Apple Testing 4K Capable Fifth-Generation Apple TV For Possible Release This Year

[djeeyore25]

I find the ATV 4 to be too much of an in-between system. If you like gaming you can get a PS4 or Xbone for about $50 more (or the same price if you buy a controller for the ATV 4) and play far more and higher quality games, not to mention having almost all the same video apps and a blu-ray player. If all you want is video apps you can buy a streaming device for far less, if your TV doesn't already have the apps installed already. The only real benefit is watching or listening to stuff bought on iTunes, but that only stretches so far. The remote and the remote app are horrible compared to the ATV 3. I hope Apple can find some way to salvage the ATV4, but I've not been too impressed with mine so far.

 

[freediverx]

In the 4th quarter of last year, 56% of all TVs sold worldwide were 4k TVs, not exactly a niche market.

The percentage of TVs sold represents a tiny sliver of the installed base of TVs. Most people wait many years before replacing a TV, typically waiting until the old one breaks.

Also, most of those 4K TVs being sold have 55" or smaller screens and will be viewed in homes from distances of ten feet or farther - making the difference in resolution undetectable by anyone with normal vision.
[doublepost=1487262405][/doublepost]

Oh good lord did you copy something from 2006 regarding 1080p? Yea that was wrong too.

I can see the difference in 4K.

The human eye, with normal vision, can only discern so much detail. For a person with normal vision, the ability to discern the difference in resolution between 1080p and 4K depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance. I already provided a chart that outlines the required screen sizes and viewing distances. Most people aren't buying 80" TVs. Most people aren't watching TV from 3 feet away.

This is simple logic based on scientific facts. But it seems a lot of 4K proponents have the same aversion to facts as our current president.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I fear Apple may cave in to ignorant consumer demand and release a more expensive ATV with no improvement besides 4K support. If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why 4K still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why an iPhone 8 Pro still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why jettisoning the headphone jack still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why USB3C still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why a touch bar still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why curved OLED screens still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

And on and on. Apple sells hardware. We don't want to buy the exact same hardware for years and years and years. We want it to advance. Apple rolls out newer versions of hardware with more capabilities and lots of people get excited and buys it. This should be no different.

And I've seen too many spiels by Jobs spinning hardware advances that were not critically needed and/or poo-poohing advances that Apple wasn't ready to roll out yet (then flip flopping and spinning the greatness of the latter when Apple did roll them out). I don't know Jobs but given how Apple has embraced 4K in pretty much every other product, I'd guess that HE would have already demanded that an TV5 with 4K be out if, for nothing else, so that he could personally watch his own iPhone 4K videos/photographs on his 4K TV without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or use someone else's product.

Jobs was apparently envisioning "the future of television." I doubt that involved passionately clinging to the past.

 

[nebo1ss]

But is there enough 4k content out there?

Is this question for real. You can get channels streaming at 4K on Amazon, Netflix, Vudu even UTube. Many of the sports channels are also starting to do 4K broadcast. NBA for example even SKY and BT sport in the UK are broadcasting content in 4K. Anyone claiming no content out there has their head under a rock.

Apple is about the only box out there without 4k. Amazon Fire and ROKU are on their second generation boxes. Android TV like the Nvidia is 4K and has been for a while.

 

[Timothy Leo Crowley]

Personally I'd rather have Amazon Prime than 4K.

 

[freediverx]

I understand your point about not having an Apple TV Amazon Prime app and it irks me too but that's on Amazons head, not Apple. Also, for very little effort we watch Amazon Prime videos by streaming from the iPad.

You can also stream it from your iPhone. Even better, you can use the WatchAid Apple TV app instead of Apple's crappy TV app to track the shows you watch, including from sources like Amazon. When you click on an episode, the app will automatically send a notification to your phone letting you instantly stream the episode to your Apple TV.

 

[jimbobb24]

My Apple TV is great, one of products I am happiest about. Stream our local stuff with Plex, and stream music and photos. Only downside in photos slideshows only from "shared" which completely blows. I would pay extra to do slideshows of anything that was in my iPhone/Cloud Photo.

Sadly I expect Apple will just quit the market instead of fight for it. Cook looks at the numbers, and decides, someone else can have that, we still have the iPhone.

Edit to say - I got mine with gift certificates. I forgot they cost $149. If I had to pay that I would not be so happy.

 

[jimbobb24]

I'd still rather see Apple think remote instead as in Harmony killer. The worthless little remote that came with apple tv? In a drawer. The console can stay as is or shrink to a usb stick.

The remote is the worst remote I have ever used. In the dark its a nightmare. Too clever by half.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Even if you resolved all of the above issues, you'd still be faced with the fact that most people are buying 4K TVs with 40-55" screens, which will be viewed from ten feet away or farther, meaning they won't appreciate the difference in resolution over 1080p content.

The chart! It always must make an appearance in 4K TV discussions.

If you will use the wayback machine and hop back to before Apple launched TV3, you'll see the exact same chart with only some resolution changes being used to passionately argue against the need for a 1080p TV. And most of what you are posting in this thread amounts to the exact same arguments spun back then against a 1080p TV too.

Then, Apple launched an TV3 "now with 1080p" and all such arguments and use of THAT version of the chart pretty much evaporated.

In short, apparently there is a group of "us" who feels compelled to write and spin anything in support of what Apple has for sale today, arguing about the foolishness of what Apple seems likely to inevitably roll out soon... UNTIL Apple does roll it out and then these same people aren't in those threads arguing about the stupidity of Apple for launching hardware with such gimmicky features like 4K.

The segment coveting a future feature that would not affect the "happy as is" crowd at all is completely wrong- even fools- for hungering for hardware advancement. But then Apple is not foolish for rolling out that very same hardware advancement as soon as they do it.

And note: you keep spinning this idea that a 4KTV would "force" people to buy new TVs. It would not, just as 1080p TV didn't force anyone to buy a new TV. Better hardware will play perfectly nice with whatever TV one has right now. Or more directly, if YOU are happy with the "as is", a 4KTV would have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on you. It just lets other people with other wants get what they want out of it too.

 

[freediverx]

So let me get this straight - You're quoting an article from 2014 in 2017 while debating a rapidly improving technology?

4k and HDR is infinitely better than the 1080 non HDR counterparts. Yes some implementations are better or worse then others, but in general streaming 4k will provide the most ideal picture in 2017.

Apple had an excuse in 2015 for not releasing a 4k Apple tv, however this is 2017 and that excuse is no longer valid.

Edit - Changed 2k to 1080P

The facts and observations in that article are still true today.

Rapidly improving technology?

Most Americans still don't have the bandwidth required to stream 4K video without terrible compression levels. With the Trump takeover of the FCC, expect cable bills to skyrocket while internet speeds stagnate or become slower.

There has been no revolutionary development in compression technology in the last three years.

Most Americans don't own 80" 4K TVs. Most 4K TVs in this country are 55" or smaller and are viewed from ten feet away or more. Humans have not evolved to have superior vision that can discern 4K resolution on a 40" TV from ten feet away.

Of the limited 4K content that is currently available (excluding home video and GoPro movie clips), most was not shot natively in 4K and certainly not in HDR and most 4K TV sets in the installed base do not support HDR.

Most 4K TVs in the wild don't have the processing power to decompress h.265 video with full quality.


[doublepost=1487263590][/doublepost]

Even though they are going to be very late to the game they need to include the following.
1. 4K HDR support.
2. I GIG Ethernet
3. Audio passthrough to enable ATMOS and DTS x MA to be decoded by AVR
4. DV support.

1. Most 4K content is not HDR. Most 4K TVs currently in homes don't support HDR.
2. Wifi is more than fast enough to locally stream full quality 4K content. There is no need for gigabit ethernet in the Apple TV.
3. No idea what this is about, and I suspect 90%+ of ATV owners don't either.
4. Lol! What is this, 1999?
[doublepost=1487263867][/doublepost]

The chart! It always must make an appearance in 4K TV discussions.

If you will use the wayback machine and hop back to before Apple launched TV3, you'll see the exact same chart with only some resolution changes being used to passionately argue against the need for a 1080p TV.

I doubt it. Either you're referring to an entirely different chart from a less qualified source or you are mis-remembering the argument at the time. The chart I posted is based on facts corroborated by none of than Sony and THX, not to mention independent experts in the field.

And guess what? if you bought a 40" 1080p TV to be viewed from ten feet away, you aren't going to see the resolution there either.

This is science, buddy, not "alternate facts."

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The facts and observations in that article are still true today. Rapidly improving technology? Most Americans still don't have the bandwidth required to stream 4K video without terrible compression levels.

And a new 4KTV wouldn't force them to only stream 4K files... just as the current TV doesn't force anyone to only stream 1080p files. And FYI: the bandwidth argument is the very same one made against a 1080p TV before Apple rolled that model out.

There has been no revolutionary development in compression technology in the last three years.

Actually, it is generally believed that a 4KTV would use h.265 for 4K streams. Relative to h.264, one might consider it revolutionary.

Most Americans don't own 80" 4K TVs. Most 4K TVs in this country are 55" or smaller and are viewed from ten feet away or more. Humans have not evolved to have superior vision that can discern 4K resolution on a 40" TV from ten feet away.

See the "the chart" response above. And again, the very same argument was used against a 1080p TV before Apple launched that model. No one subsequently called out Apple as stupid per such arguments AFTER Apple launched a 1080pTV.

Of the limited 4K content that is currently available (excluding home video and GoPro movie clips), most was not shot natively in 4K and certainly not in HDR and most 4K TV sets in the installed base do not support HDR. Most 4K TVs in the wild don't have the processing power to decompress h.265 video with full quality.

So basically, Apple should not advance it's technology until everyone else advances every other technology involved? Seems like that should apply to iPhone, iPad and Macs too? But, for some reason, we only seem to cling to an increasingly dated status quo in this ONE Apple product. Every other thread for every other product longs for cutting-edge advances ASAP.

 

[JoeShades]

The remote is the worst remote I have ever used. In the dark its a nightmare. Too clever by half.

Then use whatever remote you want. You are not forced to use the Apple remote. It is odd the amount of complaints about something that is not needed.

 

[caribou steaks]

Apple's and Job's treatment of the Apple TV has been extremely lackluster from the start. As time has progressed this has turned to pure apathy with little/no incentive for the consumer to buy it nor the Apple fans to rave about it. "Not enough margin…" really Apple…Cook cares more about insane profits$ than about Apple's reputation as a tech leader. Like they need more money right?! As many pointed out Apple is way behind on this one, with nearly every TV now already 4K and all their non-TV products supporting 4 or 5K, the one product that could use it most effectively DOESN'T HAVE IT. How embarrassing. I have owned all the generations of ATV and now rarely use it for anything more than air playing Amazon Prime movies. Many of us ATV owners cut the cord so compatibility with cable channels is irrelevant. So what's left? A whole lot of mediocre apps and only a few good ones all with a terrible "upside-down again!" controller. If Johnny designed that thing he FAILED! Apple could have and can do soooo much with the ATV if they would only let themselves. Make it compatible as can be: Amazon Prime App, greater connection to international stations, Dolby surround etc etc. There is no excuse and Google, Amazon, Roku and just about every TV now out there has stollen their thunder. Who needs ATV when a standard LG or Sammy now comes with half the apps already on it? Anyway….4K ATV great, so what!

 

[Spankey]

BTW, Amazon has some amazing 4k content. Apple needs to work something out to get their app on board.

 

[imronburgundy]

Why is it 2017, but I still can't turn on an iTunes-purchased episode of a show for the kids, and have it autoplay to the next one when it's done? My AppleTV gets more usage out of Plex now than any "services" that Apple provides, due to greater convenience.

 

[Appleaker]

I don't think the controller is an issue of margins - if so they would just sell an unbundled one at a huge profit.

As others want, hopefully Apple jumps to an A10 class chip this generation to push it a little further in terms of the types of apps and games it can run.

They already offer a third party controller in the same way they sell a 5K monitor, and that's cheaper than the Apple remote.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I doubt it. Either you're referring to an entirely different chart from a less qualified source or you are mis-remembering the argument at the time. The chart I posted is based on facts corroborated by none of than Sony and THX, not to mention independent experts in the field.

And guess what? if you bought a 40" 1080p TV to be viewed from ten feet away, you aren't going to see the resolution there either.

This is science, buddy, not "alternate facts."

See post #14 from 2008: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-tv-1080i.584041/#post-6462970 and that same chart shows up over and over all the way up to close to the launch of the 1080p TV... then was "retired" for a while (as were all of the arguments against the need for a 1080p TV) only to be resurrected, slightly updated with new resolutions and then recycled (chart & same arguments) against a 4KTV.

The chart just seems to be a good "scientific" argument against. Whether people can see the difference or not in some particular setting or situation is also irrelevant to them if they believe 4K > 1080p. Someone who buys into "the future" (which is now increasingly the present) doesn't want to then buy supporting tech not able to max it out. Apple is the only mainstream set top box that doesn't support 4K. Most everything else that is mainstream DOES support 4K, even boxes costing a fraction of Apple's price.

Whether human eyes can see the difference or not doesn't alter people wanting to buy what they want.

But, even if your arguments were 100% correct, the availability of a 4KTV would have no effect on you at all. It wouldn't force you to buy anything. You wouldn't be forced to only download 4K videos. Your bandwidth burn would not require 1 byte more if you didn't opt for 4K video rentals. Etc. In other words, since it would have ZERO effect on you, you are basically making passionate arguments against OTHER people getting something THEY want out of Apple hardware too. For what?

 

[Nunyabinez]

I bought a 4K Vizio TV to join the 4K revolution. I still watch my 1080p TV most of the time because it is bigger and there is nothing in 4k for me to watch without jumping though hoops.

In fact, I don't know how much 4K content I have actually viewed, because I can't be sure that the content really is 4K even when the TV says it is receiving 4K, and it doesn't really look that different to me.

I'll bet that doing ABX testing will show that most people fail to be able to consistently tell the difference, just like happens with MP3 versus CD.

 

[Col4bin]

Uh oh, the next Apple TV will feature new technology and 4K. (Will this too be priced $1,000?) Where's Ming Chi Kuo??

 

[2010mini]

My honest opinion... 4K is not what will put Apple TV over the top. Apple needs to do what Hulu, Netflix and Amazon does: have a premium subscription service with original content. They can either build it or buy an existing company like Crackle or one of the smaller streaming service. Because they most likely can't afford Netflix, Hulu etc today.

 

[TallManNY]

I fear Apple may cave in to ignorant consumer demand and release a more expensive ATV with no improvement besides 4K support. If only Steve Jobs were still around to do a snarky presentation showing why 4K still doesn't make sense for the mass market.

Yep. And 512ppi screens on our phones it now seems as well. I for one don't want my neighborhood's bandwidth further constrained at night because folks are watching 4K video that they can't tell the difference. Worse, what will likely happen is that users will select the 4k stream (because it is better) and push that out to their 1080p TVs. So the TV will downsample the data it is getting, but Apple TV will pull 4K over the internet cable lines.

 

[freediverx]

See the "the chart" response above. And again, the very same argument was used against a 1080p TV before Apple launched that model. No one subsequently called out Apple as stupid per such arguments AFTER Apple launched a 1080pTV.

If you were among those demanding 1080P support in the first Apple TV model I certainly hope you had something more than a 40" TV to view it on unless you were prepared to sit five feet away from it. Otherwise, you were just a lemming focused entirely on specs with no understanding of their real world implications.

I haven't seen a single link, quote, or citation from you, just vague arguments and ill-defined references to unattributed sources. My arguments are based on expert data you can find here:

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

 

[Juicy Box]

As others want, hopefully Apple jumps to an A10 class chip this generation to push it a little further in terms of the types of apps and games it can run.

I don't care about 4k right now, but an upgraded chipset should also enhance the gaming performance..I am curious what an A10X Apple TV would be capable of.

I am curious at what the A8 would be capable of. Having the Siri remote requirement at launch seemed to have scared all of the game developers away.

 

[freediverx]

I find the ATV 4 to be too much of an in-between system. If you like gaming you can get a PS4 or Xbone for about $50 more (or the same price if you buy a controller for the ATV 4) and play far more and higher quality games, not to mention having almost all the same video apps and a blu-ray player. If all you want is video apps you can buy a streaming device for far less, if your TV doesn't already have the apps installed already. The only real benefit is watching or listening to stuff bought on iTunes, but that only stretches so far. The remote and the remote app are horrible compared to the ATV 3. I hope Apple can find some way to salvage the ATV4, but I've not been too impressed with mine so far.

I already have a PS4 for gaming. But the user experience on that console is atrocious for anything else like streaming video channels. Neither Sony nor Microsoft are exactly great at UI design. The same goes for lower quality alternatives to the Apple TV.

 

[JoeShades]

I don't care about 4k right now, but an upgraded chipset should also enhance the gaming performance..I am curious what an A10X Apple TV would be capable of.

I know it will be capable of making people complain that it is not an A11 because that is what is guaranteed to happen. People love to complain.