Hope I'm not double-posting this, but the limitation on the new Apple TV is the HDMI port, not hardware or software. The current HDMI spec says it can support 4K in 24fps only. So it would be enough to get the "film look" but not enough for 60fps for great menu animation. That's why it's going to be a future model with HDMI 2 or something else.
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.
iMovie Updated With 4K Support for iPad Air 2 on iOS 9.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just to add this in there... I did buy a 4K tv this year since I shoot 4K footage. I have a 65" tv but it's interesting to note that to "see" 4K, you have to be 6' or closer to the screen. For a 75" tv, you have to be inside 8'. Still, you're seeing more than 1080p, perhaps somewhere around 3.5k when you're at a normal viewing distance. 6' from a 65" tv is not normal viewing distance.
I don't think you are understanding me. It takes a lot of power to downsample an image. All Retina Macs do it, but it isn't noticeable since their GPUs are much faster then iPhones. It's not the fact that the iPhone is rendering the image in 1242x2208 (which yes, it smaller then 4k), it's the fact that it's trying (and Apple is making it succeed at) displaying 1242x2208 on a 1080x1920 display.
Think of it this way, it's like trying to get water to pour smoothly through a 1in tube, then half way through the tube abruptly shrinks to .5in. It will work, yes, but it will take longer to pour out the water and won't work as smoothly as just using a 1in tube entirely. It's like that.
So much for the Mini 4 having the same power as the Air 2 (according to Apple's September presentation.)
iPad Mini 4 users: We thought that our devices were the same as the Air 2. Where's it for us?
Apple: We'll officially support the Mini 4 after we are done with adding Emojis to the new OSes. You know, We're Busy right now.
Apple: We'll officially support the Mini 4 after we are done with adding Emojis to the new OSes. You know, We're Busy right now.
I think the splash screen is standard and shows on all devices. The wording under 4K video says "Record, edit and share video at stunning 4K resolution on compatible devices" (my emphasis)
The 6+ isn't a "compatible device" for 4K so won't be able to use this feature
4K is bigger than just resolution. (I'm going to be lazy and copy and paste another reply I made which highlights the main points):
We'll see if Apple decides to add 4K editing to the mini 4. Apple crippled the mini 4 on purpose as if they really wanted it to have the same power as the Air 2 they should've put the A9 in it to be just as fast or slightly faster than the A8X. I guess it's gonna be the Mini 5 before the Mini series can match or eclipse the Air 2.
This is the app designed for the new iPad Pro. It's featured on the iPad Pro page (http://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/) under iOS apps along with GarageBand and a completely new app called UMake. If you click on the learn more tab (http://www.apple.com/ios/imovie/), you'll see that the iPhone 6S and iPad Pro support multiple streams of 4K but only have a 1080p viewer. It looks like they've added the iPad Air 2 ahead of the iPad Pro launch, an I bet the iPad Mini 4 will be enabled by the time the iPad Pro hits shelves as well.
The AppleTV doesn't have 4K compatibility most likely due to content pricing. Netflix and Amazon have next to no 4K content inspite of featuring all their own shows as 4K offerings. With Apple already in lengthy negotiations to get cable channels directly onto the new AppleTV (and get around the need for a cable TV provider), I doubt they wanted to force a 4K option. Little content, few devices to play the content, and premium pricing on the content, make this a 2017 or beyond proposition.
Has anyone heard about the UMake app for the iPad Pro? I'm very curious, but it's the only app on that page without a learn more tab.
The AppleTV doesn't have 4K compatibility most likely due to content pricing. Netflix and Amazon have next to no 4K content inspite of featuring all their own shows as 4K offerings. With Apple already in lengthy negotiations to get cable channels directly onto the new AppleTV (and get around the need for a cable TV provider), I doubt they wanted to force a 4K option. Little content, few devices to play the content, and premium pricing on the content, make this a 2017 or beyond proposition.
Has anyone heard about the UMake app for the iPad Pro? I'm very curious, but it's the only app on that page without a learn more tab.
On the surface that seems like a good explanation. Looking at it closer, it starts to fall apart. 4K at 60fps for gaming? I seriously doubt anyone (anyone with common sense at least) has that expectation. Also, do you really think devs will be creating fps games with a need for 60fps? I don't think that's realistic right now. A gen or 2 from now? Maybe. It's the same thing for the Fire TV. It doesn't stream 4K at 60fps. I would ask why would it need to do so?
The main thing I don't get from your comment is the part about keeping 4K off the ATV for a lag free experience across games, movies, and UI. How does just the introduction of 4K capabilities create lag? Am I wrong here in thinking 4K actually means "up to" 4K? Meaning content would stream at the appropriate rate for those with devices(TV, AV System) that have 4K capabilities. No 4K? No 4K streaming. Am I missing something here?
Again, no one is looking for or expecting bleeding edge 4K. Right now that's primarily high end gaming and AV. The 4K capabilities Apple is introducing to the rest of their line up isn't bleeding edge. The 4K in the Fire TV and Roku 4 isn't bleeding edge. It's, for the lack of a better term, consumer 4K. The exclusion of 4K in the ATV just seems odd. Sort of like the previous holdout on 1080p. I'm sure they have their reasons.
For me, and others looking at it through way more qaulified eyes, FPS is more important than resolution. It looks better, that's why "it would need to", or least it would be nice if it did 60FPS. What's the point in a crisp resolution is the motion wasn't completey smooth?
Take Halo 5 on the Xbox One:
http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/15/9329901/halo-5-resolution-progressive-60fps-1080p
FPS > Resolution.
I am hoping for a Real Racing 4 release - locked in at a lovely buttery smooth 60 FPS. That would be sweet. So yes, I prefer the fact they have gone for a good experience at 1080p rather than ticking a spec box saying it's 4K, but not really all the things 4K entails (like Amazon did).
Obviously there is no right or wrong answer. You have to weigh up your user base (4K TV ownership, internet speeds**), what's technically possible (SoC that can power a 4K UI at all times), the content available (Netflix and Amazon Prime not much else?) and balance that with running a profitable business.
That's all part of the design process. I wish it was as simple as you make it sound. But the reality is way more complex.
** For example I read the Uk has about 20% of households that have the necessary internet speeds for 4K streaming. How many of that 20% also have 4K TVs?
I literally giggled at the first line of your quote (bolded portion). No one (but you) is arguing Resolution vs frame rate. You're also way too hung up on 60 fps as if the ATV was designed as a gaming machine. For the majority of the content that would be streamed through the ATV 60 fps is irrelevant. Movies, videos, and photos don't require or need 60 fps. That's why the Fire TV and the Roku 4 don't support 4K at 60 fps. They don't need it for the majority of content that will be streamed. Your entire argument is based on gaming specs. Even your example of RR4 doesn't support your assertions the way you want it to. A lovely buttery smooth 60 fps at 1080p racing experience on RR4 wouldn't be affected because the ATV had 4K capabilities. <-- This is an assumption of mine. If you know something differently, please let me know.
We can agree there's no right or wrong answer. But your reasoning is flawed. None of those reasons gives an adequate answer to why Apple left 4K off the ATV.
4K TV ownership - low yes, but growing. Those that own them probably want devices that can deliver 4K content now. The ATV can't. So they get Fire TV or Roku4.
Internet speeds - Those who can take advantage, do. Those who cant, don't. It's always been than way. It was that way with 1080p. Not adding the capability because some can't use it makes no sense.
4K UI at all times -
Why would the UI require 4K at all times? What device has a 4K UI at all times?Content - limited but growing. I'd bet amateur content will outstrip professional with Apple giving the iPhone 4K capabilities. The iPhone but not the ATV? WTH. Professional content will continue to grow as well.
Running a profitable business - Keane, even you have to admit this point is silly. We're talking about Apple here. The profit from a month of iPhone sales has probably outstripped the profit from the history of the ATV.
I've never made the argument of complexity or simplicity. You're trying to do so, but the arguments you're using don't bolster your point. To wit:
Apple: "4K - gotta look at who can view it on a 4K TV, who has the internet speeds that can handle the bandwith, can we keep that 4K UI up and running 24/7, and we ain't got no content. Dammit man! Soooooo, in spite of all that, let's add 4K capabilities across our product line up... 'cept the ATV. That's gotta have 4K at 60 fps. You know, cuz butter and all."
/not qualified.
[
Their flagship iPhones can record 4K video, one would have thought that their flagship new apple tv would then be able to display that 4K video that was taken with the iPhone 6s to one's 65" Samsung or whatever brand 2160p televsion.
There is really no excuse the why new ATV does not have 4K support out the gate.
Their flagship iPhones can record 4K video, one would have thought that their flagship new apple tv would then be able to display that 4K video that was taken with the iPhone 6s to one's 65" Samsung or whatever brand 2160p televsion.
There is really no excuse the why new ATV does not have 4K support out the gate.
Apple today updated its iMovie app for iOS devices to version 2.2.1, fixing several bugs and adding 4K support for the iPad Air 2 following yesterday's release of iOS 9.1. An iPad Air 2 running iOS 9.1 can now be used to edit and share 4K resolution videos.
iMovie first began supporting 4K video editing with the 2.2 update released in September after the launch of the iPhone 6s and the iPhone 6s Plus. The two new iPhones are the first Apple devices that are capable of capturing 4K video, and along with the iPad Pro and the iPad Air 2, they're also the only devices that can edit 4K video.
Today's 2.2.1 iMovie update also includes several fixes for bugs that were discovered after the major 2.2 September update.iMovie can be downloaded from the App Store for $4.99. [Direct Link]
Article Link: iMovie Updated With 4K Support for iPad Air 2 on iOS 9.1
First up let's clarify, I'm not trying to side one way or another. Apple is a huge business, and the Apple TV is multi-faceted now. I'm merely debating why it's not as black and white as "iPhones support 4K recording (not even enabled by default) so the Apple TV should support 4K". As I mentioned in my first reply to you if all the Apple TV did was stream media, maybe they could've - but it isn't, and they haven't.
Also, me as a tech guy - I'd have been happy with part 4K (for media) and part 1080p for apps that can't support smooth 4k. But this is Apple, they market their devices in a specific way. I just can't see them offering 4K, not having their iTunes content available in that res.
Remember the Apple TV is part gaming machine, I could easily spin this and say you're downplaying that aspect too much - we have no idea what the long term plans are.
4K TV ownership is obviously going to grow. But let's look at the available data, Netflix had this to say last year (http://blog.netflix.com/2014/05/netflix-now-streaming-in-ultra-hd-4k.html):
"Market researchers predict that consumers will buy a million Ultra HD 4K TVs this year and even more in subsequent years. We expect it will likely take up to 5 years before Ultra HD 4K becomes mainstream; when most of the TVs on store shelves are Ultra HD 4K."
So in about 2019 the majority of people (in major markets?) will have a 4K set.
And you're right not adding a feature because some can't use it make's no sense. However your wording masks the truth. In this case it's a feature that only a small percentage can take advantage of. And that makes little business sense.
Internet speeds are on the whole way too slow for 4K streaming to be viable for most. Again a Netflix source, as they are in a great position to know this market: http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/ - current averages in major Netflix markets is ~4Mbps. That would need to quadruple to hit minimum 4K requirements, and improve 6 fold to get close to recommended 4K speeds.
The iPhone profits are irrelevant, if you follow Apple they don't seem to play the subsidisation game across hardware. The way they structure their financial reports too, it's as if they treat each line of products as a business in itself. They could all stand independently.
There are so many high level pieces at play. If I pretend to be ever so reliable market analyst, my wild guess would be a 2017 or 18 launch of the next Apple TV with 4K support. That makes sense in terms of user base (TV ownership, better internet speeds), available content (more than just Netflix, and Amazon if they want to be on Apple TV - most likely iTunes catalogue would have to be on board) and technical (SoC to power it, 4K specs mature). But that's just my unqualified guess.