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 Working on 4K 'Ultra HD' Television Set for Late 2013 or Early 2014 Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was just reading an article that was comparing the video quality from the newer Apple 1080p releases to bluray and it was very complimentary to Apple. I have little experience with it myself. However, the sound is a big step back from bluray for sure.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1459687/argo-itunes-vs-vudu-vs-blu-ray
When we have a thousand channels of 4K reality sewage content,
4K Ultra Super Innovative Hip HD will be insanely amazing.
The way that Apple will avoid the price battles of the premium manufacturers
is by differentiating it's tv with two critical advantages.
1: The tightest possible integration with the Apple ecosystem to leverage their current captive customer base.
2: An Apple label on the tv.
Thsee two critical features will enable Apple to charge a 30% premium over their competitors as the faiithful
squeal with joy and flood Cupertino with a tsunami of trillions of dollars of Bernanke funny money.
I wonder if Apple is planning to start selling 4K content through iTunes store, before 4K becomes standard on Blu-Ray.
If you think about it, it's much easier to sell 4K online than forcing people upgrade their BR players. With the release of H.265, they'll be able to push out 4K res content at twice the bitrate than 1080p content at H.264. So it'd actually make sense.
If you think about it, it's much easier to sell 4K online than forcing people upgrade their BR players. With the release of H.265, they'll be able to push out 4K res content at twice the bitrate than 1080p content at H.264. So it'd actually make sense.
This is a ridiculous rumour, how are they going to provide any content for this 4K TV when their current delivery model of streaming can only just cope with 1080p and even then only with high compression. 4K has 4 times the data requirement of 1080p so this rumour doesn't even stand up to simple logical analysis.
This. Even the largest Television screen I could possibly fit in my room (which would be like 150 inch diagonal) won't show a visible difference between 4k and 1080p from my usual viewing distance. For home use, 1080p is probably the biggest reasonable resolution for movies. Why screen manufacturers are already working on 8k (which is an absolutely redundant technology) is a mystery for me. They should focus on new display technlogies which allow much higher contrasts. That would be interesting.
Is anyone really going to be able to see the difference between 1080p and 4k? I already have a hard enough time making out the difference between 720p and 1080p unless I'm standing about a foot away from the TV.
Makes sense, but where is this open cesspool?
I see a nice open arboritum over in the android camp, and open park over in Redmond (never thought I'd associate open with MS, but compared to Apple). Linux seems to a nice open meadow.
So, nope, no open cesspools. Maybe the smell is coming from Timmy?
This is a ridiculous rumour, how are they going to provide any content for this 4K TV when their current delivery model of streaming can only just cope with 1080p and even then only with high compression. 4K has 4 times the data requirement of 1080p so this rumour doesn't even stand up to simple logical analysis.
H.265 halves the data requirement will providing a slightly better image.
Although I doubt I would get an Apple 4K TV is the short term, hopefully it means they will also be producing retina monitors.
I'm so used to looking at my retina iPhone and iPad that my 1080p 40" TV looks a little soft, even with Blu-Ray. And my iMac looks really pixelated. I'm looking forward to the better images and reduced eyestrain that retina brings.
I agree. I don't think this works for 99+% of the population worldwide. A 4K movie plus extras is about 50-100GB (even with H.265 compression).
- Who would want to wait overnight for one movie? The only countries where this could work today are South Korea and Japan.
-What about bandwidth caps in many countries? 1-2 movies per month and you are over quota?
The only way I could think of 4K content delivery in the rest of the world is an updated BluRay standard (100-150 GB triple layer BluRay). However, as we all know Apple won't adopt BluRay.
It isn't even sure these new BluRay drives will be in the PS4. My reasoning was that Sony would put the new 4K BluRay drives into the PS4 to increase adoption. That is not sure, at least they didn't talk about it at the PS4 introduction.
Setting a new disc standard worked well for them in the past (PS2 enabled faster DVD adoption, PS3 enabled BluRay...).
I also don't see the demand for 4K except for techy people and movie buffs. Most people get some streaming service inferior to 720p and lousy bitrate marketed as "HD" and they are happy/don't notice the difference.
In short, I don't see this coming in 2013, maybe in 2014-2015.
Last edited:
The non-Apple way was to buy a blu-ray, so for whatever technical reasons, Apple decided it's better to sacrifice quality for the easy of clicking a few buttons to start watching your movie. It may well be a limitation of the internet, but it's the experience Apple wanted to give their customers. They also could have allowe you to pre-download the whole movie in higher quality but this isn't as simple as click and watch, so they made their design decisions.
By your logic, it's not Apple's fault the iPhone battery life is lousy, it's because the battery designers aren't good enough. They could have made the phone 1mm thicker with a larger battery, but they opted for the experience of a thinner phone even if you get an inferior product (lower battery). Again, an Apple design decision, you may well agree with, but it's Apple's choice to make and not the battery designers' fault.
Well, maybe the poster is not a native English speaker. I'm not, I still saw the mistake and I didn't bother.
So unless you speak more than 1 language, ferme ta gueule... If you do, then carry on, carry on.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Exactly. Does everyone realize that the transition to HD from SD was formally initiated in 1986? It then took about 13-14 years for one local TV station to go HD. And it wasn't until about 2006 or so that many national cable stations were actually broadcasting a fair amount of HD content. Many local stations had to be dragged kicking & streaming into making the transition. In 2013, we're still waiting on some national cable channels to make the transition (and there's still a lot of SD "upscaled" that is shown on "HD" versions of their channels).
There has been no formal plan for going 4K. There has been no national standards establishment by broadcasters for 4K. There has been no moves by the FCC to facilitate a new transition from HD to 4K. Even BD hasn't settled in on a finalized disc-based standard for 4K. Nothing. Getting a 4K TV into your home doesn't change any of that or speed any of that up. You might as well buy a 8K or 16K TV and dream just as hard. Every single set-top box would have to be swapped out again and every single SD set-top box has not been swapped out with an HD box yet.
4K is 3D again. There will be a scant selection of movies & shows available as demos. Like 3D movies, you can only stand to watch those so many times before only new 3D content matters. And like 3D, the new content will probably trickle out because there is no major mandate or major push to bring it to market except from the companies wanting us to all change out our TVs again. Did 3D get us to replace our TVs? And how much 3D content do we have now? How many 3D channels do we have now? How much of the local HD is in 3D (how much of the local video is even HD yet)? Etc.
I'm all for the idea of it... and I'm a big fan of wow screens and HD, etc. But the real problem here is not will Apple make 4K-capable hardware? Sooner or later, they probably will. It's where does the 4K content come from in volume so that we feel like we're getting a lot of value out of the shiny new toy? Then, it's how does that content actually get to us? And then it's splintering issues like how to fit 1-2 4K movies into the remaining space of "my" iPad 5, iPhone 6, etc and "with LTE tiers capped at 2GB and 4K movies (heavily compressed) at 12GB (for iTunes streaming), it costs more to watch one streamed movie on my 9" screen then it would cost to see it multiple times at the cinema" and so on.
Last edited:
It may be technically amazing, but it's likely you wont be able to see the difference. 4K has a far lower chance of success than 3-D TV. At least with 3-D TV, you're able to see a difference. The only buyers of this technology will be the 1%'rs that want and can afford a full room wall-sized display like movie theaters have. This is not a big enough market to make it worthwhile.
you're probably right but don't you think any 4k display will cost $2.5k+ anyway?
add the apple tv hardware and ecosystem / content possibilities and an apple tv panel becomes a reasonable deal.
This makes no sense.
What is this offering people? HD is already SO defined on a distant TV under 70" that no one will be able to tell 4K from the 1080. What content is being offered? What benefit over the cheap HD 1080 is offered?
This Apple TV idea, at this time, seems like a final, gold coffin nail in television's imminent burial. While movies and some limited shows/series on TV still do well, the rating and satisfaction with 99% of the offerings are in the pits. Internet is better entertainment.
What is this offering people? HD is already SO defined on a distant TV under 70" that no one will be able to tell 4K from the 1080. What content is being offered? What benefit over the cheap HD 1080 is offered?
This Apple TV idea, at this time, seems like a final, gold coffin nail in television's imminent burial. While movies and some limited shows/series on TV still do well, the rating and satisfaction with 99% of the offerings are in the pits. Internet is better entertainment.
I think this rumor started back when Apple was going to produce a pippin enabled 13" black and white.
Just saying, this one has been around a while and seems like it gets updated for whatever TV tech has just shown up at CES.
I'll believe it when I see it. Why would I pay that kind of money for a panel I could get elsewhere and the functionality of a $99 apple TV? Makes no sense.
This could be iPod HiFi redux.
Just saying, this one has been around a while and seems like it gets updated for whatever TV tech has just shown up at CES.
I'll believe it when I see it. Why would I pay that kind of money for a panel I could get elsewhere and the functionality of a $99 apple TV? Makes no sense.
This could be iPod HiFi redux.