a standard or make up a new standard and it will likely become a popular, supported standard. But even if they guess wrong on this one and something else becomes THE 4K standard that can't be adapted via a software update, this is a $69-$99 box that would still output the 1080p, 720p and SD standards to their max. For the 4K indifferent people, there would be no risk at all in Apple best guessing a final 4K standard and trying to run with it (the 4K indifferent people would get exactly what they want out of a new TV box to the fullest).

I'd rather Apple try to be a step ahead instead of waiting on many others to go there and then playing catch up. In most everything else, we seem to want Apple to LEAD the way.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm just saying they probably want to do it right, especially since it isn't that necessary for the majority.

A new 1080p box is not necessary since Apple already offers a 1080p box (and has for years now). So if necessity is the driver of what is to be made, NO new TV is necessary.

 

[x-evil-x]

the only reason i think apple is waiting to release a tv is for oled to come down in price possibly. I think everybody would upgrade if they could get a 65" oled for 2000-2500$.
I'm about to pull the trigger on a 65" and I'm still not sure. my sony xbr4 from 2007(a 4500$ tv) is still amazing and the glass surround of that tv has held its look of class. My other plasma for my bedroom(panasonic gt30) is amazing too.

 

[SteveW928]

A huge problem I see with 4k (and 1080p, still) is that the compression of the streams is so low, that the stream has very variable quality (meaning dark/fast scenes are basically just a mess).

No kidding... I'd say we have a way to go to even utilize 1080p in terms of streaming. And, then there is the issue of actual networking hardware for the average consumer. It isn't going to work over WiFi, or quite possibly, even some hard-wired set-ups.

 

[jayducharme]

4K is the next big thing in screens

4k *was* the next big thing. But it looks like the industry is going to bypass it in favor of 8k. You can already purchase 8k screens (at a premium of course) and 4k screens are already being discounted. I've seen them priced as low as $500. So Apple is probably wise for not jumping on the 4k bandwagon just yet.

The most important factor in all this though is bandwidth. Even if 4k content is available, the stream currently pumps too much data. And naturally, 8k will be doubly problematic. That's the big challenge that has to be dealt with before streaming services can offer higher resolution.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

4K TVs are so tantalizingly cheap, but where are the damn sources?!

If the next Apple TV supports 4K I'll finally have a reason to make the jump.

Well, they are cheap but wont be compatible with UHD TV. Current 4k TVs are like the first generation of HDTVs, lacking HDCP so were useless playing HD material. Also, the current panels lack many of the technology: 120fps, rec.2020 etc.

I'd wait until standardised UHDTV are on sale. Currently none on the consumer market which will be compatible.

 

[Sandstorm]

It would be incredibly pathetic if the next (and already laughably overdue) Apple TV would not support 4K (both fluent UI and content).

 

[richman555]

I love my 65 inch 4K tv. My cable is automatically upscaled to 4K and also my Apple TV content and it looks amazing. The Dark Knight on Apple TV upscaled looks downright incredible.

I believe people should visit their local Best Buy and take a look at these TVs using their own eyeballs.

What it boils down to is people are buying these 4K sets today. It is not 5 years away in the future, it is today.

Id like to see the option for 4K content in iTunes. I may even have to pay a premium for it.

The current options for 1080p and standard will still remain as well.

 

[fithian]

(Emphasis mine)

"From a distance" is totally vague. Personally when I watch a movie I want to be enveloped by the screen. 4K makes it possible to sit closer to a larger screen, making for a more cinematic experience. I don't want to sit 8 feet from a 40 inch 4K screen. No benefit in that. I want to sit 6 feet from a 60" 4K screen.

I have a 31" true 4K monitor on my desk and if I sit 3 feet from it I can get the same angle of view as your wish. I need to sit less than 1 foot away to see pixels.

I have two laptops and three computers in my home. Only one of those computers cannot output 4K. Both laptops can do 4K. I have a 55" TV that I use as a monitor that does 30Hz 4K and upscales everything. My AV receiver upscales everything to 4K for the 55" as well. 4K is here.

I have a car cam that does 1080p, but there are mobile cameras that do 4K, like GoPro. My iPhone and iPad have the capability to output 4K but no software to do it.

 

[shenan1982]

What an utterly stupid and asinine comment. You actually just compared our media to the outright fascist propaganda that comes from North Korea. So ignorant.

Really? Lol. You ought to educate yourself as to who runs the media in this country. And next time you see a story that looks like it's sensationalism, call someone near the story and they'll say "it's nothing like what's being reported"

 

[shenan1982]

I appreciate the anti-4K sentiment. But all of the arguments against it were also slung when Apple was clinging to 720p max while the bulk of the rest of the CE world had embraced 1080p. Once Apple embraced 1080p, all that naysaying just evaporated. Once Apple embraces 4K, let's see how many fault them for it.

Always baffles me when people fight technological progress. Regardless of someone sees value, better quality is the future and to be a naysayer makes no sense. I think it's the same reason product owners trash new product changes like when the new MacBook Pro came out with force touch touch trackpad they trashed it. I think subliminally many people need to defend their now outdated technology and do so by trashing anything new that comes out. Like when grandpa talks about how much better built cars were in the 60s. Mind you if you had a head on collision in one you'd DIE but the generation defends them on nostgia instead of merit. Lol

 

[rhegyi]

Compression? Got a great idea Apple should acquire this company, PiedPiper. They have this middle-out compression software package....

 

[TallManNY]

My cable provider doesn't cap my bandwidth, but I do notice a huge difference in speed between the morning before work and in the evening when folks are home and presumably streaming their hulu and netflix. I suspect this would be much worse if me and the neighbors were trying to get 4K down the same pipes. And while 4K presumably would look at lot better I don't know how much actual additional enjoyment I would get out of watching it. The content of the show is still the main thing to me. Though if we could get 4K sports, I suppose I would find that much more realistic and would like it more.

 

[Ted13]

It seems probable that the Apple TV 4th generation will have 4K. The A8 chip can play it, the name matches nicely, and now this! Plus, they've released new Apple TVs when the iPhones get video recording upgrades (720p with the A4 and 1080p with the A5). Maybe now 4K with the A8?

The main reason they wouldn't put in the new AppleTV is because next to no one has a 4K HTDV monitor/TV set out there. Had Apple made a 4K HDTV as well, or had other major HDTV distributers sold millions and millions of 4K sets and the Movie & TV industry started distributing all the movies/TV shows that were shot in 4K in 4K over the Internet, it would be worth it. But none of this had happened.

So releasing a 4K aTV would simply mean that everyone would be complaining that 90% of its material and HDTVs were 1080P, so why did they get this thing that was doing them no good, etc. etc.

 

[Sandstorm]

Compression? Got a great idea Apple should acquire this company, PiedPiper. They have this middle-out compression software package....

Apple for PP would probably be even worse option than Hooli, to be honest...

 

[teslo]

4k *was* the next big thing. But it looks like the industry is going to bypass it in favor of 8k. You can already purchase 8k screens (at a premium of course) and 4k screens are already being discounted. I've seen them priced as low as $500. So Apple is probably wise for not jumping on the 4k bandwagon just yet.

wait - 4K isn't the next big thing because it's finally coming down in price? that's exactly when people buy them and they become a 'big thing' because.. people are buying them. things have to be mass produced and consumed by average income families, and this is when apple usually does step in and make things 'better' for a large general demographic. not that i think they'll make a 4K tv set, but i don't see one reason they wouldn't start streaming 4k over 8k, merely because of bandwidth. i don't understand your logic

 

[iceperson]

4k TVs, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Oh well, a fool and his money and all that jazz.

 

[teslo]

4k TVs, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Oh well, a fool and his money and all that jazz.

improvement doesn't need to be a solution to a problem, it's just improvement. are we fools parting with our money because we now have HD capable devices and monitors when we could just buy things in 720p? silly...

 

[the-msa]

4k is interesting and really noticable only when you have 40 or 42" screen. below that you're just fine with 1080p.

other than that i'd say 4k should be the display standard when hardware it able to render is without any performance loss when compared to 1080p.

 

[GrayApple]

I think all of the people arguing over whether or not 4K video would worth while on ATV are missing a major part of the argument: Compression. As we all know, video streamed from online is almost always compressed in order to help keep bandwidth costs down for the provider and the consumer. This results in a significant loss in quality. This is why Blu Ray movies look so much better than video streamed from Netflix despite it being "full HD." It would be much better for Apple and other companies to stop focusing on 4K and instead focus on better compression technology or simply less compression. However, I fear that they will continue to pursue ultra compressed 4K, because of the marketing factor.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The main reason they wouldn't put in the new AppleTV is because next to no one has a 4K HTDV monitor/TV set out there.

We shouldn't make up numbers so easily checked. See: http://4k.com/news/more-than-3-million-4k-tvs-sold-in-april-of-2015-7526/ 3 million is an awful lot of "no ones" Do a search, there's lots of "millions sold" articles referencing single months. Apparently China in particular loves 4K TVs so fortunately for us 4K-haters, Apple doesn't cater it's thinking to that market.

Has 4K unit sales overtaken 1080p unit sales? No, but think about the future. Has smart phone unit sales overtaken dumb phone sales? No, but thinking about that future worked out pretty well for Apple too.

...and the Movie & TV industry started distributing all the movies/TV shows that were shot in 4K in 4K over the Internet, it would be worth it. But none of this had happened.

The hardware must lead. You need 4K-playing hardware in homes before it makes sense for the movie & TV industry to even test some 4K content for sale. Think about it. Suppose I could wave a magic wand and add a 4K version every single movie & TV show in the TV part of the iTunes store this morning. How many sales or rentals of that 4K software could be realized today or even this week? None. Why? Because there are no 4K TVs in place to play them.

Just as stuffing Redbox machines and stores with 4K Blu Ray discs today would make no sense before there is ready availability of 4K Blu Ray players, this is exactly the same. The hardware must be ready for a new kind of video and there must be a fair amount of that hardware in homes to act as temptation for a Studio to decide to give it a try. Otherwise, if they all decided to test 4K video in the iTunes store TODAY, sales would be zero. The hardware must go first.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I love my 65 inch 4K tv. My cable is automatically upscaled to 4K and also my Apple TV content and it looks amazing. The Dark Knight on Apple TV upscaled looks downright incredible.

I believe people should visit their local Best Buy and take a look at these TVs using their own eyeballs.

What it boils down to is people are buying these 4K sets today. It is not 5 years away in the future, it is today.

Id like to see the option for 4K content in iTunes. I may even have to pay a premium for it.

The current options for 1080p and standard will still remain as well.

Fortunately the prices of 4K TV's is low enough that you can't really be mad that the best you'll ever see is upscaled pseudo-4K instead of the real thing. What you probably see with upscaling of already crappy, compressed 720p or 1080i cable content is (at best) what a good 1080p source would look like. Some OTA 1080 HD stations in our area look fantastic, but once satellite or cable companies get a hold of it and compress the heck out of it, it looks like junk.

I can't see a scenario where 4K (or worse, 8K) video will ever be feasible. There would need to be a disc format and a player to play them, or, the majority of the population would need 30Mbps+ internet connection (and the providers would have to increase their capability to allow the majority of their customers to simultaneously stream 30Mbps content, nationwide). Sure, there will be videophiles with expensive equipment and a few sources to demo that wonderful 4k or 8k equipment, but it will be many years before we see it en mass. Did I mention that ISP's (like ATT UVerse) would have to remove monthly consumption limits? ATT allows only 150GB's per month before they start charging you overages. How many 4k movies can you watch before you use your allotment?

The problem with Bestbuy demos is that they use demo material. Get it home, and what do you watch?

 

[benface]

I can't see a scenario where 4K (or worse, 8K) video will ever be feasible. There would need to be a disc format and a player to play them, or, the majority of the population would need 30Mbps+ internet connection (and the providers would have to increase their capability to allow the majority of their customers to simultaneously stream 30Mbps content, nationwide). Sure, there will be videophiles with expensive equipment and a few sources to demo that wonderful 4k or 8k equipment, but it will be many years before we see it en mass.

I guess you don't know that 4K Blu-Ray is coming later this year.

 

[crsh1976]

Thank goodness. Probably another year or so away, but we need some kind of 4K distribution and delivery system. Broadcast is taking too long, films are ready though.

Some films only, mainly Hollywood crapbusters; this is no different than when BluRay was in its infancy.. but is Bluray all that ubiquitous now? No, not really, again aside from Hollywood action movies and porn flicks.

4k isn't any different, it's yet-another attempt to make consumers buy new hardware - just like the failed 3D HDTV fad just a few years ago. The tech isn't the issue, it's the lack of diversified content - and a greater array of content isn't happening, so the tech isn't going mainstream.

 

[HenryDJP]

Online will be first (Netflix and eventually iTunes)

And I think 4K Blu-Ray has been finalized.

Or in other words.... "soon"

The thing about Netflix is it's "4K" content is not putting out to full potential and many people are frustrated about it. I'm honestly not sure 4K will become a standard anytime soon. I have a 4K GoPro camera and I still prefer to shoot in 1080p. Why? Because I have a new (Plasma top of the line) that is in 1080p and according to GoPro, even if my TV was 4K it still requires an HDMI or USB connection that handles 4K and many 4K TV's don't offer this. Right now you can only rely on what's being streamed in 4K (anemic) or physical media in 4K (very anemic).

I would buy a 4K TV but only because Apple will no doubt have other features in that model that would attract me, but not because it's 4K. That was the same reason I bought my 4K GoPro.