Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How many 4K TVs are actually being sold every quarter? 4K content is still pretty limited as well.

Go walk your local Best Buy or equivalent. Tell me how many 1080p sets are on display > 40". In the Phoenix area - you really have to go out of your way to find a 1080p TV set. This year is the switch - all manufacturers are all in on 4K - now that HDR specs are out. You only see new 1080p sets on 40" or smaller, where 4K isn't likely to matter much. (Yes - there are 2015 1080p sets on clearance, but all new TVs are 4K HDR)

I think we'll see 4K come to Apple TV once iTunes hops over and starts providing 4K HDR versions of the movies. Maybe in the coming year. And I wonder if they'll support Dolby Vision or just HDR 10. I fully expect a new generation of Apple TV to support 4K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI
170% of a small number is still a small number. Sorry learn math.

"In 2014, only 1% of all U.S homes had a 4K TV, so far in 2015, that percentage is seeing very fast growth and other studies have predicted a fivefold increase in 4K television sales for the current years end, from just under 1 million units sold to about 5 or 6 million by the end of 2015."

Source: http://4k.com/news/4k-tv-sales-to-surpass-100-million-units-by-2018-5948/

Buying a box to plug into your TV is not a long-term commitment like a TV or a computer. My point, in response to you and others, is that 4K is not a major decision in buying a box for you today. Boxes are cheap and people will upgrade. Apple has regularly withheld features for future models. 4k demand is growing and Apple will add 4K support to a future model. Are they losing some sales today? Sure, but they will capture more in the future. Your argument of pretty much "buy a 4k device now or forever never have 4k" is dramatic and short thinking.

I'm done arguing with you. Enjoy your 4K Roku and your plethora of 4K content.

http://4k.com/news/while-tv-shipmen...bucked-the-trend-and-continue-to-do-so-12971/

You just don't get how wrong you are and that is just very funny to me :)
[doublepost=1463596218][/doublepost]
Go walk your local Best Buy or equivalent. Tell me how many 1080p sets are on display > 40". In the Phoenix area - you really have to go out of your way to find a 1080p TV set. This year is the switch - all manufacturers are all in on 4K - now that HDR specs are out. You only see new 1080p sets on 40" or smaller, where 4K isn't likely to matter much. (Yes - there are 2015 1080p sets on clearance, but all new TVs are 4K HDR)

I think we'll see 4K come to Apple TV once iTunes hops over and starts providing 4K HDR versions of the movies. Maybe in the coming year. And I wonder if they'll support Dolby Vision or just HDR 10. I fully expect a new generation of Apple TV to support 4K.

Nail on the head.

However...

I don't think Apple will jump on 4K for iTunes purchases for a long time (and you'll most assuredly have to repurchase or buy an "upgrade"). Apple just isn't an innovator anymore, they are an incrementalist company now. They'll be late to many advancing markets now and struggling for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
Using dictation just means that you can enter queries a lot faster... The smaller the device, the more important voice input becomes. It's either that or adding a qwerty keyboard to the remote like the failed Google TV. Adding dictation has nothing to do with a failed UI design.

Also, people mistake intuitive with what they're accustomed to. The soft keyboard on smartphones that everyone views as being intuitive and normal today was seen as being un-intuitive and an abomination just a few years ago.

Considering ATV4 is the closest experience to a modern smartphone, I'd say it's the most intuitive and fluid experience of them all.

I'm great it's a great experience for you. Using the remote input to do search for me is a poor experience. The iPod with a wheel was better .

Let's agree to disagree.

I spend no time using iTunes or app stores . Just infuse to play media off the plex server I have on a Synology. That it does well, but more to the fact infuse is an excellent app.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI
http://4k.com/news/while-tv-shipmen...bucked-the-trend-and-continue-to-do-so-12971/

You just don't get how wrong you are and that is just very funny to me :)
[doublepost=1463596218][/doublepost]

Nail on the head.

However...

I don't think Apple will jump on 4K for iTunes purchases for a long time (and you'll most assuredly have to repurchase or buy an "upgrade"). Apple just isn't an innovator anymore, they are incrementalist company now.

Where's the specific number of 4k tvs sold vs. non-4k in that article?
 
IR remote is a dinosaur like VHS and there's no point in spending money on such limited relics. With Chromecast I can use existing phone or buy ~$25 Moto G prepaid phone as smart remote, IP phone, run apps, etc. It's also much more advanced as I can command my media server to stream to any or multiple playback devices in the house.

Let's see,

My TVs, sound bar, HDMI switches, DVD and BluRay players all use IR. None support RF or WiFi to control.
I have 3 TVs with various gear. I have 3 Harmony 650. Same form factor, same interfaces.
I LIKE physical buttons. I can feel my way around the remote for most functions.
My phone is my work phone. I don't want it with me all the time. When I'm watching TV, I don't want to be disturbed by work or personal emails, texts, etc.

Need to pause what I'm watching? pickup the remote and I can feel where the pause button is. As opposed to pick up the phone, unlock it, go to the app, it may not be in the foreground, and then look for the pause button.

And I've never seen a true universal app to control all my AV kits. I don't want a bunch of remotes and I don't want to have to navigate to a bunch of apps.
 
Everyone likes what the like, and I never knock people for that.
I think more so, people like having options, so if you like the grid, or long swiping, you are covered.




As for the grid style, I can type a word almost as fast as I can spell it out loud. For me, doing the long swiping, it takes twice as long at least.

Some people can text on a phone crazy fast, I can't. But, I can type on the computer pretty fast, and many people can't do that. So, I guess it depends on the person.

It depends on the person to a degree. Aside from users having some physical limitation, what you're describing are user preferences; often times based on what they've grown accustomed to. But there are empirical differences which can be measured.

For example, Android users are convinced that Android is more intuitive than iOS, but brain scans have shown that Android puts a greater cognitive load on the brain than iOS. I don't knock them for their preference, but I will contest them in what they perceive to be fact.

Admittedly, I haven't run any scientific studies on old vs new search with ATV, but the fact that I have the option to dictate or use Siri to search across apps gives ATV4 an empirical advantage in that regard.

Also, the fact that I can quickly swipe from one end of the alphabet to the other in a linear fashion without having to memorize where the random break points are in the alphabet... I'd say it's at the very least, more straightforward.
 
I agree Apple could out-market Amazon, but they aren't. Apple TV is expensive compared to competitors and competitors are marketing better. Apple is 4th as a result.
The main reason they are fourth is mentioned in the article. They don't make a "stick" version of the AppleTV. I don't think market share has ever been Apple's top concern. They typically go for higher margins on hardware, which is probably why we don't have an AppleTV stick at this point. The article mentions that it is essentially tied for first with the Roku in boxes sold.

Personally, I prefer the 4 by a wide margin to the 3. I prefer Siri, the remote because it can control my receiver's volume, the number of apps available, the folders, the ability to scan through a movie, Apple Music integration, bluetooth, etc.

That isn't meant to say that it couldn't use some improving. I would have preferred 4k and more intuitive larger remote.

EDIT One thing I forgot to mention is that I think remotes with physical buttons will continue to be around for years. The ability to hit a button to skip, pause, etc. without looking at a screen is beneficial for movies, DVRs, etc. I actually have a remote app (SimpleRemote) on my iPhone that will control everything in my setup and it is convenient to have for browsing around tvOS, starting a podcast, etc. However, I much prefer a physical remote for watching movies and TV. The issue with using the phone is that you have to either keep the screen on the whole time (not ideal to have the backlight on for movies) or deal with turning it on and looking for the correct button to push or in the case of Casting needing a separate remote app or remote for controlling the receiver.

It is easier just to punch a button on a physical remote. It is the main reason I stopped using a Pronto remote and switched to a Harmony. The main benefit for me to the iPhone remote app is that I can control systems in a separate room with it and my HT receiver feeds two separate setups. Also, it is nice to having the volume control and pause/play available on the Apple Watch when I don't have a physical remote nearby.
 
Last edited:
One would need to define future proof and relate that to the price. If you expected future proof in the Apple TV 3 then why does ATV3 not have an App Store? Point, future proofing anything is a very relative endeavor. Interesting observation, we think nothing of replacing our phones every two years, costing $600 plus, for a gotta have new technology, then turn around and complain loudly about a $200 device that may get replaced every five years. Just saying!
I think we're saying the same thing. It's only replaced every 5 years or so, so it's more important for it to be competitive with the latest and greatest feature set - even if your TV can't use all the features yet.
 
Why do you think they show "comparisons" on the TV with still photos or slow pans?
Its because you can then see the difference.
If they put on a movie then those differences quickly disappear (unless you are watching "On Golden Pond").

Its all a case of "emperors new clothes"

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/.

I totally understand the distance thing. And sure you DON'T need 4K under a certain size.

I am sitting in front a of a 40" 4K TV I am using as a monitor. A cheap hisence one that cost £280! A 4K monitor at this size would be £1000+

Slow moving dramas look incredible in 4K - even better with an HDR set. It's all progress. Sure there is some marketing pointlessness but bring it on.
 
The average person probably doesn't know what 4K is. The average person probably cannot afford a 4K TV until just recently. 4K is not average yet.
[doublepost=1463583501][/doublepost]

The average person in the the market for a Media Streaming Device absolutely knows what 4k is and they also recognize that the next TV they purchase will most likely be capable of 4k. When they buy their next TV, they're not going to want to buy another streaming box.
 
Don't know why the apologists are downplaying 4K. It's almost impossible to buy a nice new TV that's not 4K. Many are also buying 4K TVs to double up as computer monitors. A $149 ATV 4 without 4K and questionable h265 decoding support is a fail when $40 devices on the market do them and more.
 
Last edited:
Go walk your local Best Buy or equivalent. Tell me how many 1080p sets are on display > 40". In the Phoenix area - you really have to go out of your way to find a 1080p TV set. This year is the switch - all manufacturers are all in on 4K - now that HDR specs are out. You only see new 1080p sets on 40" or smaller, where 4K isn't likely to matter much. (Yes - there are 2015 1080p sets on clearance, but all new TVs are 4K HDR)

I think we'll see 4K come to Apple TV once iTunes hops over and starts providing 4K HDR versions of the movies. Maybe in the coming year. And I wonder if they'll support Dolby Vision or just HDR 10. I fully expect a new generation of Apple TV to support 4K.

Why stop at Best Buy? Mal-Wart has lots & lots of them. The price premium isn't all that much either.
 
Don't know why the apologists are downplaying 4K. It's almost impossible to buy a nice new TV that's not 4K. Many are also buying 4K TVs to double up as computer monitors. A $149 ATV 4 without 4K and questionable h265 decoding support is a fail when $40 devices on the market do them and more.

I am not an apologists, and I also think that the ATV4 was priced high.
I would have liked the 4K for future proofing.
But, considering less than 10% of US households currently have a 4K TV, and that it won't be until 2018 that 4K ownership will reach 10%, I don't knock Apple for not including it. It is understandable.

I think if they would have included it, it would have sold more ATVs though, but not a lot more.

Beside, when the ATV5 comes out in three years, Apple can say that they can still innovate, and that the new ATV5 will revolutionize the TV watching experience. All this while basically be giving the ATV4 a small spec bump and 4K.
 
Apple TV is fantastic, I use it every day. I don't know what the whiners are crying about. No, I don't have a 4K TV because my 1080p 3D TV is pretty fantastic that I have had for years. Why upgrade when 1) there's no content and 2) no one can decide what 4k is. No, 2160 is not 4k. That's the snake oil of the day.

My only complaint is Amazon, which puts its app everywhere, can't be bothered to port their app for ATV4 which would take like 2 minutes. They are pushing their ***** Fire TV which I don't want yet another box that does the same thing to control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randyj
I really like the ATV4, however the biggest problem is still major game support.

This I presume is for 2 reasons:
1. That Apple makes the developers support the Apple remote, instead of having games that need controllers like the Steel Series console type remotes.

2. Not enough Apple TVs have been sold to justify the man hours to port across your existing games

The only big game I have seen is NBA 2016.

My kids and I have been playing Sonic from Sega. Brings me back to the Mega Drive days. It is so good using the Nimbus remote.

If NIntendo made an app that inside it allowed for downloading and playing their back catalogue of games (for example) then they would make a serious amount of money that would also sell more Apple TVs.

Apple should also reduce the price too. Make them $50 with any laptop, iPhone or IPad purchase just to get them out there.
4K will come, but really good quality 1080 video is still fantastic. Problem is most 1080 over the Internet is compressed.
 
how is that apple fault and not your IP?
Because ATV use to work fine when playing shows from my down loaded iTunes library. Now if it detects an Internet connection it wants to play the show from my cloud library, not my hard drive. When I called support to ask why a movie off my hard drive was stopping and the buffering wheel was showing I was told that the movie was playing from my iTunes cloud library so I could use all the new features of the ATV4. Even though I had selected my Computer and connected to that computers iTune library and verified that the movie was physically present on the hard drive. Apple can't do anything about my ISP and neither can I (hurray for monopolies!) but they could realize that some people can't stream movies. I know that they can because they use to.
 
now, add in Australia and Europe to that 'pie' chart, and it will look better :D less Roku, more Apple TV.

Out of interest do such figures exist - to the public? I doubt the ATV would even register as a popular streaming device in the UK as the only market Apple appears to care about is its home market.
[doublepost=1463664455][/doublepost]
we think nothing of replacing our phones every two years, costing $600 plus, for a gotta have new technology

$600 dollars for a new phone - what you buying that's so cheap? iPhone 6s is $790 US dollars at today's exchange rates in the UK. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Apple TV is fantastic, I use it every day. I don't know what the whiners are crying about. No, I don't have a 4K TV because my 1080p 3D TV is pretty fantastic that I have had for years. Why upgrade when 1) there's no content and 2) no one can decide what 4k is. No, 2160 is not 4k. That's the snake oil of the day.

My only complaint is Amazon, which puts its app everywhere, can't be bothered to port their app for ATV4 which would take like 2 minutes. They are pushing their ***** Fire TV which I don't want yet another box that does the same thing to control.

What a random thing to complain about... yes, 2160p is 4k... they flipped it to the other axis, 3840 -- identical to how the 2k resolution is 2k. And yes, it is precisely 4x the number of pixels as 1080p - 8,294,400 pixels. 1080p being 2,073,600 pixels - that's how they arrived there. To avoid a scaling situation like how 1080 is 2 1/4x the resolution of 720. Beyond that; Yes, there's content; and yes, it's long been decided what 4k is.
 
Out of interest do such figures exist - to the public? I doubt the ATV would even register as a popular streaming device in the UK as the only market Apple appears to care about is its home market.
[doublepost=1463664455][/doublepost]

$600 dollars for a new phone - what you buying that's so cheap? iPhone 6s is $790 US dollars at today's exchange rates in the UK. :eek:
In the US if you change every two years, trade-in or selling your existing iPhone, will result in a savings on the new iPhone. My estimate was a very rough estimate, maybe a bit low. My point was somewhat accurate. Thanks for the international perspective. :)
 
the AppleTV is a fine device. it's not "perfect" but opening up to allow things like Plex natively, and more features outside of just Apple's lineup has made it a very strong choice for consumer streaming boxes.

What is currently holding it back however is the price in comparison to the competition. This has a caveat. if you're in the Apple movie / tv / music infrastructure, the Apple TV is the best device for you.

If you aren't... Apple has priced themselves in such a way that they're hoping "Apple™" is enough for a significant higher pricepoint than all the competitition

When you look at the 3 other leading companies main products to enter into this market. Apple is the only one who has a starting price at the $200 price point.

Apple TV 4 - $149.99
Roku 4 - 119.99
Google - ChromeCast - 35.99
Google - Nexus Player - 79.99
Amazon Fire TV - $99.99

When "mom and dad" walk into their local bestbuy to buy a device, Apple is starting here at a significant disadvantage on price alone. This isn't even getting into technical limitations that might be found.

EG: Roku 4 is 4k ready, Amazon has their Prime movie service with unlimited TV /Movies / Music. Google has the absolute cheapest entry prices and is fully compatible with most of their existing phone programs. Roku's have USB ports to allow external media, etc.

then when you also combined in the fact that each of these options have even more cheaper alternatives (Roku 2-3 and Roku stick, or fireTV stick) that will do just about all the things everyone really needs.

So how does the Apple TV differentiate itself in this market place to convince consumers that their $199.99 entry price is worth it compared to the others?

"best UI"? "prettiest screensaver". These TV products have one purpose and thats to get us, the consumer to our media as fast and as painless as possible. And after using many different devices (Except the Amazon one, cause it's absolutely useless in Canada), they all do this, and all do this well.
 
Last edited:
the AppleTV is a fine device. it's not "perfect" but opening up to allow things like Plex natively, and more features outside of just Apple's lineup has made it a very strong choice for consumer streaming boxes.

What is currently holding it back however is the price in comparison to the competition. This has a caveat. if you're in the Apple movie / tv / music infrastructure, the Apple TV is the best device for you.

If you aren't... Apple has priced themselves in such a way that they're hoping "Apple™" is enough for a significant higher pricepoint than all the competitition

When you look at the 3 other leading companies main products to enter into this market. Apple is the only one who has a starting price at the $200 price point.
First, you went with the most expensive AppleTV 4. They make a $149 4th gen model, so that is the actual starting point for that model.

I actually think they know that if you cancel their ecosystem advantage, it is harder to justify paying more for it. However, they also know that there are a billion devices in their ecosystem (not to mention the numerous people using iTunes and Apple Music that don't own their hardware). As a result, they know that people that value the ecosystem will be willing to pay more for it. It pushes their margins up.

If you aren't in their ecosystem and don't want to be, the disadvantages are the current lack of third party apps compared to Roku. Even lowering the price won't solve that problem, so why not keep the prices where they are and capitalize on the millions that see the advantage to having Apple Music/ITunes/etc.?

If Apple ever gets the Apple television service that has been rumored for years, they might make up more of that money in services, but I think they would prefer a bird in the hand (money up front) to two in the bush (the possibility of money later). Just to extend the analogy, if they can move from 2 birds in the bush to 5 birds in the bush, putting out a cheap model might make more sense. Right now, I am not surprised by the focus on a streaming box rather than a cheap stick because it will take too long to make up the money in services.
 
First, you went with the most expensive AppleTV 4. They make a $149 4th gen model, so that is the actual starting point for that model.

I actually think they know that if you cancel their ecosystem advantage, it is harder to justify paying more for it. However, they also know that there are a billion devices in their ecosystem (not to mention the numerous people using iTunes and Apple Music that don't own their hardware). As a result, they know that people that value the ecosystem will be willing to pay more for it. It pushes their margins up.

If you aren't in their ecosystem and don't want to be, the disadvantages are the current lack of third party apps compared to Roku. Even lowering the price won't solve that problem, so why not keep the prices where they are and capitalize on the millions that see the advantage to having Apple Music/ITunes/etc.?

If Apple ever gets the Apple television service that has been rumored for years, they might make up more of that money in services, but I think they would prefer a bird in the hand (money up front) to two in the bush (the possibility of money later). Just to extend the analogy, if they can move from 2 birds in the bush to 5 birds in the bush, putting out a cheap model might make more sense. Right now, I am not surprised by the focus on a streaming box rather than a cheap stick because it will take too long to make up the money in services.

Thank you on the price correction. I have updated it on my original comment. still doesn't change the fact that it's still entry the most expensive option. so points are still valid

And your comment is perfectly valid too.

(I had accidentally taken the Canadian price as the site autoswitched me)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uofmtiger
You just answered your own question. A phone is not a remote, it's as simple as that. Additionally, having to use your phone as a remote and simultaneously leave the app open or in the background running, is obnoxious. Maybe I want to start a show for people in my house, then run out and pick up a pizza... my phone is coming with me. As soon as it's gone, the video is too.

In short. It's a terrible solution...
You obviously missed the last sentence you do not need to leave the app running in the background you can switch the phone off once streaming has started.
I guess we all operate a little differently I use apps on my phone to control my AVR, ROKU and Samsung TV its a universal for me.
[doublepost=1463736690][/doublepost]
When I bought my last streaming device, I looked at Chromecast. Lock of IR input made stop considering it. I use Harmony remotes for all my TVs. I don't want to sit around with a remote for every device, and my phone.

I bought a Roku. Why? Well I already owned 2, so familiar interface played a role. But price also did. The Roku was cheaper. aTV did not bring anything to the table to justify the price difference. That's a reality that Apple will have to come to terms with.

I use Plex, Netflix and the NHL app. My next TV will be a 4K TV. Since they are all "Smart", I'll look for one with Netflix, Plex and browser support. That will eliminate the need for the Roku.

Not only are streaming devices a commodity, for a large segment of the market, they are being obsoleted by Smart TVs. You need to be so far ahead of everybody else or charge a similar price.
Hope it works out for you. Many have found that while the smart TV is an option the interface may not work for them. Updates could also be an issue. Samsung has just decided to stop supporting SKYPE for example and the Camera on the TV is now defunk.

I have a smart Samsung TV that supports all the apps you referenced yet i use both ROKU and Chomecast instead. Personally I like the ROKU best of all. Choice is a good thing.
 
Hope it works out for you. Many have found that while the smart TV is an option the interface may not work for them. Updates could also be an issue. Samsung has just decided to stop supporting SKYPE for example and the Camera on the TV is now defunk.

That'd be Microsoft dropping support for Skype on TV universally. Nobody escapes that one.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.