First Evidence of Fifth-Generation Apple TV and tvOS 11 Possibly Spotted in Developer Logs

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. moxxham macrumors 6502

    moxxham

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #126
    I understand from a movie watching perspective, as there is an incredibly low amount of 4k content. But what about all the iPhones and iPads that shoot 4k? Drones, action cameras, DSLRs shoot 4k too. I'm a photographer and my boyfriend is a videographer. I would love to be able to airplay my content on a 4k HDR Apple TV. I think there is an incredibly strong reason for Apple to support 4k and HDR. I think it's also important for them to offer 4k iTunes media to make 4k even more accessible. More sources of 4k is exactly what we need.
     
  2. twinlight macrumors 6502

    twinlight

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    #127
    The ATV4 is my first ATV and it's seriously overpriced and underwhelming. Games are crap, remote is bad and it's only use is a few iTunes movies and Netflix. I use it for music sometimes but Spotify is missing so that sucks.

    Siri doesn't work even though I have it set to english US. She eventually accepted dictation after a few months but Siri search isn't available or any voice commands.

    The iTunes store is a mess. Hard to navigate with the remote and languages gets mixed up. I have set english US but I live in Norway. Yet I get danish information on some titles. I would understand if it was a movie from Denmark or Norway but these are American titles with 9 different subtitles yet the information is danish.

    I'm all for a new and better hardware box but seriously fix the software and negotiate deals before pushing a few 4k movies in maybe two countries.
     
  3. Askolan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    #128
    Gotta second this. The ATV 4 should have had 4k to begin with, yet it is 1080p and twice the price of my Roku. Apple hasn't maintained/innovated/cared about iTunes very much lately so I won't be missing out on that content. Besides keeping my ATV 3 for audio airplay, I'm done ATVs.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2017 ---
    Roku's remote is unresponsive? Are you kidding? Not only are the buttons SOLID, you can even be on another floor of the house and the remote still works (RF instead of IR or Bluetooth.) We have had multiple Apple TVs and Rokus and everyones favorite is the Roku. The UI is simpler and the devices never crash or freeze on us. Can't say the same for the ATVs.
     
  4. Marty80 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #129
    Finally a reason to change my aging 1080p tv. I have refused to move to 4K, given Apple has been hesitant to offer ultra hd on the iTunes Store and the fact Nintendo also does not use ultra hd.
     
  5. thespacekid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    #130
    Since a majority of people don't have and don't need 4k TVs, hopefully it offers more than just 4k video.
     
  6. thisisnotmyname macrumors 65816

    thisisnotmyname

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Location:
    known but velocity indeterminate
    #131
    It seemed like it was too many clicks just to watch a show. I replaced all my prior versions on release so it's been over a year but I seem to recall having to work down that hierarchy in order to start a show whereas with the new app I can just hit "play" and resume the latest series I've been watching. I don't even need to enter the app in some cases since I keep it on the top row of the springboard.
     
  7. wwchris macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #132
    Man, I want to love my AppleTV 4's (I own three).
    There are a few things that just drive me insane though that make me very unhappy.

    The remote requires you to press a button to wake it up now (swipe doesn't do it). That means whatever app is was on opens and then I have to close it. This happens multiple times a day.

    One of my primary uses is to use it as a photo screensaver for my iCloud photos. It is so unreliable it is ridiculous, it never plays through the full set of photos and most of the time it does not update when I add new photos. In order to use photos in a slideshow, they have to be "shared" through iCloud. So even though my "Favorites" show up in my library, I can't use it as a slide show but I can look at the pictures individually. This requires me to make duplicate albums and share them with myself. Makes no sense.

    I need multiple users so I can restrict my kids from Adult shows and so our recently watched movies and TV don't show up for each other. I'm tired of seeing my watched list littered with cartoons.

    Caching is terrible. I bought 64gb devices under the assumption it would use that space to effectively Cache. Why is that space not just used until it is full and then latest items deleted. Why aren't the last 10 movies I watched just stored on there until it runs out of space? Why aren't my screensaver photos cached for the full list of photos?

    Finally, i am a rabid anti-piracy guy and I have purchased over 500 movies in iTunes. If Apple (or the studios) try to charge me again for the 4k versions all of the 1080 movies I own in iTunes, I am done. I will abandon all purchasing and move to just torrenting what I want.
     
  8. vertical smile macrumors 68000

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #133
    I guess I can understand that, but they just replaced clicks with endless swipes in the ATV4 version.

    If you use an IR remote, The ATV4 Netflix app is actually a lot more clicks since things are not organized in a hierarchy system. Even something simple as going to "Recently Watched" category requires more clicks(or swipe equivalent).

    With all the other things I have mentioned already, and the many things I haven't mentioned, I feel like the ATV4 version is missing so much.

    At least they finally added genres to the ATV4 Netflix, a watered-down version, but it is something.

    People are going to like what they like, I just don't really see the appeal of the ATV4 Netflix app when compared to the ATV3 one.
     
  9. HobeSoundDarryl, Mar 17, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #134
    Think. If you are a Studio, what will motivate you to offer far more than the (implied) up to 150 movies in 4K? The potential for profit. How do you exploit that potential if there are hardly any devices in homes capable of playing 4K?

    Analogy: if you are a software development Studio, do you write software to exploit a touchbar BEFORE there is touchbar hardware in consumer hands? Do you write software to exploit dual camera iPhones before there are dual camera iPhones in consumer hands? Apparently, that is the argument we make here: movie studios need to make lots of 4K versions of their "software" for sale for an :apple:TV5 that not 1 consumer has yet... and until they do, there's little point in Apple making an :apple:TV5.

    This kind of confusion(?), or spin(?) makes no sense. It's like we are conjuring an excuse for who (Apple?) for an argument that nobody is actually making. Wave a magic wand today and covert EVERYTHING in the Apple store so they have 4K versions for :apple:TV for sale. How much money can be made on all that 4K? Not $1. Why? Because there is not 4K:apple:TV hardware to actually play that software.

    Apple has 100% control of making hardware. They don't have to wait on partners to make software to exploit hardware advances first. They don't have to wait on ISPs to evolve or drop their data cap strategies. They don't have to adjust the distance from screen to sofa in individual homes so that "we" can see the difference. They don't have to wait for all of us to get fatter hard drives to store bigger movie files... or faster broadband pipes... or new TVs. In fact, if Apple wanted, they could roll out an 8K or 16K:apple:TV without needing to wait on anyone else to do anything.

    It's thinking like this which is basically "wait until everybody else adjusts what they are doing before Apple advances their hardware" that makes no sense at all. Does that thinking get applied to iPhone? No, the bulk of us are frothing at the idea of a "10th anniversary" iPhone 8 Edition, Super Pro. But why? Is there a single app in the iOS store explicitly dependent on an iPhone 8 right now? Not 1. Yet we hunger for that Apple hardware to advance anyway.

    How about Macs? Is there a single app in the Mac App store dependent on the latest & greatest hardware not yet in Macs? Not 1. Yet we hunger for Apple to advance that hardware anyway too.

    So why- with this ONE Apple hardware platform- do we work so hard to stick to the increasingly-dated status quo? This is the cheapest stand-alone platform Apple makes. One can probably buy 6+ :apple:TVs for what the iPhone 8 will cost. And yet, we apparently see some great pain in upgrading to a new model as if it will be a monumental investment. And to resist it, we start making up stuff like: "until there is lots of software in the iTunes store" or "until ISPs adjust", etc. ignoring the concept that just like iPhones, iPads and Macs, if the owner of a new 4K:apple:TV is completely happy with 1080p videos from iTunes, they can keep downloading 1080p videos. And that will use the exact same amount of bandwidth they use now. And that will burn the exact same amount of ISP data cap as it burns now. Etc.

    What does iPhone 7 do that 6s can't that made it so important that practically everyone has to upgrade? What does 6s do that 6 can't that made it almost a "must upgrade" phone? Answers: almost nothing. Yet here is a product that costs a fraction of what each new iPhone costs and we want it to cling to the past as long as it possibly can. Why? We're either confused or we just want to spin ideas like everybody would have to buy a new TV (they wouldn't) or everybody needs faster broadband (not if they are actually happy with the status quo) or that new hardware is pointless until mass amounts of the software for it is advanced to take advantage of the exclusive standout feature of the new hardware (which, if that was really true, should pretty much put Apple out of business, as the same concept would argue for no advancements to iPhone, iPad and Macs either until mass software apps for those platforms was already in their stores waiting for new hardware).

    Like we do with iPhone, iPads & Macs, we should welcome- even be excited- about hardware advances in the cheapest stand-alone platform that Apple makes. Those perfectly happy with the "as is" would not be affected by a new version in any way at all. Those hungry for newer/better/faster hardware could get what they want too... the exact same scenario that makes Apple such a successful money-making machine with iPhones, iPads and Macs.
     
  10. malexandria Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    #135
    I used to LOVE/ADORE my ATV but IOS 10 has turned it into a buggy, stuttering mess. Half the time I go to watch something, I have to reboot it before it'll work. I think it's hanging up when that stupid, horribly designed TV app is trying to constantly index apps. The new TV app is just wretched and breaks everything else. What happened to Apple? It seems like all their software releases lately are poorly thought out and tested.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2017 ---
    The ATV doesn't stream 4K. If you are watching apps through a 4K device and it says 4K on the app, then you are streaming 4K.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2017 ---
    You can't stream 4K content through the Apple TV.
     
  11. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #136
    That's is the same argument heard when 720p was faced with 1080p.
    You sound like my wife, "you don't need that".
    Yeah until you experience it.
     
  12. anthonymoody macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #137
    Obviously it'll be 4K/HDR/WCG compatible. I *do* believe that over time they'll allow 4K upgrades for previously purchased HD movies, but at a price that makes you wince a little...say $15 each. Sadly, I'll do it for the more important/blockbuster type films.
     
  13. HobeSoundDarryl, Mar 17, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #138
    Exactly, where will this anti-4K crowd be AFTER Apple rolls out a 4K:apple:TV. I can tell you this, just about ALL of them won't be in those threads bashing Apple for stupidly embracing 4K.

    All one has to do is go back and look at :apple:TV3 threads before and after it's release.

    Before: "no one needs 1080p", "1080p is a gimmick", "the chart", "until the iTunes store is full of 1080p", "until broadband everywhere is upgraded", "I don't want to have to throw out a perfectly good 720p HDTV", "nobody can see the difference", etc, etc (just look at ALL of the arguments against a 4K:apple:TV because they are basically the same recycled from arguments against a 1080p:apple:TV before there was one).

    After: <sound of crickets> OR "Apple waited to get 1080p just right" OR "evolving with the times"... followed pretty quickly by some of the anti-1080p crowd "shut up and take my money" buying the 1080p version of :apple:TV- the very thing they ripped into right up until Apple actually rolled one out.

    In short, it seems there's a fair number of us passionately committed to helping Apple sell what they have for sale right now (like the most profitable company in the world really needs such help). We'll write pretty much anything to rationalize why Apple's take on anything is the ONE and only right option for everyone (and why benefits offered by competitors not in Apple's product are stupid, useless, gimmicks that "99% don't need"). However, as soon as Apple adapts what we've previously bashed to no end, we immediately shift to gushing praise for the new thing now for sale by Apple rather than bash Apple with the same arguments against the change previously slung and slung and slung. See phones with bigger screens, NFC, 1080p:apple:TV and on and on.

    I recall very heated, very passionate arguments for why iPad 1 did NOT need a front facing camera- how stupid that would be, how unstable, why do I want people looking up my nose when I'm Skyping with them , etc. Then, 1 year later, iPad 2's signature feature was a front-facing camera. What did all those people have to say about it? "Shut up and take my money" and why it was a must-have upgrade that everyone had to have.

    I recall Apple rolling out a new iPad with Retina screen and a iPad Mini without a Retina screen. Cue passionate rationale of why everyone needed to upgrade to that new iPad because it had a retina screen. And cue why everyone needed to upgrade to the iPad Mini and why a Mini doesn't need a retina screen. Yes, at the very same time, we were arguing why retina was a must-have upgrade in a 9.7" screen but why retina was not needed in a 7.9" screen (so upgrade to that Mini too). Or, more simply, Apple was absolutely right to offer the new iPad with a retina screen AND absolutely right to offer a new Mini without a retina screen. Then, 1 year later, iPad Mini with Retina rolls out. Cue why everyone needed the new iPad Mini BECAUSE it now had a retina screen.

    In other words, our fellow consumers are just absolutely wrong for wanting anything that Apple does not offer now. However, as soon as Apple offers it, then they become right. In no circumstance is Apple ever wrong for not offering the desired change before they offer it... or for delivering it when they finally get around to doing so. What Apple has for sale now is the one and only right product for everyone. How that product changes in the next version will make it the one and only right product for everyone then too (all prior rationale against that change will be promptly forgotten, as if it was never spun).

    Buy hey, at least we are consistent.:p
     
  14. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #139
    Better get ready then and sign up for a good anonymizing vpn while you're at it, because there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting free upgrades to 4k versions of your purchases.

    Heck, even if Apple offers you an extremely generous $1/movie upgrade fee, would you be willing to dish out $500?
     
  15. GeneralChang, Mar 17, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

    GeneralChang macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #140
    So... it wouldn't be a write off if the USB port just wasn't there? It's the fact that it's there and doesn't do anything that bugs you?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2017 ---
    Do we really think Apple is arguing against 4K TV? Or just that they're, as usual, a little late to the party? That's the consistent part, and anyone using Apple's stuff should probably just be expecting it. Everyone else was 4K last year, so the Apple TV will catch up this year. Frankly I was stunned we got the Retina MacBook Pros and the 5K iMac as early as we did.
     
  16. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #141
    You have to admit, there are diminishing returns in increased resolution.

    I remember being blown away the first time I saw 720p. Compared to SD, it was unbelievable that I could see the pores Bruce Willis' forehead. Sports were 100 times better too, I could finally figure out wth was going on in football games.

    Then 1080p was better by comparison, but I don't remember being blown away as much. The picture was clearer and it was certainly better for sports, I felt I could really judge whether a player was safe or out at second better than the umps now, but it did not blow me away for movies in the same way.

    Today a friend of mine who works for Samsung has their top of the line huge 4k TV, and I've seen it many times. It's better, but it's not like $3000 better, ya know? The demo movies showing how you can see every leaf in the landscape shot of a nature documentary certainly looks great. I don't feel movies are so much better, and at this point sports aren't much better either unless you have a 65" TV. I even wonder, do I like his TV because it's 4k or because it's 65"?

    To me, the improvements in this generation of new TVs aren't the resolution. HDR interests me, OLED displays interest me. 4k is just there as well because why not. Once the price of large OLED displays comes down a bit more, I'll upgrade. At this year's CES, many more manufacturers announced they will begin selling OLED displays, joining LG. Hopefully the competition drives prices down. Maybe I'll upgrade this year, or next year. Maybe by then 8k will be all the rage.
     
  17. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #142
    I had the opportunity to view NHL and NFL on a 1080p and 4K upscale side by side.
    It greatly depended on the broadcast.
    Overall the 4K was noticeably better (on two 60 inch sets).
    Some 4K movies look horrible.
    4K set prices have dropped.
    I don't think I would by anything but a 4K set for a 60"+ set
     
  18. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #143
    Yea, I agree. I don't think anyone can credibly argue that 4k doesn't look better. It just doesn't have that "must have" luster that 720p had when compared to SD. After you say 720p for the first time, everything SD looks terrible forever. I've seen plenty of 4k, but I don't feel my 1080p set looks terrible at all.

    Prices have dropped, but not enough in my opinion. Plenty of room left to go, and there is no urgency to upgrade.
     
  19. vertical smile macrumors 68000

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #144
    I was going to reply something similar to this.
    Going from SD to 720p was a huge leap. 720p to 1080p, noticeable difference, but not nearly as much. I feel like 4k will be the same way. Maybe HDR might have a more noticeable difference, but not nearly as much as going to 720p.

    I like to compare it to going from VHS to DVD, and then from DVD to Bluray. DVD was a totally different experience, then going to Blueray, while a better experience, didn't have the same impact. People didn't rush to the stores to get the Bluray experience like they did for the DVD. Just like people are not rushing to the stores to get the 4k experience.

    I think that there is a better case for not including 4k on the ATV4, than Apple not including 1080p on the ATV2. For one thing, the ATV1 had 1080p. Also there was a lot more 1080p content in 2010, than 4k content in 2015. The 4k TV adoption in the US was much lower, < 1% in 2015, while the 1080p TV adoption was much higher in 2010.

    All that said, I think Apple should have included 4k on the ATV4, regardless of content and adoption rate. The adoption rate is only going up, atleast for now. The content is steadily growing. But, mostly because it would have made the ATV4 much more competitive since almost every other box had or now has 4k.

    Just my thoughts....
     
  20. Zandery macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2016
    Location:
    UK
    #145
    Why the hell should you get a free upgrade to UHD? You'd have to buy the UHD Blu-ray again if you want UHD anyway so why should you get iTunes UHD upgrades for free, it isn't the done thing and I wouldn't complain if Apple charged for upgrades, hell, I expect them to.

    I only use iTunes for TV Series as the US iTunes has a vastly superior selection compared to the UK store, even compared to DVDs but I wouldn't use iTunes for films, I prefer Blu-ray + UV (for when I'm on the go), I just wish that I could watch on multiple devices that aren't Apple related but hey-ho, win some and lose some.
     
  21. vertical smile macrumors 68000

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #146
    I am not going to argue whether or not Apple should offer 4k upgrades to 1080p iTunes content for free, but they did offer 1080p upgrades to 720p upgrades for free.
     
  22. 69Mustang macrumors 601

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #147
    Derp.:rolleyes::D:p
     
  23. HobeSoundDarryl, Mar 17, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #148
    Not true, The 1 maxed with a limited version of 720p unless someone physically hacked it with the Broadcom card. I considered the "1's" version of 720p the bare minimum to allow marketing to claim it was HD. I can't remember but I think that was 720p/24fps or 720p/30fps but definitely leaving out the other of those 2 and 720p/60fps too.

    And don't get me wrong, I loved that version myself but it was definitely bare minimum "HD" and definitely not capable of playing 1080p content without a third party hardware hack.

    In the iTunes store or generally? If the latter, I'd associate that with the broader availability of Blu Ray discs because Discs were still THE primary way to consume video content at home. But here's the reality of all arguments about source content- pretty much EVERY film available at 1080p is readily available at 4K, not because of how many discs are out there but because everything shot on film can pretty much have a 4K render pretty quickly. So, why isn't so much more available in 4K now? Because there isn't a huge number of 4K players in homes yet.

    Instead of seeing the lack of content as rationale against a 4K:apple:TV, try seeing it as an opportunity. Reminds me of this shoe salesman story...

    2 shoe salesman were sent to into the deepest jungles of Africa in search of new sales opportunities.
    • One replies back, "Unbelievable opportunity here- nobody has any shoes."
    • The other replies back, "No opportunity here- nobody wears shoes."
    The rumor is that a 4K:apple:TV is coming:
    • "Unbelievable opportunity- most people do not have a 4K player in their homes yet"
    • "No opportunity here- there's almost no 4K content to play" OR
    • "No opportunity here- almost nobody has a 4K TV" OR
    • "No opportunity here- I (er I mean) nobody wants to replace a perfect good TV set" OR
    • "No opportunity here- I (er I mean) nobody can see the difference" OR
    • "No opportunity here- broadband everywhere is not upgraded to handle it" OR
    • "No opportunity here- need more storage for bigger files" ETC.
    With 4K, it is not a chicken or egg proposition. The hardware MUST lead. Put lots of 4K-capable hardware in homes and some Studio(s) will be tempted to see if they can make a buck on 4K versions of their film libraries. If they do, all of the other Studios quickly follow. Boom- lots of 4K available in the iTunes store.

    This doesn't work the other way. Wave the magic wand and make EVERYTHING in the iTunes store have a 4K version for a 4K:apple:TV. How much money can be made on all of that? ZERO. Why? Because there's no 4K:apple:TVs in homes to consume that software.

    The hardware must lead the way. And Apple completely controls the decision to create & launch hardware capable of playing 4K video. They don't have to wait for anyone else to do anything.

    Good example: look at the apps in the :apple:TV app store. Before the :apple:TV4, there were hardly any third party apps because there was no store through which to offer them. Then, Apple rolls out a 4 with a channel to offer third party apps and now there are LOTS of apps that were not available in the "3" and before. Guess what happens if Apple rolls out a "5" even if at first there is almost no 4K content in the iTunes store? The very same motivator that moved the various "4" app creators to create software for the "4" will motivate the owners of lots of content that could be 4K to make it available for the "5".

    First, Apple rolling out a 4K:apple:TV doesn't require a 4K television to use it. Better hardware can feed 1080p, 720p or SD to <4K sets. There seems to be a very strong perception (or spin?) that a 4K:apple:TV REQUIRES a 4K TV and that's not true. Did a 1080p:apple:TV require a 1080p HDTV? No. This will be no different.

    Second, where are such arguments offered against Apple for putting 4K video capture in iPhone or making 4K editing capabilities in iMovie & FCPx, or supporting 4K video in a Quicktime container that stores just fine in iTunes. Wasn't it stupid of Apple to make iPad pro market the capabilities of editing "up to three 4K streams"? And on and on. In other words, arguments like this one seem to support why this ONE product from Apple should not be upgraded, yet you won't see this same kind of rationale argued against 4K capabilities being put in pretty much everything else Apple offers. All the other products have 4K and Apple is not stupid for building it in there. However, this ONE product does not yet offer 4K and since Apple had not yet endorsed 4K here, nobody needs a 4K:apple:TV.

    Third, when does Apple wait until all of the other players have everything in place before Apple can advance it's own hardware? Did printers, USB sticks, external drives, etc all have Thunderbolt in place before Apple adopted Thunderbolt? USB3C? Lightning? Does everything that plays audio have Bluetooth and readily & immediately connect to AirPods? Does all Mac software already support the Touchbar? Do all retailers support Applepay now years after Apple implemented that? And on and on.

    For some reason, with this ONE product from Apple, we believe (or spin?) that before Apple advances this hardware, the other players have to do a bunch of stuff first... or homes have to be full of 4K TVs before Apple should make a 4K:apple:TV. However, look at everything else that Apple makes and they roll out all kinds of hardware advancements that are still waiting on everybody else to "catch up."
     
  24. mi7chy macrumors 68040

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #149
    This is misleading info. 4K capable devices support the more efficient codecs like h265 HEVC that uses about half the bandwidth of the former h264 AVC while retaining the same quality. So, even if you only stream 1080p content you can still benefit from halving the bandwidth requirement making your data cap last about twice as long. On the other hand, 4K content downscaled to 1080p look so much better compared to 1080p content.

    Anyway, 4K is so 2016. You can even find it on ~$40 Odroid C2 SBC.

    http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G145457216438

    The industry is already migrating to 8K in 2017 so if I were to invest in anything high cost this year it needs to have 8K future proofing.
     
  25. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #150
    No Apple is definitely NOT arguing against 4K. In fact, they are touting it in just about everything else they make.

    Its some of us that is arguing against 4K... but only in this ONE Apple product. Why? I presume it's because Apple has not yet released a 4K:apple:TV so we want to tow the company line instead of have a real opinion that is our own. As soon as Apple does roll out a 4K:apple:TV, I expect most of the crowd arguing against a 4K version to basically go silent on the anti-4K comments... exactly repeating the anti-1080p sentiment ahead of Apple rolling out a 1080p:apple:TV, which pretty much completely evaporated right after Apple rolled out that version. Exact same story with a different resolution number.
     

Share This Page