Developers Now Receiving Apple TV Units for App Testing Purposes

[macduke]

4K isn't a fad but it's by no means popular and for the TV sizes that most people can afford for it to be useful. Just like how a retina display works, the 1080p TV is retina at typical viewing distances up until around the 70-80" range. Beyond that it makes sense to get a 4K TV. For the same reason the 5K iMac makes sense as you sit much closer to it. If your couch or chair is pretty close to your TV then a smaller size might make sense. I'm glad my iPhone 6S will have 4K video even though I don't intend to buy a 4K TV for at least a few years. It's always good to have archival footage of my kid that will look better in 20 years on wall sized TVs.

 

[splogue]

you're trying to win an argument by making a false analogy. it's a classic. "fire tv is trash compared to apple tv because fire phone is trash compare to the iPhone". that's some logic right there! let me guess, Harvard 96?

I'm not trying to win any argument. I didn't realize there was one.

I think both statements are stupid, in basically the same way.

I have tremendous respect for Forbes, and it bothers me that they published this article, which barely rises to the level of click-bait.

Very sad indeed.

 

[dazz87]

To be honest I can't tell the difference between 1080P and SD. And I have 20/20 vision. Everything on TV is garbage anyway. Seeing garbage in HD doesn't make it any better.

then you need to find a new eye doctor........

 

[blackcrayon]

nothing special about an a8 processor. can't even drive the 6 plus screen properly, let alone 4k. metal my ass.

Funny, the A6 and A7 have no problem driving the higher resolution iPad screen... Anyway I'll trust Apple and game developers (and benchmarks) over you on Metal.

 

[deviant]

I'm not trying to win any argument. I didn't realize there was one.

I think both statements are stupid, in basically the same way.

I have tremendous respect for Forbes, and it bothers me that they published this article, which barely rises to the level of click-bait.

Very sad indeed.

at least you realize those statements are stupid. too bad those are your statements.

 

[deviant]

To be honest I can't tell the difference between 1080P and SD. And I have 20/20 vision. Everything on TV is garbage anyway. Seeing garbage in HD doesn't make it any better.

you should start with buying a 1080p tv first....

 

[deviant]

Funny, the A6 and A7 have no problem driving the higher resolution iPad screen... Anyway I'll trust Apple and game developers (and benchmarks) over you on Metal.

funny, you don't even have a 6 plus and don't know that it has a higher resolution than the iPad but gets downscaled to 1080p. you are reminding me of console fanboys who think their little precious boxes are on par with serious dedicated GPUs. a8 is a tiny chip, you can't expect it to drive everything flawlessly at 4k.

 

[16Paws]

Technically it is a violation of the NDA.

The Apple TV Developer Kit is provided for your own software development activities only. Prior to Apple’s commercial release of Apple TV, you agree not to publicly write about, review, or display the Apple TV Developer Kit.

Thank you, that's what I thought.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Sorry that you don't seem to get what I'm saying. Enjoy your 4K tv shows. Remember to use gold plated HDMI cables for best image quality!

Actually I do get what you saying: you're towing the company line. It makes no sense (to you) because Apple didn't endorse it here. You posted "It's silly" in post #9 in this thread. But you're not faulting Apple for endorsing 4K in the new iPhones... or the new iMovie... or that they already support 4K in FCPX and have a retina iMac 5K built to edit 4K at full resolution with room for the controls.

If "it's silly" here, it should be "silly" there. Thus, Apple is "silly" for embracing something that you judge "silly". However, we rarely see that around here. Instead, we have a solid force to endorse whatever Apple has endorsed and reject whatever Apple has not endorsed. When they both endorse and don't endorse in the same new product launch session- as they did with this one- we will praise the feature where it's endorsed and poo-poo it where they left it out.

We did this before. Once Apple launched a retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini in the same session. The former was the prime reason we should all upgrade; the latter "didn't need retina"... until the next year when Apple added it into the mini and then IT became the prime reason to upgrade the mini.

At least we're consistent.

 

[hemanwomanhater]

To be honest I can't tell the difference between 1080P and SD. And I have 20/20 vision. Everything on TV is garbage anyway. Seeing garbage in HD doesn't make it any better.

Well that escalated fast.

 

[Yr Blues]

I love the USB-C trend. When the magsafe cable got worn out, you had to replace the whole thing for $50+. On the new MacBook, you only have to replace the cable part. I wish the MacBook Pro was like this.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I can't say I agree with any of this. I would say the reason they didn't include 4K on the new TV's is because there isn't any 4K content as of yet on iTunes. I'm sure they want to be able to offer 4K content if they are going to sell a device that delivers it.

This gets posted every time. This is NOT a chicken & egg scenario. The hardware MUST come first. If every single movie & show could have a 4K option for TV tonight, how much money could be made by the content owners? NONE. Why? Because there are NO 4K TVs on which to play a 4K version of iTunes content.

Put the hardware in lots of people's homes and it will motivate profit-minded Studios to test it. If they make money, they'll roll out more 4K. Other Studios will want their share too, so they will add content. Boom.

On the other hand, it doesn't make a lick of sense to expect any Studio to put any 4K videos for TV in the store right now because it's IMPOSSIBLE to make money without players in homes to play it.

 

[hemanwomanhater]

Call me crazy but I just don't care about 4K, at this point anyway. Whenever I see one I'm honestly more weirded out by it than anything. 1080P is fine.

Anyways is this really a surprise? Apple is more about user experience than it is about raw numbers. I would argue retina is a different story (at the very least, they framed it around the concept of user experience by describing it in terms of what the eye can comprehend), but for the most part Apple tends to go the route of improving how the thing is used instead of improving quantitative performance or whatever.

I also feel like Apple is more resistant to adopt technology they didn't invent themselves until it's been clearly proven to get past the fad stage. Lord knows it took them long enough to adopt HDMI!

 

[HenryDJP]

This gets posted every time. This is NOT a chicken & egg scenario. The hardware MUST come first. If every single movie & show could have a 4K option for TV tonight, how much money could be made by the content owners? NONE. Why? Because there are NO 4K TVs on which to play a 4K version of iTunes content.

Put the hardware in lots of people's homes and it will motivate profit-minded Studios to test it. If they make money, they'll roll out more 4K. Other Studios will want their share too, so they will add content. Boom.

On the other hand, it doesn't make a lick of sense to expect any Studio to put any 4K videos for TV in the store right now because it's IMPOSSIBLE to make money without players in homes to play it.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe that Apple may be planning on putting out a 4K TV in the near future and are already working with content providers and plan to roll out the next 4KTV at the same time they release 4K content in iTunes? It's very possible. It's certainly a lot more possible and makes far more sense than to say the reason they haven't put out a 4K TV is because developers would have to work harder and because it would require more beefier hardware.......as if Apple has never made a computer before.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You all still do not get it. 4K is still in its infancy! Our current infrastructure, even OTA, is no where near ready.
And BTW.... "future proofing"???? all you all serious???? There is no such thing as future proofing in technology.
If you believe that, then you've been sold a bag of lies.

Amazon is releasing a fire TV with "4K" support. Amazon currently has 4K content. So yes it makes sense for them to do that. Why? Because just like Apple their main goal is to get you to stay in their ecosystem. All the other video streaming apps are just a bonus.

Apple currently does NOT have 4K content. Why would they release a product that would push you to another ecosystem?
Think like a successful business and not like a tech fan for a sec and you will see why.

Apple is about to sell tens of millions of 4K cameras in 6s phones. Every single person that shoots a video with their phone will be potentially shooting it in 4K. 4K content is about to be created on a massive scale. Now those who have already purchased a 4K TV will be looking for a way to show the new baby or birthday or christmas 4K video on their TV. How do they do that in an easy "just works" way?

As to not having 4K content in the iTunes store, see post 112. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL for TV 4K content to be made available in the iTunes store before anyone owns an TV capable of playing 4K. However, it makes tremendous sense for lots of 4K-capable TVs in homes to entice Studios to see if they can make a buck by testing some 4K content in the iTunes store.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe that Apple may be planning on putting out a 4K TV in the near future and are already working with content providers and plan to roll out the next 4KTV at the same time they release 4K content in iTunes? It's very possible. It's certainly a lot more possible and makes far more sense than to say the reason they haven't put out a 4K TV is because developers would have to work harder and because it would require more beefier hardware.......as if Apple has never made a computer before.

Of course, that is very likely how it's going to play out. We know they'll go there. And then where will all the ("4K is gimmick", "4K is silly", "waste of bandwidth", "seating distance", "data caps", etc) people be when Apple rolls it out? We've been through this already. At one point, much of these same arguments against 4K were slung around here against 1080p... when Apple still clung to 720p. Then, Apple rolled out a 1080p TV and it was crickets from the "gimmick", "bandwidth", "seating distance" gallery.

Apple will be quite happy to sell a 1080p TV now and a 4K "upgrade" later. Lots of profit in that approach. At least around here, Apple can count on a good-sized vocal crowd who will work for free to market why we don't need what Apple isn't selling now and then flip to why we do need to upgrade to what Apple will be selling then. It's only "silly", "gimmick", "seating distances" today. Once Apple adopts it, it will be "shut up and take my money".

The migration from "720p is good enough" to 1080p was exactly the same.

 

[blackcrayon]

funny, you don't even have a 6 plus and don't know that it has a higher resolution than the iPad but gets downscaled to 1080p. you are reminding me of console fanboys who think their little precious boxes are on par with serious dedicated GPUs. a8 is a tiny chip, you can't expect it to drive everything flawlessly at 4k.

I don't need a 6+ to know that 2208 x 1242 is not as high a number as 2048 X 1536 (wow, you're rude and wrong). And even if it were the same # of pixels, the A7 has an obviously weaker GPU and does quite well.

All I did was dispute your assertion that the A8 couldn't drive a 6+ screen, and here you go whining about "fanboys"... I never said anything about the A8 driving anything flawlessly at 4k either- though I wouldn't be surprised if it could actually play 4k 30 fps video as the iPhone 6 was reasoned to have the hardware to do it with H.265.

 

[bommai]

This Apple TV will be great with the new APP Store! The only problem is the lack of 4K at 60 Hz because the HDMI v 1.4 spec will be able to do 4K at 30Hz.

Like others I was wondering why Apple dropped the optical port. However I have come to the realization that one could just use the optical out on my TV to my 5.1 Receiver that has an optical port in so to me that is not a problem.

That will destroy the surround sound. TVs typically down convert the surround into two channel before outputting through optical. It is a mistake for Apple to remove optical. You have to have a surround receiver with HDMI to enjoy true surround sound now.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...or buy an adapter that splits HDMI out to another HDMI out plus an optical out (they exist). It's not an elegant solution but it is another way. In my case, I need analog stereo for a zone 2 receiver. So it will be potentially 2 adapters since I already have the optical-to-analog stereo adapter attached to the current TV. And then one has to hope both adapters will consistently work together.

 

[bbidwell85]

4K TV is a sillier fad than 3DTV was. At least you could see 3DTV.

I'd say 4K is clearly the next step. But only for streaming services. There is no way cable/satellite providers are going to broadcast anything in 4K, at least not in a quality that makes it worth it. Channels are already so compressed so that they can provide you 300 channels. Ever compare OTA broadcasts with a service provider? Night and day! But I don't think it's such a big deal that the new Apple TV won't support 4K. I'm sure it will be an exclusive feature for the next version. Till then, 1080 is fine with me. Hell.. move a couple more feet back and 720 isn't so bad either.

 

[morcutt11]

And 4K recording on new iPhones makes sense because Apple had endorsed 4K there, right?

And 4K editing & rendering even on iDevice iMovie makes sense because Apple has endorsed 4K there, right?

It just doesn't make sense in this ONE product from Apple because Apple did not endorse it here, right? "Silly", "Stupid", "you can't see the difference", "fad" today but Apple won't be "silly", "stupid", etc for having endorsed it in pretty much the rest of the product mix OR when they roll out a 4K TV next so that there is a way to play the 4K video we shoot on the tens of millions of 6s phones they will sell on 4K TV sets.

iPhone can shoot 4K > iMovie & FCPX can edit it & render it as 4K > iTunes can store those 4K movies in the media database >| Apple TV | 4K TV

I'm sure that the AppleTV will eventually have it, but right now, I'm sure serious consideration was given to this:

 

[blackcrayon]

I'd say 4K is clearly the next step. But only for streaming services. There is no way cable/satellite providers are going to broadcast anything in 4K, at least not in a quality that makes it worth it. Channels are already so compressed so that they can provide you 300 channels. Ever compare OTA broadcasts with a service provider? Night and day! But I don't think it's such a big deal that the new Apple TV won't support 4K. I'm sure it will be an exclusive feature for the next version. Till then, 1080 is fine with me. Hell.. move a couple more feet back and 720 isn't so bad either.

Agreed... Though I'm not even sure streaming services will be there any time soon with actual good quality 4k. A lot of what I've seen looks so compressed. If I'm close enough to see the "4k", I'm close enough to see compression artifacts
It seems Netflix is using 15 Mbps... Maybe if they crank that up to 30 (assuming the same codec...) but then that would cut their potential customer base down even further.

 

[radio893fm]

why would anyone post such nonsense? You read a blog about 4K 3 years ago that called it a fad so you jumped on the bandwagon?

Don't sweat it. Once Apple finally releases the Apple TV 4K then everybody, and I mean everybody will say how good it is and they will even imply that Apple discovered and pioneered the format. So typical.

 

[Johnba]

I think that might be a black USB to USB-C cable, for connecting to the service port on the AppleTV.

The cable is clearly lighting on one end. I'd like to think it was Type C-Lightning (makes sense) but the lighting looks like there's a corner on the Black cable (me thinks it's Type A-Lightning). Do wonder when the Type C 2.0 to Lightning cable will emerge.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm sure that the AppleTV will eventually have it, but right now, I'm sure serious consideration was given to this:

Yes, if I'm not mistaken, the exact same chart (note the copyright date) was shown very often by the "720p is good enough" crowd back when some of us longed for a 1080p TV. Then, Apple rolled out a 1080p and nobody showed "the chart" to try to pound how stupid Apple was for embracing 1080p.

Yep, a quick search way back to 2008: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-tv-1080i.584041/#post-6462686 post #14 has me and a guy referencing a chart that looks the same. Note how both scales are about the same but just the resolution numbers have evolved to fit the new standard. The guy referencing the chart back them is arguing how we don't need 1080p and I'm arguing how some of us did want it. Then, Apple embraced 1080p and now we have a new incarnation of the same chart that makes it seem like "1080p is good enough" and 4K is overkill. Why don't we go ahead and update the resolutions for 8K so we can dust it off and use it again when Apple has gone 4K on TV but is selling a lot of other stuff with 8K, and some of us start longing for a 8K TV?

Again, the ADF is great at rationalizing everything Apple does or does not embrace. And when Apple both embraces and doesn't embrace in a single new product launch session, the ADF is fantastic at praising the conflicting choice where Apple embraced it and bashing it as "unneeded", "gimmick", "you can't see" and using the good old "the chart" exhibit where Apple doesn't.