if you ever touched a 6 plus you'd know it drives it badly. i have one, i know.
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.
Developers Now Receiving Apple TV Units for App Testing Purposes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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 forTV 4K content to be made available in the iTunes store before anyone owns an
the iPhone argument does not hold water. Most iPhone users are casual users, not tech nerds like us. those 4K videos will mostly be shown to friend/family on the phone itself. 4k TV owners is still low....VERY low compared to 1080p versions. Apple right now is testing the waters with 4K and I see no reason to jump in just yet......
"entice studios by testing 4k content"...??? "make a buck".....serious?
Studios are into make huge piles of cash. They will get this when they start broadcasting UHD content. And trust me when that happens all the current 4k TV will need additional hardware to decode the signal.
So, I guess every Apple TV thread is going to turn into a need 4K vs doesn't need 4K argument.
Can anyone confirm this yet? I hope they did not take this away, high end homes are going to have control systems, people won't want to deal with the Apple remote. In the perfect world Apple would have brought ether RS232 or ethernet control to it, gives you much more options then IR, like clicking one button on the remote and having the whole system go on and the Apple TV turn to the App you want.
4k is a chicken and egg problem. The TV isn't worthwhile until there's content, and the content isn't worthwhile until there are 4k TV's in peoples' homes. The same issue existed with 1080p at first, and it'll eventually solve itself as 4k TV's approach the price of normal 1080p displays. Apple has apparently decided that 4k isn't worth it to them yet, and that's fine by me at the moment. Although I might be a little annoyed if I were a 4k early-adopter.
Also, anyone that thinks that you cannot tell the difference between a 4k TV and 1080p is blind. 1080p is literally the resolution of the iPhone 6/6s+, on a tiny 5.5" screen. You need to remember that those comparison charts include quite a lot of *assumptions* about the content that you're viewing. Are you likely to tell the difference on a Hollywood movie anytime soon? Probably not. Will you tell the difference with text or computer-generated content? Absolutely, without a doubt. Also, it's quite an amazing thing to be able to move closer to a TV to *see more detail* if you want to. "What was the guy doing in the background there? Hmm, let me take a look."
Additionally, 4k and higher resolutions will make high-quality 3D TV possible eventually. 3D effectively reduces the resolution of a picture by half, which is why it typically looks like crap. Eventually, it will work, and it will be amazing. That might take 10-20 years, however.
Also, anyone that thinks that you cannot tell the difference between a 4k TV and 1080p is blind. 1080p is literally the resolution of the iPhone 6/6s+, on a tiny 5.5" screen. You need to remember that those comparison charts include quite a lot of *assumptions* about the content that you're viewing. Are you likely to tell the difference on a Hollywood movie anytime soon? Probably not. Will you tell the difference with text or computer-generated content? Absolutely, without a doubt. Also, it's quite an amazing thing to be able to move closer to a TV to *see more detail* if you want to. "What was the guy doing in the background there? Hmm, let me take a look."
Additionally, 4k and higher resolutions will make high-quality 3D TV possible eventually. 3D effectively reduces the resolution of a picture by half, which is why it typically looks like crap. Eventually, it will work, and it will be amazing. That might take 10-20 years, however.
Yeah it has metal, but the way it renders 3D isn't groundbreaking. These are words from an iOS developer. If you happen to know first hand what your talking about besides that "it has metal" please chime in. Otherwise you're absurd. Let me know when an Xbox or PlayStation quality half life game appears in 250mb, cause that's pretty damn magical.
"But, but it has Metal!"
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
Apple will be quite happy to sell a 1080p
The migration from "720p is good enough" to 1080p was exactly the same.
Well I certainly am not one of the people supporting the lack of 4K in the TV, I'm just trying to make sense of it all as to why Apple didn't implement it. Apple is in the business (like every other company) to make money, which makes sense. Other than selling the hardware (which probably makes them next to nothing) there's no benefit of them offering 4K to customers that will use the machine to view Netflix in 4K when Apple doesn't have a business relationship with Netflix, other than allowing Netflix to be on the TV.
At the end of the day the TV is sold at an affordable price because it's a vending machine, just like all the SMART TV's that have these same apps on them. They are revenue generators for the company. Without iTunes putting out 4K video that's a lost sales opportunity for Apple. I'm just looking at it from a business standpoint, not a personal one.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
From a business perspective, clinging to 1080p for another round makes great sense (and cents... and dollars). Sell us all on other terrific, new features of TV4, then sell us all again an TV5 "now with 4K".
TV4, then sell us all again an TV5 "now with 4K".
I'm going to guess that's for 3 reasons:but no 4k support.
1. Not enough people have 4K TVs, or know/care about 4K, and there's not enough 4K content yet anyway for not having it to be a major problem.
2. The ATV is probably powerful enough for 4K video, but probably not enough for 4K graphics/apps at 30+ fps. Apple doesn't want some things in 4K and others not in 4K.
3. Apple wants an upgrade feature for the next version.
Yeah, remember when they released the v2 and it was 720, then the v3 was 1080? Same thing here. All points accurate here regardless of what people want. Seriously, what huge 4K libraries do people think they are going to stream if this had 4K? A few nature shorts on YouTube or a handful of shows on Netflix?
"Hey bro, check out this sunrise clip, it's 4K!"
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
...and up to everything they shoot with their new iPhone 6s.
And up to everything other people shoot with their new iPhones, when they share their 4K video via youtube and similar.
Tens of millions of 4K cameras will (very) soon be in Apple people's hands.
Put that down as amateur video (who cares?), but the main reason I initially longed for a 1080pTV back in the "720p is good enough" days is because I had a couple years worth of precious family movies shot at 1080p, edited on Apple hardware, stored in iTunes, looking for an easy "just works" way to flow to the 1080 HDTV that I also already had owned for a couple of years.
There's been 4K camcorders out for a couple of years now. Other phones have been shooting 4K for a good while now. And now Apple has embraced 4K recording, editing and storing in new Apple hardware & software... except this ONE product. So once again, some of us have upwards of a few years of precious family movies shot at 4K, edited on Apple hardware, storable in iTunes, looking for an easy way to flow to the 4K TV that was added to the living room.
And up to everything other people shoot with their new iPhones, when they share their 4K video via youtube and similar.
Tens of millions of 4K cameras will (very) soon be in Apple people's hands.
Put that down as amateur video (who cares?), but the main reason I initially longed for a 1080p
TV back in the "720p is good enough" days is because I had a couple years worth of precious family movies shot at 1080p, edited on Apple hardware, stored in iTunes, looking for an easy "just works" way to flow to the 1080 HDTV that I also already had owned for a couple of years.There's been 4K camcorders out for a couple of years now. Other phones have been shooting 4K for a good while now. And now Apple has embraced 4K recording, editing and storing in new Apple hardware & software... except this ONE product. So once again, some of us have upwards of a few years of precious family movies shot at 4K, edited on Apple hardware, storable in iTunes, looking for an easy way to flow to the 4K TV that was added to the living room.
Last edited:
I am just saying for me supporting 4k video streaming is not a big deal, I am not saying everyone else has to be happy with it.
if u look at the tech specs on Apple TV 4 on Apple's website the USB-C is only for service and support:-
http://www.apple.com/tv/specs/
Its good that they are providing such a cable, but still continue to lack the one cable we all need anyway which is HDMI cable.
http://www.apple.com/tv/specs/
Its good that they are providing such a cable, but still continue to lack the one cable we all need anyway which is HDMI cable.
Games can be much larger than 200 MB. The initial package has that limit, which can in turn download MUCH more
Pr0n isn't 4k, so there's not going to be a lot of content out of the gate. Plus the 4k streaming costs may not be cost-effective for anyone except netflix/amazon, which knocks out most pr0n providers.
Summary: streaming 4k from anywhere won't be big until it can be streamed cost-effectively. Today, bandwidth costs are just too high to justify the expense except for ultra-large providers.
Summary: streaming 4k from anywhere won't be big until it can be streamed cost-effectively. Today, bandwidth costs are just too high to justify the expense except for ultra-large providers.
The dev kits must be locked in a safe out of any and all daylight. When in use, must be bolted down (similar to the iPad in development) to prevent theft.
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
And in many setups, 720p is good enough. There's vanishingly small or no visible difference with many common arrangements of panel size and sitting distance.
The leap from 1080p to 4K is in a whole other ballpark of ineffectiveness for the vast majority of living room setups out there.
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.
Uh huh. You're mixing up so many use cases that all have to be analyzed individually. You can clearly see the benefit of the Retina display on the iPad, and only silly or disinterested people said it wasn't needed. The people who think the living room case for 4K TV is of little value are on much more solid ground.
If I had a 4K Apple TV, I'd be setting it to 1080p because I have a marginal broadband connection with a 300GB monthly cap. There's no way I'd waste it on something I can't see. On my iPad or 5K iMac? Sure, I'd splurge on 4K content, because I'm sitting close enough to see it.
I think point three is most accurate.
They push the 4K aspect of the iPhone camera a fair bit in the presentation
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Nobody would be forcing 4K content on you if Apple had rolled this out with 4K playback... just as nobody was forcing 1080p content on the "720p is good enough" crowd back when some of us wished for a 1080p
TV. Had this been 4K, you could have kept right on watching your 1080p or 720p and it would have played either format to the fullest. The iTunes store would keep right on having video format options < 4K (just as they kept 720p and SD options when they embraced 1080p). You could keep right on choosing 1080p or 720p as you do now. Nobody would have to buy a new TV to use this new TV as it would have no trouble downscaling it's maximum possible output to 1080p or 720p. Etc.BUT- and this is key- those who wanted a little more than you out of the box- because not everyone is you- could have got what they wanted too.
The "can't see a difference", "300GB cap" (mine is 250GB by the way), "marginal broadband", "the chart", and "4K is silly" crowd wouldn't have had to change a thing. Better hardware is capable of playing lessor software. It just doesn't work the other way.