Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

MacRumors said:
Apple Working on 4K 'Ultra HD' Television Set for Late 2013 or Early 2014 Launch?
Click to expand...
No. Of cause not. The average person won't pay absurdly high prices for a TV when the best content quality we have is bluray 1080. The TV would need 4k content to make it worthwhile. Also 4k movies are like 160GB. We don't have a 160GB optical disc in existence. So you'd have to use some other form of media. And digital delivery will not work as the networks are not even close enough or cheap enough for that kind of data transfer.

Then we have a 2nd question. Would 1080 -> 4k even make a difference on a home TV. Would people even be able to see the difference? I guess people would not on a small home television screen.

4k at the moment the domain of the large screen cinema.

Lastly is the fact everyone still thinks the new TV is a television. I don't think it is. I think it's newer and newer TVs. In this business content is king. And getting it across is what Apple is trying to do. And possibly apps on the TV one day too. Or even iOS. I'm sure the folks at Apple read these kind of rumours and just laugh and go "haha people actually think we would work on this? Even though the reasons for us not working on it are so obvious an untrained monkey would realise it. Haha just so funny". The Apple employees would have a good laugh at you expense.
(your being rumour sites and others who actually believe rumours like this.) I don't believe it all. I realise Apple are not wanting to put something like this on sale any time soon. And for good reason too. If you all want to believe it, go head, live in your fantasy land, I'll stay in reality thanks.
 
Apple Lisa proved one thing: extremely expensive things can be nice but no one buys them
 
Peace said:
Tell your boss to allow subscription services.

Ala carte.

;)
Click to expand...

Peace said:
I knew about the Viacom lawsuit.The only problem in this is the elephant not in the room.

Comcast Communications.

The FCC and DOJ should have never allowed Comcast to buy NBC/Universal.
Click to expand...

Thankfully I'm not at NBCUniversal - a company imploding as we speak - Steve Burke - enough said.. Who puts a guy to run this empire with ZERO experience in charge? It's network recently was is FIFTH place during the feb sweeps.. disasterous. Embarrassing.. Now Leno's show is imploding... The cash cow The Today Show is imploding...and Cablevision made a bold move...

Time will prove that Comcasts marriage to NBCUni will be a big failure...just my take..
 
k995 said:
Sony is releasing a 5000$ 50-55" 4k TV

But its quite pointless if you can believe this graph :

Image

At a normal distance of 10+ feet you need a 80+" screen to be able to notice the extra resolution.

The only realy added effect would be for passive 3d, as this would allow for much higher resolution 3d images. Of course those dont excist and people dont care about 3d for the moment .
Click to expand...

It just depends what chart you look at, this one says 4k only gets you 20" of pure retina at 10 feet.

47015717_1080vs4kvs8kvsmore.png
 
Now I understand why the Australian government wasted billions of taxpayer dollars rolling out a highspeed internet service no one can afford. Future-proofing for the Apple TV, it all makes sense now. :rolleyes:
 
Its great that they're making this ultra HD tv, but the problem is quite simple - whats the current advantage of TV like that without any real content? The only thing that'll look good on it are some HQ images and nothing more.
 
Another day, another dumb Apple rumor

1) No television content, and surprisingly little movie content is actually mastered at 4K. There is no 4K content.

2) If you go to the cinema and watch a Digital IMAX movie. That is 2K.

3) To get the benefit of 4K on a 46" screen, you need to sit three feet from the screen.

----------
k995 said:
Sony is releasing a 5000$ 50-55" 4k TV

But its quite pointless if you can believe this graph :

Image

At a normal distance of 10+ feet you need a 80+" screen to be able to notice the extra resolution.

The only realy added effect would be for passive 3d, as this would allow for much higher resolution 3d images. Of course those dont excist and people dont care about 3d for the moment .
Click to expand...

This.

A million times this.
 
Count me out. I'm really surprised so many people are all "that's a great idea!"

Ummm... No. Getting a really high resolution actually doesn't turn a crappy product into a great one. If the Apple TV is a success,
It'll be from an amazingly slick, intuitive, and easy UI coupled with great content.

I'm guessing that Apple might even have some kind of secret partnership with Valve to get amazing games for the Apple TV via Steam (has anyone else noticed that Valve isn't publicly working on anything right now? I suspect they started this when they ported Source and Steam to OS X...)
 
Does anyone else just want Apple to concentrate on the products they already make.

Tv's and watches are great but not at the cost of current specs and qulaity.
 
I wonder how they are going to get around the name of this tv in the UK because ITV is already taken, and has been for a long long time
 
Carniphage said:
1) No television content, and surprisingly little movie content is actually mastered at 4K. There is no 4K content.
Click to expand...

There was no 1080p content when HDTV was first introduced. The playback device always comes before content is widely available.

Carniphage said:
2) If you go to the cinema and watch a Digital IMAX movie. That is 2K.
Click to expand...

So?

Carniphage said:
3) To get the benefit of 4K on a 46" screen, you need to sit three feet from the screen.
Click to expand...


Naw.
 
the8thark said:
....
4k at the moment the domain of the large screen cinema.
....
Click to expand...

And the truth is, even if it is displayed in 4k, it is created in 2k. Only a small subset of movies is done in 4k because it is way to expensive and no one sees the difference (unless it is imax)

----------
rak007 said:
A company who couldn't put 720p on a 4" phone yet, making a 4K TV. Yeah right.
Click to expand...

They could put fullhd on a phone. But you know what ? you wouldn't see the difference.
(read some screentests of htc one. Yes it is sharp .. well it is as sharp as an iphone5 screen. Users can't see a difference in sharpness. They only claim the colors are better on iphone)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back