Apple TV 4K Reviews: Expensive But With Cheaper 4K Movies, Some Limitations Like 1080p YouTube

[coolspot18]

I've been using an Nvidia Shield for about a month know and I think it is a much better set top box than the Apple TV.

Nvidia Shield seems faster, already has 4K support, more apps, USB connectivity, included gamepad makes it a much sweeter experience than the Apple TV.

Apple TV's app ecosystem hasn't gone anywhere over the last 2 years? I haven't found any new apps worth installing in a long time.

Can someone explain to me why you'd buy this rather than a small form factor HTPC?

Just recently got into digital movies and converted all of my blu rays and started buying movies from iTunes. Seems like to me a HTPC like an Intel NUC would be a better buy than this, but I'm not entirely informed on what this Apple TV is capable of

HTPCs are more powerful but also a hassle to use on a TV. UI can be quirky when viewed from a distance. Apple TV and Nvidia Shield are turnkey solutions to get you up and running. The interface on an Apple TV / Nvidia Shield (Android TV) are optimized for a TV experience.

HTPCs were good 10 years ago before these devices were readily available, but these days, there's no need for HTPC and I would rather get a set top box.

 

[Rigby]

Can someone explain to me why you'd buy this rather than a small form factor HTPC?

Just recently got into digital movies and converted all of my blu rays and started buying movies from iTunes. Seems like to me a HTPC like an Intel NUC would be a better buy than this, but I'm not entirely informed on what this Apple TV is capable of

I used HTPCs for years. They are great if you like constant tinkering, and are of course much more customizable. But you'll never have anywhere near the same simplicity and smooth user experience as a good dedicated streaming box. I have pretty much given up on my HTPC since Infuse and MrMC for the ATV became available (which I use to stream my own media files from a NAS).

Besides, once you add in the RAM and SSD (and a Windows license if you want to run iTunes on it), a NUC is considerably more expensive than an Apple TV. And, to get back on topic, it won't be able to play back iTunes 4k content ...

 

[Juicy Box]

I would think the limitations of YouTube, would be more on Google, than Apple.

I think google is sabotaging here.

Why is this Apple's fault? I've read several reviews stating this. I don't understand what they expect Apple to do.

Nothing to do with Apple. They’ll approve any updated YouTube app Google submits.

The Apple TV won’t play 4K through the app until google updates it.

Blame Google.

So if it is "more on Google", it's not OK for Google to react slowly or not at all?

Blame Google, blame Apple.... I guess both can be blamed. Same arguments were made for Amazon prime video.

But, when it comes down to it, it is Apple's device. If Apple does not have the apps/feature that people are looking for, it is on them.

The content providers, in this case is Google, do not see an incentive on providing support for the ATV. It doesn't matter if Google is holding stuff back or not, ultimately, it is Apple (and their ATV users) that suffers for it.

People are quick to blame Google, but why could Apple not support VP9 codec? Serious question btw, maybe there is something technical that I am misunderstanding about it.

Amazing, they are both Google and Apple apologists at the same time?

I see it all the time. I was called an Apple hater, and an Apple apologist in the same thread before.

 

[3587]

If I'm not mistaken, Google broadcasts Youtube 4K video in the VP9 codec. The ATV4K doesn't support that codec. Doesn't Apple decide which codecs it will support?

No 4K YouTube, no 4K AppleTV. Unreal.

What were they thinking? YouTube has by far the most 4K content. Apple fail.

 

[trusso]

I'm sure it's because I've never owned a 4K device, or watched a film in super-hi-def, but I don't quite understand all the hoopla about 4K/5K, etc. Sure, it's a great feat of engineering, but there's only so much resolution that the human eye can effectively discern. I'm more than happy to enjoy Casablanca without seeing every wrinkle on Bogart's face, or Field of Dreams without being able to count the blades of grass.

 

[Jax44]

I've really been going back and forth on whether to upgrade to 4K. To be able to experience 4K more fully, you need a pretty big TV unless you sit really close to your TV. HDR has benefits for any size TV. But I think I've figured out what I want to do. I've seen these newer OLED 4K TVs that are so thin you can attach them to the wall with magnets. They kinda look like someone put a black sheet of glass on the wall. They're so freaking cool. I want one of those. Furthermore, Apple is now updating their Apple TV about every two years. So I'll upgrade in two years when the next Apple TV comes out and pair that with one of those nice, completely flat OLED displays in the 72-84" range, depending on price and features.

I’m with you on the Oled HDR 65”-75” tv. Only problem, my 10 year old Panasonic Plasma keeps on ticking...

 

[lazard]

From The Verge:

"The Apple TV also automatically preferences refresh rate over any other setting: if your TV supports 60Hz HDR10 but only 30Hz Dolby Vision (like 2016 LG OLEDs), the Apple TV will pick HDR10, even though HDR10 looks worse than Dolby Vision. Apple told me that’s because it wants the interface and games to run as smoothly as possible; it’s found that the interface judders at 30Hz. So you’ll get worse HDR but a smoother interface, all because the Apple TV won’t switch modes.

The lack of mode switching also means that Apple’s picking its own video upscaling and processing system over whatever’s in your TV. Your TV just thinks it’s getting 4K HDR video all the time. It won’t know that it’s actually displaying an HD source, and won’t do any of the tricks 4K TVs do to make those sources look better." (emphasis mine)

Whoa, I don't like that one bit. For a $179+ device, the Apple TV should be smarter than that especially if you have it hooked up to a high end AVR or OLED TV. This is pretty much a no-go for me unless Apple changes how this works in a future update to iOS 11. Sorry, but this is bad.

typical of Apple to decide what is best for their consumers.

 

[Juicy Box]

I'm sure it's because I've never owned a 4K device, or watched a film in super-hi-def, but I don't quite understand all the hoopla about 4K/5K, etc. Sure, it's a great feat of engineering, but there's only so much resolution that the human eye can effectively discern. I'm more than happy to enjoy Casablanca without seeing every wrinkle on Bogart's face, or Field of Dreams without being able to count the blades of grass.

I kind of agree.

I don't own a 4K TV, so maybe if I did, I would feel differently about it.

I have own every version of the ATV up to the ATV4. I have bought the 2, 3, and 4 on launch day, but the ATV5 is going to have to wait. I really don't see any reason to get it.

 

[9081094]

"I am very confident Apple is going to figure this TV thing out." - Patel

With the brainpower, influence and cash this company has, if they haven't figured it out by now, why on earth would you be so confident they will in the (reasonably near) future?

Somebody needs to hold these guys responsible for their shortcomings or explain/expose why they're holding back. Geez.

Apple updates are minimal and focused more on making profit for the company than actually delivering the best tech. We have plenty of examples. They haven't made changes in their products for years. And once they do some minimal changes they'll up the price. I hope some day it will bite back. Having an Apple product has nothing to do with having the latest and the greatest or bringing the best technological experiences to the masses. It's trying to become a status symbol like Gucci and Prada but then for tech. Not the Apple I once loved

 

[fischersd]

Honestly, the timing for a lot of people, this and other upgrades shouldn't be until later in the year or possibly into the spring (when the HDMI 2.1 AV receivers will be available).

Apple should have done HDMI 2.1 draft/reference for this box. Finalized any tweaking with software updates.

For many of us (still with all of our gear and content supporting 1080p) this is going to be a very expensive transition....best that it all be future proofed with the latest standards.

 

[nol2001]

Well done to Nilay for saying we want 4K HDR YouTube on Apple TV so clearly.

 

[sleepydinosaur]

tl;dr If you live in the garden and have a 4K TV - you should get it. Otherwise, not so much.

Which is me, but the troubling thing is that they say 1080 movies look bad. Since I own a gaggle of Star Wars and marvel flicks that probably won't be updated to 4k for free....it worries me.

 

[3587]

I'm sure it's because I've never owned a 4K device, or watched a film in super-hi-def, but I don't quite understand all the hoopla about 4K/5K, etc. Sure, it's a great feat of engineering, but there's only so much resolution that the human eye can effectively discern. I'm more than happy to enjoy Casablanca without seeing every wrinkle on Bogart's face, or Field of Dreams without being able to count the blades of grass.

Search 1080 vs 4K on YouTube... they do a couple of comparisons... Night/day difference. One shows a bookshelf... the books look nice in 1080, but in 4K you can actually read the titles of the books... it's incredible!

 

[Juicy Box]

typical of Apple to decide what is best for their consumers.

Yea, I don't mind if Apple defaults things like this, but why not have settings to change things like this. I think this kind of stuff has gotten worse over the past few years. Disk Utility and Airport app come to mind.

 

[doomfront]

I used HTPCs for years. They are great if you like constant tinkering, and are of course much more customizable. But you'll never have anywhere near the same simplicity and smooth user experience as a good dedicated streaming box. I have pretty much given up on my HTPC since Infuse and MrMC for the ATV became available (which I use to stream my own media files from a NAS).

Besides, once you add in the RAM and SSD (and a Windows license if you want to run iTunes on it), a NUC is considerably more expensive than an Apple TV. And, to get back on topic, it won't be able to play back iTunes 4k content ...

Thanks for the response. Whole reason why I would buy a NUC is the larger storage space, is it even possible to watch movies offline with the Apple TV? But if I can't watch a 4k movie that I buy from iTunes on a NUC then that's a big reason to hold off on it

 

[Juicy Box]

but in 4K you can actually read the titles of the books... it's incredible!

This I would like. As I am constantly pausing stuff trying to make out what text reads during movies and TV shows. Of course Apple made this harder with the ATV4, having the screen darken when it is paused.

 

[bozzykid]

There seems to be a misunderstanding from some critic and MacRumors what HDR is. You don't "Upscale" to HDR, you upscale resolution. HDR has to do with the available color palette. It's Apple's 4K upscaling from 1080P content that apparently is not good. That has nothing to do with HDR.

Except on the Apple TV you have to set it to HDR mode all the time if you want any HDR. I don't know of any other box that does this.

 

[robjulo]

It hasn't been true in years. It is simply some idea that keeps getting parroted, without an iota of thought or analysis.

I'm happy that Apple's put out a new generation apple TV with a nice processor, and now 4k and HDR.

But what happened to the idea that Apples usually comes late to the game, but when they do, they come with a machine that soundly trumps the competition?
A serious Apple TV is very late to the game, and now that it's arguably here, it certainly doesn't look like it's head and shoulders above competing devices, many of which cost a fraction of what the apple TV does.

Why would apple not have wanted to get into nearly every living room? They did it with mp3 players, touch screen based smart phones, etc...

 

[69Mustang]

so does Google. which doesn't make it Apple's fault that Google went a different direction. nor does it make it their issue to always acquiesce and support things they don't choose to

Who said anything about fault? Certainly not me. 4K Youtube requires VP9 codec support. Either Apple will add support or they won't. Whether that affects someone's purchasing decision is up to that individual.

Unrelated: I wonder if someone can Airplay 4K Youtube video to the ATV using Chrome, Edge, Opera, or Firefox?

 

[840quadra]

Not necessarily. Google uses the VP9 codec while apple uses HEVC. They might have included hardware decoding if hevc but not vp9. Software decoding might be sluggish.

My Sony x800 UHD player is beautiful and it does not have these limitations even though Sony screwed up and won’t have Dolby Vision in it. Only HDR10.

I have already addressed your comment / concerns in later posts.

 

[iReality85]

Honestly, the timing for a lot of people, this and other upgrades shouldn't be until later in the year or possibly into the spring (when the HDMI 2.1 AV receivers will be available).

Apple should have done HDMI 2.1 draft/reference for this box. Finalized any tweaking with software updates.

For many of us (still with all of our gear and content supporting 1080p) this is going to be a very expensive transition....best that it all be future proofed with the latest standards.

Insofar as HDMI 2.1 is concerned, the only relevant spec for AVR manufacturers will be eARC (thus, Dolby Atmos), which can be added through a software update. AVR Manufacturers have been pushing out software updates for Dolby Vision, there's no reason to believe they won't also for eARC. People who buy a new AVR now (like I did) will likely be fine.

HDMI 2.1 is a little different than past versions since it is allowed to be "cherry picked" by manufacturers for the specs they need or don't need. Everything else besides eARC is either not here yet (4K 120Hz), way off into the future (like 8K passthrough), or not relevant to AVRs. I assume this is why Apple is holding off a bit on Dolby Atmos, since they want to implement eARC along with it which makes sense.

 

[midkay]

The no 4K YouTube thing is super annoying. Ugh.

 

[cube]

Insofar as HDMI 2.1 is concerned, the only relevant spec for AVR manufacturers will be eARC (thus, Dolby Atmos), which can be added through a software update. AVR Manufacturers have been pushing out software updates for Dolby Vision, there's no reason to believe they won't also for eARC. People who buy a new AVR now (like I did) will likely be fine.

HDMI 2.1 is a little different than past versions since it is allowed to be "cherry picked" by manufacturers for the specs they need or don't need. Everything else besides eARC is either not here yet (4K 120Hz), way off into the future (like 8K passthrough), or not relevant to AVRs. I assume this is why Apple is holding off a bit on Dolby Atmos, since they want to implement eARC along with it which makes sense.

I will be looking for adaptive sync passthrough in a receiver too.

 

[tommyboy21]

The Verge didn't even upload their review in 4K to YouTube...so kind of a pointless argument.

 

[symphony]

Nilay Patel, the most incompetent reviewer than Lauren Goode. I’m pretty sure 4K and HDR limitations for YouTube is a Google thing and not Apple.

He’s so terrible at actually thinking about the logistics of things. If you watch his iPhone reviews he whines and complains how new features aren’t fully useable or available yet, and it’s like—no ****ing ****, it just came out and it’s up to developers to implement them. Not Apple.