New Apple TV Obsolete - No 4K

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You seem to believe "if you build it, they will come" if networks, studios and pay tv providers were just waiting on hardware to start offering 4K content, it would be here already. 4K TVs are all over the place but the content is still sparse.

How would those Studios get their 4K content to those TVs? What is their distribution platform that can reach the masses so it can be a profitable venture? That's where Apple could have delivered. Apple will sell a boatload of units of this "4" anyway. I'm buying it myself, as I think TVs are among the very best products that Apple makes. The App store and just being something new and relatively cheap from Apple guarantees a large volume of sales. Millions of these in homes would have been the most enticing, highest-profit-potential distribution platform to motivate the efforts to roll out and sell 4K.

Instead, content owners wait for a mainstream platform. What will that be? Now it looks like it will be 4K Blu Ray discs coming as soon as this winter. Too bad. I'd much rather have seen Apple lead us all there instead of Apple's AV competitors getting to rule the 4K platform until Apple finally gets around to the TV5 "now with 4K".

Since they've already embraced 4K in just about everything else... and since Apple people themselves will be shooting 4K on their own iPhones... a 4KTV so they can play their own 4K videos on their own 4K TVs means a 4K TV is coming. It was the same with 1080p. New iPhones could shoot 1080p, then new iPads inherited the same ability and then Apple rolled out an TV3 "now with 1080p". It is inevitable. I personally expect it with the launch of iPads with iPhones new camera as soon as next Fall or about 3-6 months thereafter (much like the "3" sequence of events).

In many posts, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want 4K and thus no one else should want it either . Congratulations. Maybe we can enjoy another 3-4 years before the "5" might take the next step... much like Apple was about last to make this final link in the chain work at 1080p too. Once again, a 4K-capable TV wouldn't force anything on you at all: you could still opt for 1080p or 720p or SD files from iTunes, you could still connect it to your 1080p or 720p HDTV and it would play those formats at their maximum, apps & games for this box could still target 1080p or 720p max resolution when they couldn't play well by targeting 4K and so on. There would be NO DOWNSIDE at all for the anti-4K crowd, nothing new they would have to buy, nothing working now that they would have to throw out. It would just be hardware capable of a little more- just like everything new that Apple rolls out.

What it would have done is help those that do desire an Apple "just works" link between shooting 4K on iPhones to playing that 4K on their 4K TVs to get what they want too. But of course that- and those people- are completely wrong because they want something out of this little box that you don't want. Maybe all consumers everywhere should just check in with you on all new tech?

 

[2010mini]

How would those Studios get their 4K content to those TVs? What is their distribution platform that can reach the masses so it can be a profitable venture? That's where Apple could have delivered. Apple will sell a boatload of units of this "4" anyway. I'm buying it myself, as I think TVs are among the very best products that Apple makes. The App store and just being something new and relatively cheap from Apple guarantees a large volume of sales. Millions of these in homes would have been the most enticing, highest-profit-potential distribution platform to motivate the efforts to roll out and sell 4K.

Instead, content owners wait for a mainstream platform. What will that be? Now it looks like it will be 4K Blu Ray discs coming as soon as this winter. Too bad. I'd much rather have seen Apple lead us all there instead of Apple's AV competitors getting to rule the 4K platform until Apple finally gets around to the TV5 "now with 4K".

Since they've already embraced 4K in just about everything else... and since Apple people themselves will be shooting 4K on their own iPhones... a 4KTV so they can play their own 4K videos on their own 4K TVs means a 4K TV is coming. It was the same with 1080p. New iPhones could shoot 1080p, then new iPads inherited the same ability and then Apple rolled out an TV3 "now with 1080p". It is inevitable. I personally expect it with the launch of iPads with iPhones new camera as soon as next Fall or about 3-6 months thereafter (much like the "3" sequence of events).

In many posts, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want 4K and thus no one else should want it either . Congratulations. Maybe we can enjoy another 3-4 years before the "5" might take the next step... much like Apple was about last to make this final link in the chain work at 1080p too. Once again, a 4K-capable TV wouldn't force anything on you at all: you could still opt for 1080p or 720p or SD files from iTunes, you could still connect it to your 1080p or 720p HDTV and it would play those formats at their maximum, apps & games for this box could still target 1080p or 720p max resolution when they couldn't play well by targeting 4K and so on. There would be NO DOWNSIDE at all for the anti-4K crowd, nothing new they would have to buy, nothing working now that they would have to throw out. It would just be hardware capable of a little more- just like everything new that Apple rolls out.

What it would have done is help those that do desire an Apple "just works" link between shooting 4K on iPhones to playing that 4K on their 4K TVs to get what they want too. But of course that- and those people- are completely wrong because they want something out of this little box that you don't want. Maybe all consumers everywhere should just check in with you on all new tech?

Oh I do want a 4K TV. But at this point in time it makes no sense. Content owners don't wait for technology to be there to broadcast. It usually is a consortium of FCC, Networks and Manufactures that come up with a standard and timeline as to when this new standard will be implemented. As was the case with color TV broadcasts and DTV, EDTV and HDTV broadcasts.

the proper way for Apple to offer 4K will be to sign agreements with all the major studios/networks to offer 4K content through the Apple TV. And also sign agreements with ISPs to give priority access from Apple just like it does to their own services. Meaning this traffic would be on their managed network and not count against customer's caps. (highly unlikely, but I can dream)

 

[Michael CM1]

And by "a premium" you mean "through the ass to the point of there being skid-marks on your credit card"...

... like so many new technologies, 4K is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. Not enough people care. It was the same with 1080p, and it will all happen again when 4K is long-since dead and gone. Expecting the present to be the future can only lead to great disappointment - don't put yourselves through it.

It's a great solutions for the problem of larger screens with no more pixels. Like 55 inches and above for people sitting REALLY close. It definitely has its place, especially if you've seen some REALLY large screens -- I saw a 125-inch projection that could've used it. But for the masses, it's at best barely better.

I'm looking at the screensaver on my new Apple TV now. It looks awesome!

 

[2crazy]

Don't get too excited about the new Apple TV as it is already out of date. I live in Canada, and Rogers the biggest broadcaster in Canada announced last week that they will be broadcasting MLB, some NHL, Netflix and Shomi ( similar to Netflix ) in 4K. They are the first in the world to do this but more will of course follow shortly. The new Apple TV does not do 4K, so why buy yesterday's technology.
Also dropping the digital audio is a big mistake.
Check out the new Roku 4, it does everything and is cheaper

Oh Steve we miss your vision

There is almost no 4k content out yet. Who cares?

 

[TheMacApple]

The biggest issue with 4K isn't that there is a lack of 4K programming, it's that 720p looks like absolute crap on a 4K panel. ESPN, FOX, ABC, MLB, just too many 720p native broadcasters right now. If you've never seen 720p on a 4K HDTV you're in for a rude awakening. It's awful.

Apple could always add 4K down the road to a next-gen Apple TV, but right now there is nothing to indicate that 4K is anything more than 3D circa 2009. Another gimmick to get people to buy HDTV's today based on some future-state that likely won't exist.

BJ

Must be your tv or provider. I watch 720 you tube and it looks great. The newer 4K tvs make dirt look good

 

[TheMacApple]

There is almost no 4k content out yet. Who cares?

Direct tv has it. Others are geared up for early 16 release. Right round the corner

 

[boltjames]

Must be your tv or provider. I watch 720 you tube and it looks great. The newer 4K tvs make dirt look good

Live sports, like NFL games and NHL games, look horrible. The screen dooring is atrocious on a 4K HDTV.

BJ

 

[TheMacApple]

Live sports, like NFL games and NHL games, look horrible. The screen dooring is atrocious on a 4K HDTV.

BJ

Look good on my screens. I have Sony ultra4ks. They even have a button to press for sports

 

[pmcdunnough]

H.265 licensing is a mess and it's not even clear which codec will win out for higher dev streaming. Apple was wise to avoid the current 4K chaotic situation. So what if you lose 1000 people, 100 who need it and 900 who are into specs' bragging rights?

 

[hsnsky]

Why would you sacrifice video quality on 95% of current content for 5% 4K content? Sure, I am always for future proofing your electronic devices but in the case of broadcast television IMHO it would be best to wait. Current 4K TVs would have to upscale and interpolate your current non 4K content in order to "fill up" the additional pixels. However, 4K is simply beautiful and I can see why some would jump on the boat regardless.

Nice read for those interested: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/upscaled-1080P-vs-4K

 

[thepixelpusher]

Apple might have the ability to do 4K in a software upgrade for the AppleTV 4 device or may introduce it on the next AppleTV 5. We're talking about 4K that is not readily available. The 4K out there varies wildly in compression quality.

If Apple has 4K only on the AppleTV 5 I wouldn't think twice to pay for another device.

To put it in perspective the AppleTV 4 is just slightly more than the cost of HD cable TV for 1 month!

 

[iphonetravel]

Agree with a few others here. 4K is a great new technology but still has so many moving parts yet to resolve before it really hits the mainstream.

H.265 is not yet mainstream and for 4K to really take off, this is pretty much a necessity. Also HDMI 2.0a is still pretty new with many current 4K TVs not yet equipped with this higher standard so can't play video at the higher rates (50-60 fps). Cheap 4K TVs obviously exist, but none of them have either HDMI 2.0 nor H.265 support.

Finally the 4K content we all want is only just starting to be created.... Most mainstream broadcasters have hardly made the switch to HD yet alone 4K. Here in the UK for example, we only have one broadcaster (BT Sports) pushing content out in 4K, with none of the other major players (e.g. BBC, ITV etc) having come to the party.

Until all the above issues are resolved, I will personally wait. Consequently I think Apple probably made the right call for the meantime. Hopefully the next 24-48 months will see things mature to a point where 4K will make sense. At that point I will upgrade.

 

[thisismyusername]

Also HDMI 2.0a is still pretty new with many current 4K TVs not yet equipped with this higher standard so can't play video at the higher rates (50-60 fps).

HDMI 2.0a is for HDR. Only HDMI 2.0 is required for 60fps.

Cheap 4K TVs obviously exist, but none of them have either HDMI 2.0 nor H.265 support.

I wouldn't say that's true anymore. Lots of cheaper 2015 4K TVs have HDMI 2.0 and H.265 support. For example, the Vizio M-Series supports both (only on 1 port though) and that's a very reasonably priced 4K TV that got pretty good reviews.

Now, if you said "Cheap 4K TVs obviously exist, but none of them support HDR", I'd agree with you. You tend to only find that on the higher-end 4K TVs.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Gruber's latest podcast with Adam Lisagor had a great talk about this also.

Even the latest of TV & Movies are shot in 4k, but that's just for editing headroom. The 4k is really there for them to be able to crop and tweak the shot and still have usable pixels for the ultimate 1080 we are looking at. Additionally, graphics and effects just have way too much overhead to be pushing 4k from capture to finished product right now.

All makes sense to me and it was smart to avoid this right now on Apple's part. Let it all sort itself out and push a 4k ATV in 2017.

 

[iphonetravel]

HDMI 2.0a is for HDR. Only HDMI 2.0 is required for 60fps.

I wouldn't say that's true anymore. Lots of cheaper 2015 4K TVs have HDMI 2.0 and H.265 support. For example, the Vizio M-Series supports both (only on 1 port though) and that's a very reasonably priced 4K TV that got pretty good reviews.

Now, if you said "Cheap 4K TVs obviously exist, but none of them support HDR", I'd agree with you. You tend to only find that on the higher-end 4K TVs.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, I think that users only get benefit with 4K is they go the whole hog and go for 60fps and a big screen. H.265 support is poor out there in the wider world. Even Apple could have decided to use H.265 in their ATV4 and have not gone ahead with it as the encoder can still be used for HD content. In fact even the new FireTV 2 with its 4K support does not have H.265, although Roku 4 does. I would therefore argue that with poor support support for both 60fps and H.265 needed to help with reducing file sizes to a more manageable level, 4K is not yet mainstream enough.

All of this will clear up in the next 2-3 years. Until then, I'm reticent to upgrade hardware where I don't have full end-to-end support for all of my devices. For many of us, true HD support was only achieved really in the last 2 years or so.

 

[whodatrr]

This played into my only buying one new ATV, instead of the 4 that I could have. Though I don;t yet have a 4k TV, I figure I'll get on win the next year or so. Then, I'll upgrade my previous gen ATVs, as I roll out 4k ones.

 

[iphonetravel]

This played into my only buying one new ATV, instead of the 4 that I could have. Though I don;t yet have a 4k TV, I figure I'll get on win the next year or so. Then, I'll upgrade my previous gen ATVs, as I roll out 4k ones.

I think that was a smart move. Forgetting the technical issues, there is such little content out there at the moment. The 4K fudge offered by Netflix and Amazon at the moment is just that - a fudge. Here in the UK, BT is now offering a streamed sports channel for 4K and 60 fps which is probably the first offering out there that makes some sense. That said, it requires a 30 Mbps which is faster than what many of us can get in our local areas. Despite my own location, I cannot get that speed on BT's network, which is somewhat ironic considering where they are located in respect to my own home.

 

[thisismyusername]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, I think that users only get benefit with 4K is they go the whole hog and go for 60fps and a big screen. H.265 support is poor out there in the wider world. Even Apple could have decided to use H.265 in their ATV4 and have not gone ahead with it as the encoder can still be used for HD content. In fact even the new FireTV 2 with its 4K support does not have H.265, although Roku 4 does. I would therefore argue that with poor support support for both 60fps and H.265 needed to help with reducing file sizes to a more manageable level, 4K is not yet mainstream enough.

Perhaps but I wasn't commenting on 4K/H.265/etc support in general nor was I arguing that 4K is mainstream. All I did was correct you on your use of HDMI 2.0a and comment on the part specifically about cheap TVs (i.e. your sentence I quoted).

 

[Rigby]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, I think that users only get benefit with 4K is they go the whole hog and go for 60fps and a big screen. H.265 support is poor out there in the wider world. Even Apple could have decided to use H.265 in their ATV4 and have not gone ahead with it as the encoder can still be used for HD content. In fact even the new FireTV 2 with its 4K support does not have H.265, although Roku 4 does.

That's incorrect. The Fire TV supports H.265, and Amazon will soon start to stream even 1080p in H.265 on supported devices. H.265 is also available in open source software such as Kodi, is widely supported in recent graphics hardware, is the basis for UHD Blu-ray, and is used by every single service that delivers UHD video today with the exception of Youtube. I have no idea why you would think that H.265 support is poor. It's pretty much the only game in town.

 

[iphonetravel]

That's incorrect. The Fire TV supports H.265, and Amazon will soon start to stream even 1080p in H.265 on supported devices. H.265 is also available in open source software such as Kodi, is widely supported in recent graphics hardware, is the basis for UHD Blu-ray, and is used by every single service that delivers UHD video today with the exception of Youtube. I have no idea why you would think that H.265 support is poor. It's pretty much the only game in town.

You are indeed correct. Just checked the new specs for FireTV 2 and it does support H.265 - I had read elsewhere when it came out that this was missing.

I would disagree that H.265 support is big out there. Far from it in fact, although it is coming to more devices. Quite a number of older 4K devices don't have H.265 support, although I will admit that this has changed dramatically in the last year.

I suggest you read the following article when you get a moment:

http://svgeurope.org/blog/headlines...s-first-ever-uhd-wireless-links-for-bt-sport/

The last section of the above article is key to the point about H.265 and reinforces my end-to-end comments.

 

[Rigby]

Quite a number of older 4K devices don't have H.265 support

For example?

 

[iphonetravel]

For example?

Sony XBR-84X900 for example.

 

[Rigby]

Sony XBR-84X900 for example.

Uhm, that is a "dumb TV" without streaming function?

 

[dojoman]

There is almost no 4k content out yet. Who cares?

you must be living under a rock. there are plenty of 4K on Netflix and Amazon. 3 seasons of House of Cards are in 4k.

 

[uid15]

Don't get too excited about the new Apple TV as it is already out of date. I live in Canada, and Rogers the biggest broadcaster in Canada announced last week that they will be broadcasting MLB, some NHL, Netflix and Shomi ( similar to Netflix ) in 4K. They are the first in the world to do this but more will of course follow shortly. The new Apple TV does not do 4K, so why buy yesterday's technology.
Also dropping the digital audio is a big mistake.
Check out the new Roku 4, it does everything and is cheaper

Oh Steve we miss your vision

Please explain to the world how Apple TV 4 having 1080p - a ubiquitous international standard, and one which 99% of all currently purchased/installed-for-years High Def TV sets have as a maximum resolution, means that Apple TV not having 4K means it is "obsolete"? 4K is the fringe case here; only the technology nerds have EVERYTHING in 4K, but what's the point having all this 4K technology in your home if barely anyone is broadcasting in 4K? Additionally, the "average" man can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p from a sensible screen viewing distance (ask Scott Wilkinson, a HDTV and home cinema industry expert from AVS forums - he has discussed this issue extensively with Leo Laporte over the summer, on TWiT's "The Tech Guy" show, and he concurs.)

Are you prepared to contact the press and issue a statement to be broadcast, telling the owners of 1080p equipment, which they are extremely satisfied with, that their purchase is "obsolete" now? You know, when you learn the skill of seeing the technology the masses buy and use OUTSIDE OF A TECHNOLOGY ENTHUSIAST'S BIASED BUBBLE, you come to realise that the "everyman" barely thinks about this stuff, whereas people like us think about them exponentially MORE, in the same way that a mechanic thinks about cars all the time and develops irrational, unbalanced obsessive opinions about things that - all in all - REALLY are utterly ridiculously over-thought about and meaningless in real life.

Whilst you're pumping out daft, sensationalist threads, consider this:

PS: We don't all sit on our sofa all day and all night "binge" watching TV. Some (MANY) people are actually outside A LOT of the time enjoying the ACTUAL, PHYSICAL WORLD which God created for us to enjoy, and that's free of charge, healthy and far better for you than over-stimulating yourself on screens 18 hrs a day. I watch content however it is available, sometimes even in 240p or 480p, because it's what the subject matter is about that I focus on, not pixel counting with a magnifying glass. There's more to life, and when your life has meaning and you search for more than what you can buy and consume, you end up REALLY not caring that much about this crap.