Apple Working on 4K 'Ultra HD' Television Set for Late 2013 or Early 2014 Launch?

[daverobeson]

I have sources too

And they tell me the Apple TV will save me from having to go to the kitchen for snacks because it will have a built-in replicator.

 

[iBug2]

Halving bit rate is going to give you decent quality 1080p as apposed to the poor quality over compressed 1080p streams we get now. This is still way short of what is required for 4k with any kind of decent quality. Remember a 1080p stream today is still beyond the bandwidth of many and it is going to be years before any but the very best broadband connections are capable of delivering good enough quality 4k to make it worth having. This will happen at some point but it is years away which is why bringing out 4k TVs in the next year or so is not really commercially viable.

Currently iTunes 1080p movies are around 5.5 Mbit. Approximately 500 Kbit of it is audio, which will not change. So a 4K movie will be 5x4+0.5=20.5 Mbit at H.264 since it has exactly 4 times as many pixels.

And a 20.5 Mbit H.264 video will be 10.5 Mbit at H.265 since the video bitrate will be halved and audio bitrate will not change.

So to get 4K videos which are of equivalent quality to the current iTunes content, you need to be able to stream 10.5Mbit. By now most European countries and USA have 16Mbit+ DSL/cable in high residential areas.

So I don't think bitrate is a big issue. Like I said the actual issue is the lack of content that'd make sense at 4K right now.

 

[Carniphage]

Still, nice that actual hardware seems to be in the mix, not just Apps and people screaming at the screen.

Make the screens here. They just come rolling out of machines anyway. Costs...again, a machine-made commodity. They can be made cheap.

Oh, just set back, you can't tell the difference. Yes you can and there is no reason contrast, blacks, etc can't be done right as well.

Somebody mentioned bandwidth. Bandwidth is the Holy Grail, not devices, as everything Apple wants to do is now controlled by ATT and VZ and their stupid cell towers...

Apple probably will make a large display screen device as a tangible showcase for the tv product. It will be of tasteful design, good build quality, and generate a reasonable picture.

But the USP for the user will be the user experience, not the number of pixels.

But the cable companies will see a benefit too.

 

[iSunrise]

I would like to have an updated Thunderbolt Display first! The retina resolution would be really useful in that case. It's a bit weird that there are no rumors regarding th TBD.

While I think a 4K/UltraHD TV is a complete waste right now, it would really kick ass if Apple would offer not only retina resolution, but 4K or UltraHD computer monitors. The 4K/UltraHD ones would need to be at least 36", like an Eizo DuraVision FDH3601.

That would totally kick ass for gamers (who currently enjoy downsampling their games on a 1080p or 1600p screen) or creative people who need the space for production. We also need more real 120Hz monitors of decent quality (not Taiwanese 120Hz IPS junk).

Here are some samples from PCGAMESHARDWARE (German PC Hardware Mag) on the Eizo DuraVision FDH3601:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PCGamesHardware/videos?query=4k

 

[Nem Wan]

What's the point of 4K TV? If you do the math, a 1080p display at any size is already a "retina display" unless you're sitting too close.

 

[Karma*Police]

Most people will see a far bigger difference if Apple color calibrates their displays than if they only increase the resolution.

But somehow people are more impressed with large numbers than a well-calibrated display with rich, accurate colors and deep blacks.

 

[iBug2]

What's the point of 4K TV? If you do the math, a 1080p display at any size is already a "retina display" unless you're sitting too close.

What does too close mean? If the display is big enough you can sit at 25 feet and still discern 4K from 2K. (Movie theatres?)

 

[newyorksole]

I doubt it. A 4K TV seems like something they'd come out with LATER. HD TV first then UltraHDTV.

The iPad mini doesn't even have Retina, nor do the iMacs so I doubt they'd put out a 50" UHDTV from the jump.

 

[Meandmunch]

So now it's a 4K Unicorn.

 

[ds2000]

Yeah. I'm sure that in-television UI is intuitive and friendly.

BTW, I play whatever I want though my current Apple TV and on all my ios devices, so this comment stinks of trolling.

The walled garden argument is so tired. Android is just as much a walled garden. The ecosystems are the mobile equivalent of Mac vs PC right now. Amazon content is the only truly open content out there.

I am not trolling at all nor have I ever, congrats on having an appleTV2 - the rest of us that have 3 essentially have a nice airplay device and not much else. I've jailbroken my iPad and Phone to play everything I need over it but its far from ideal....

The thought of spending over $2000 for something that could have similar limitations makes me shudder somewhat....

 

[everything-i]

Currently iTunes 1080p movies are around 5.5 Mbit. Approximately 500 Kbit of it is audio, which will not change. So a 4K movie will be 5x4+0.5=20.5 Mbit at H.264 since it has exactly 4 times as many pixels.

And a 20.5 Mbit H.264 video will be 10.5 Mbit at H.265 since the video bitrate will be halved and audio bitrate will not change.

So to get 4K videos which are of equivalent quality to the current iTunes content, you need to be able to stream 10.5Mbit. By now most European countries and USA have 16Mbit+ DSL/cable in high residential areas.

So I don't think bitrate is a big issue. Like I said the actual issue is the lack of content that'd make sense at 4K right now.

ITunes 1080p streams are currently pretty poor quality due to high compression rates, in order to get decent quality 1080p we are going to have to move to H.265 at current 5.5Mbit rates. So to get 4k at the kind of quality that isn't going to look crap on a large 4k screen is going to be around about 15MBit or more with H.265 which is pushing the maximum bandwith of current DSL/Cable providers. We all know that 16Mbit is a maximum so most people are getting significantly less than this and it needs to be a continuous stream witch is going to max out way before that due to contention at the exchanges. This is going to take a good few years to improve enough even for people in cities so forget smaller towns and rural areas. The technologies may be available to make this happen now but are going to take years to roll out to enough people to make it a viable proposition for companies to supply kit that relies on higher data rates. This is my point when I talk about this being some years off so when analysts start talking about the end of this year as a time frame to release these products I think its safe to call BS on that.

 

[rGiskard]

This is so stupid. If Apple released a TV the biggest innovation would be an integrated Apple TV box and Thinner. That would be the main feature: enjoy a thinner tv!

 

[jwdsail]

Ultra isn't going to work without a high-bandwidth distribution medium. BluRay isn't going to cut it, especially for live sports in 4k.

If Apple wants to do this, they have to invest in fiber all over the country, in competition with Verizon FIOS and Google Fiber. Apple can certainly afford it, and the first company to build the distribution system can take the vertical market and sell Ultra 4K tv's as well.

True. I've been saying this for over a year now, Apple and Google should kiss and make up, and form a joint-venture focused on deploying fiber, nationwide first, then any non-US markets starving for better internet service.

It could be a showcase for their competing products. A rising tide lifts all boats.

But, there is room in the BluRay spec for 4K, and h.265 *could* allow 4K iTunes content with the internet speeds many of us already have. (caps would be an issue for many) The actual quality wouldn't be much better though.

Apple *could* help the chicken vs egg problem 4K faces in the market. Apple could use some of it's cash to secure exclusive 4K content agreements (5 year?) and bundle the content with the first 4K AppleTVs (first year maybe?) Then sell the content on iTunes at the same price as they do now. (Or a $1 more per show/movie?) This would require them to upgrade the current AppleTV box for use with non-Apple 4K displays as well... If Apple could secure same-day distribution of sports content (baseball, football, NASCAR, F1) in 4K as well?

It's not like they don't have the cash...

I've always said that if Apple got into TVs, they wouldn't hop into the bargain bin of decade+ old tech that is 1080p... That it would be 4k or 8k. And that this could be a reason we wouldn't see an actual TV for a bit longer.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Netflix has already demonstrated "UltraHD" 4k streaming at CES over existing bandwidth. H.265 video compression (an evolution of H.264) results in 40%-50% smaller files than current H.264 streaming, which means that 4k resolution can be made accessible to those with 16 Mbit broadband connections. Cox just upgraded the Phoenix area to 20 Mbit, T-Mobile LTE wireless achieves up to 20 Mbit downstream and 10 Mbit upstream speeds.

It can be done. Remember, the first iPhone released was only a 3G model and ran pretty slowly compared to its 4G competition at the time. But that didn't prevent the iPhone from becoming a hit.

 

[yossi]

Remember. When 42 inch plasmas started becoming mainstream in the early part of this century, there were enough people spending $3,000 on them to support the manufacturers. If this is truly a ground breaking TV and a 50" will cost $3,000, compared to a standard LED at $800, there is no reason not to think there won't be a market for it. Keyword being groundbreaking.

 

[sockdoggy]

Considering Apple's entire contribution to content is to make things simple and easy at the expense of quality, I'm not sure what kind of content will be available for those TVs.

Agreed.

The company that rolled with 128kbps music and 720p for years while far better options were available is going to lead the way with 4K? What an embarrassing article.

 

[Edsel]

Commercial television sucks.

I don't care how many pixels they cram onto a screen. Commercials and low-intellect programming sucks at any resolution.

$20,000 will buy a lot of books/eBooks.

 

[iBug2]

ITunes 1080p streams are currently pretty poor quality due to high compression rates

No they are not. They are worse than Blu Ray, but they are not poor quality. I own couple hundreds of Blu Rays and couple thousands of iTunes quality 720p-1080p rips. Even if someone like me can watch and enjoy iTunes 1080p content, everyone can. I'm the most nitpicking guy I know when it comes to picture quality.

So at 4K, even if they keep this quality, it'll look quite amazing simply due to the insane resolution.

 

[e-coli]

This is so stupid. If Apple released a TV the biggest innovation would be an integrated Apple TV box and Thinner. That would be the main feature: enjoy a thinner tv!

Kind of a lack of imagination, don't you think?

 

[vickj]

Why???

This doesn't make sense to me. Why invest all this money into a product that will be hurtling toward obsolescence the second it hits the show floor and cost oodles of money when you can just keep investing in the ATV or something like it? Currently, replacing your ATV cost $99. The market is in the content, not the hardware...

Sorry - I don't get it.

 

[britboyj]

More analysts, full of crap. Apple isn't making a TV set.

 

[knewsom]

Can anybody say GIMMICK?

Guys... this is entirely ridiculous (if it's even true). For a broad variety of reasons:

1. As has been mentioned, Apple's HD content is HIGHLY compressed. So compressed, in fact that 720 blu-ray content (and even TPB) often looks significantly better. In order for 4k to look GOOD, it's going to require MASSIVE amounts of data, which nobody has home internet speeds capable of supporting, and I have serious doubts about Apple being able to stream effectively - hell, how often does iCloud take a dump?

2. People have a hard time telling the difference between 720 and 1080. 4k, unless a MASSIVE screen size and relatively close to the viewer, won't make a difference for the vast, VAST majority of viewers. Most people have 50" 1080P displays that they put 15' away which makes it the effective size of an iPhone held a foot from the face. It's POINTLESS.

3. I work in the film industry, most things aren't even shot in 2k much less in 4. VERY little content is delivered in anything above 1080. The studios aren't set up to distribute content like this, much less the networks... It'll be 10 years before there is a decent enough amount of UHD content to make it worthwhile... and even when they DO get set up to deliver 4k content, you can bet your buns that it'll just be upscaled 1080 (2k if you're lucky) for the first four or five years, unless we're talking about massive budget films (which do often currently finish in 4k).

So yeah. This is just hilarious. If Apple does this, they're even sillier than their competition with their whiz-bang "NEW! SHARPER IMAGE!" BS.

 

[Pman17]

I'd say it will be the most affordable 4K TV on the market.

Sony 4K TV's are $25K and they are 3D capable. Apple won't have a 3D TV so it will go down in price.

 

[malexandria]

Really?

If this launches and actually finds a market (by way of fair pricing), then I suppose we can all guess all the other manufacturers next move.

Please tell me you are not suggesting that Apple is now "inventing" the 4K television!

 

[palmerc2]

"4K" is the biggest hoax in TV's since 3D. It's absolutely useless. Yes, it DOES look incredible when you're 3 ft away, but from normal viewing distances (10 to 15 ft) your eyes cannot tell the difference between 1080p and "4K". Then there's content, that's a whole different ball game and presents its own problems.

I personally think Apple should stay away from TV's and just stick to separate devices such as the current AppleTV. I couldn't imagine they'd make anything groundbreaking they couldn't do with a separate device.

As far as design, again, nothing the competition couldn't do. I'm a plasma guy myself, look at the new 2013 samsung plasma, the top of the line F8000...anyone who says this isn't gorgeous is crazy.