I guess what i meant to say is over time the chicken egg problem will solve itself. with other options people will slowly adopt competing technologies. 4k will gain importance over the next 5 years and 4k content should be the norm.
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 TV 4K - yes please
- Thread starter MalooNZ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess what i meant to say is over time the chicken egg problem will solve itself. with other options people will slowly adopt competing technologies. 4k will gain importance over the next 5 years and 4k content should be the norm.
Who says this will be the new norm? I have TWC and have no data cap. With Google Fiber continuing to roll out, the traditional ISP's can only squeeze their customers so much before they choose to leave for someone else. I have at least two or three ISP's in my market. I think data caps are going to be a temporary thing in some markets until newer competitors without caps like Google enter those markets.
In any case, I don't know about you, but I don't upgrade every electronic device I have the moment a new one comes out. I upgrade my phone every two years instead of every year, my MBP is from 2011 as I wait for skylake MBP's and my Apple TV has been in use for around 3 years now. I expect my new Apple TV to last just as long and one without 4K will be far outdated 3 years from now, as 4K will enter the mainstream next year. You can easily pick up a 4K TV for less than $600 today, so pretty much everyone shopping for a new TV will end up with a 4K model by default. Pretty much only people shopping at walmart for the cheapest TV possible will continue buying 1080p models, which are going the way of the 720p models, bye-bye.
At some stage kids must of freaked out when color came along and they all knew what color blood was..
Apple probably things 4K isn't really ''main-strem' yet....
More and more with 4K sets, maybe the fast majority are still on HD...
Besides, it makes little sense on bring our 4K on TvOS if the iTunes Store doesn't yet support 4K...
I reckon Apple is not gonna implement something just u can use it with the competition which drives their movies away on iTunes..
While 2K would still look good, 4K native content is still not on iTunes, therefore i assume will not be done till it is. I think the goal is to keep customers and Apple knows how to do that..,
Last edited:
I love 4k.
But,
I shoot and edit 4k RAW and 4kUHD ProRes every hour of every day on pro 4k monitors.
And even under those best of class circumstances I find most non professionals can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k at screen sizes below 50 inches.
And streamed 4k is a joke at this point.
Like your 4k smart phone, it's all marketing.
But,
I shoot and edit 4k RAW and 4kUHD ProRes every hour of every day on pro 4k monitors.
And even under those best of class circumstances I find most non professionals can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k at screen sizes below 50 inches.
And streamed 4k is a joke at this point.
Like your 4k smart phone, it's all marketing.
Planned obsolescence. Apple need somewhere to go. Somewhere for the product to improve.
[doublepost=1476311611][/doublepost]
What on Earth have you typed this on??
You're probably right, the only problem is, when your competitors offer what some may consider must-have features (like 4K) that you do not. The only reason I use an Apple TV over other streaming devices is for the Airplay ability to use with my Mac and iPhone. The majority of other consumers don't need that feature and would be better off choosing a different streamer, thus Apple will at best remain stagnant in market share in this area.
The UHD BD will be lossy in comparison to what? A live play? They are the standard. Further compression introduces the "loss".
For most people the loss will need to be acceptable with the current cost of UHD BD players and the disc themselves. I personally am not interested in buying UHD BD (making my future PS4 Pro purchase justifiable albeit still an annoying omission).
Regardless the difference is stark to even the most untrained eye. You'll never see a major box store with a TV section pushing a 4k Netflix quality image to their 4k TV's merely because its not that impressive.
Again...its good. Its better then streaming 1080p. I'm not debating that. I'm just saying there is a massive gap between UHD BD and its stream 4k counterpart.
Here is a good article on the subject
Google doesn't really have any interest in competing in markets. Its services have mostly been rolled out in areas that don't have much competition.
That's very true, but that magic number of over 50% will still take a few years to reach. That would be the optimal time for Apple to introduce a new Apple TV and point of m original response to this thread. Apple Will get there but don't expect a new Apple TV this year or next. 2020 Is the optimal target and i Will be happy to upgrade at that time. I have no problem waiting....
That's just the thing, most areas DON'T have competition and have one, maybe two, ISP's to choose from. That's why people have to suffer with this data cap BS. This means there's plenty more places for Google to come in and disrupt the market. In my area, I've got the choice of TWC, WOW, ATT and potentially more I'm not aware of. I haven't looked into it, as I'm rather happy with my TWC service.
Absolutely no way Apple will wait until 2020 to release the next Apple TV and whenever they do, it will support 4K and possibly HDR. I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't release a new Apple TV next year sometime, as they were already slightly behind the curve last year, and everyone else's new models coming out this year isn't helping that any. If Apple waits until 50% of the market adopts 4K TV's to release their own 4K box, where do you think the first 50% of that market will have gone, when they were out buying their 4K streamers to go with the TV? Not Apple.
And as for the second 50%, just because many people don't have a 4K TV yet doesn't mean they don't expect their new devices to support it. Again, most people don't throw out and replace everything the second a new version comes out. I bought an AV receiver earlier this year and made sure it had 4K HDR support. Why? Even though I don't have a 4K TV yet, that doesn't mean I want to have to replace it when I likely buy a new TV next year. Same with the Apple TV, I'm not going to buy a 4th gen when I know I'll want to replace it with a new 4K one soon after I buy it.
The Apple TV 3 came out Match 7th 2012
The Apple TV 4 came out October 30th 2015
A total of 1333 days between the two generations.
Now if we just add 1333 days from The previous October release that would land us in mid June 2019. I think that's a totally acceptable date for "Around 2020" and wouldn't be historically out of character for Apple to wait such lengths given the previous product cycle.
Whatever the case.... If someone is on the fence about getting an apple TV hoping something better from Apple is right around the corner... it probably isn't. I wont expect anything this year or next. 2018 is a possibility.... but i'll place my bets on June 2019....
Look at the buyer's guide, the average time between updates is 512 days and is currently listed as "caution, approaching end of cycle." Even if you want to discount the 512 number because it includes same-gen revisions, there are two other things to keep in mind.
First, many people attribute a good portion of the delay between gen 3 and gen 4 to Apple attempting to get some kind Apple-offered streaming service off the ground for the gen 4 launch. Obviously in the end, they never got enough deals inked with the networks to make it a reality so they had to release without. Second, up until the Apple TV 4 was being prepped for launch, Apple was calling the Apple TV a "hobby." They're no longer doing so and I'd expect Apple to accelerate ATV releases to 18-24 months, especially since the streaming market is much more competitive than when Apple first entered the market.
UHD BD and Netflix are both using HEVC for encoding. Netflix around 25 Mbps, BD goes from 80-something to that 128 Mbps. There really is a jarring difference between the two, though Netflix I'd go out and say is better than a 1080p BD.
Netflix has a big advantage here still though -- scalability. They have the source data, they encode it themselves. 25 Mbps is their current bitrate, and nothing is preventing them from increasing that as they see internet speeds increase. Blu Ray is tied to the specification.
And the standards really are set. HDR standards is about as big a concern as audio ones -- not so much. HDR10 is a baseline, Dolby is beyond that and not necessary as you'll always be able to fall back to HDR10. It appears to be like Dolby Digital and DTS when DVD's first landed. Everything had Dolby Digital, very few things had DTS... and your player could be set accordingly to always do 1, or to switch between one and the other. The discs are coming out with both of these today, BD mandates HDR10 inclusion, they can go over the top and add Dolby in on each movie if they want. All the streaming services so far offering HDR do so in HDR10. So right now, having something with only HDR10 is perfectly fine and will afford you a consistent experience and access to everything; as if you bought a receiver that only did Dolby Digital in 1999.
I'm looking forward to a 4K Apple TV eventually. I'm sure they'll do it, but I hope it doesn't take too long. I think when they do they'll have a lot of the iTunes catalog ready in 4K, and of course market it as a way to watch all the 4K video we've been recording with our iPhones.
But I say if you need an Apple TV just get one now. Who knows when a new one will come out, and it's not like it's some huge purchase anyway. Probably decent prices on refurb options too.
But I say if you need an Apple TV just get one now. Who knows when a new one will come out, and it's not like it's some huge purchase anyway. Probably decent prices on refurb options too.
I agree isn't the new codec AV1 coming next March? YouTube will be using that etc. So surely it makes sense for Apple to wait. Maybe i am wrong?
Isn't AV1 going to have all of the same problems that HEVC has now with licensing/IP etc.?
No because AV1 is open, royalty free and supported from the off by major hardware manufacturers (Intel, ARM, AMD, nvidia), software makers (Google, Microsoft, Mozilla) and content providers (YouTube/Google, Netflix, Amazon). H.265 HEVC is basically none of those things. AV1 is also reputed to be 50% more efficient although how true that is I don't know.
As I said in my earlier post - it's like the Wild West out there still.
Last edited:
Nope not just you. I'm holding off on an ATV purchase until it has 4K
I do think Apple is waiting until several things align before releasing a UHD/4K ATV device. A better codec that can be decoded on a $10 or less per unit co-processor would really help. Before the HEVC Advance patent trolls torpedoed the H.265/HEVC rollout, we were on track to have HEVC decoding on mass produced $5 chips embedded in displays by now.
Depending what options are on the unit, if it is ever released, then it will be the first Apple TV unit I buy. I have 4k live streaming (in the UK, sport at the moment) and it is is very good. For me there is no interest in a HD only option, i do not watch any SD programming anymore. Netflix is certainly very good and a few bluray players around at the moment, hopefully that increases in number. So there is an option for some innovative thinking to nail it now.
It is killing me knowing that there are tons of cool apps on atv4. I have 2 4k tvs, and wouldn't mind relegating my Nvidia shield to the one I hardly watch. However I refuse to buy one until it has 4k. Netflix is putting up at least one new series a month in 4k, and YouTube videos in 4k look crystal clear.
It is really frustrating. I would even gladly pay a $50-100 premium for a. ATV pro with a HDMI 2.0 port, and faster processor.
Oh well
It is really frustrating. I would even gladly pay a $50-100 premium for a. ATV pro with a HDMI 2.0 port, and faster processor.
Oh well
Looking at various articles and the claim seems to be that 4k TV sales are up compared to when HD was taking off.
Problem is for me, I have TV native apps that are very good. I have a box for my ISP TV service (it also works to my aerial input), I have a bluray player (not 4K yet, to be upgraded). So I have a jumble of options. If Apple release a 4k unit it might not even come up on my radar to buy. Apple get it right and a sweet option then out could be a seller.
But 4k is happening, broadcast companies are investing. Telcos are eyeing each other up and competing, in the UK at least.
Problem is for me, I have TV native apps that are very good. I have a box for my ISP TV service (it also works to my aerial input), I have a bluray player (not 4K yet, to be upgraded). So I have a jumble of options. If Apple release a 4k unit it might not even come up on my radar to buy. Apple get it right and a sweet option then out could be a seller.
But 4k is happening, broadcast companies are investing. Telcos are eyeing each other up and competing, in the UK at least.
You really should look at Vizio 2016 sets. They basically use chromcast, but it comes with a tablet so you do not tie up your own device.
I still would prefer the ATV interface, and the lack of 4K/HDR is the only thing preventing me from using an ATV.
[doublepost=1476980046][/doublepost]
Which is absolutely ridiculous. Either go all in on the next generation or don't =/
I agree 100% with this. I know people feel like home wired connections will always be unlimited because that's what they've always been, but that is simply not the case.
It makes ZERO sense for an ISP (Cable Co) to let you use unlimited data because you stopped using their cable service just to use their Internet service more.
It's pretty easy to see where they are going also. The recent article I read said something like "our new data cap is so high, only 1% of households ever hit it". So they are treating it like a non-event. What they don't say is that bandwidth usage will be going up over the next decade and what looks like a lot of bandwidth now will turn out to be not enough. They aren't making a short term play, it's a long term play. I'm sure the cable co would like nothing more than to get out of the business of delivering tv channels (and having to negotiate all of those agreements) and just be an ISP.