Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Rigby

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2008
6,222
10,168
San Jose, CA

uid15

Suspended
Mar 9, 2015
1,186
637
As far as currently purchased TV sets are concerned, you are way off. In 2015 about 25% of TVs sold will be UHD models. Next year the share is expected to rise to 40%.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/...-40-percent-total-shipment-area-2016-ihs-says

"Will be" != "is". 40% is a VERY long way from 99%, and so what? No one is going to "upgrade" from 1080p to 4K like they did from DVD to HD (a FAR bigger upgrade, and substantially more worthwhile), when they can't see the difference (seriously, the MR forums is not a realistic metric of the average person) and when there's SO little 4K content broadcast yet.
 

Rigby

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2008
6,222
10,168
San Jose, CA
"Will be" != "is". 40% is a VERY long way from 99%,
It's also far away from 1%, which seems to be your claim. And I bet the percentage is substantially higher among enthusiasts that are likely to buy a streaming box.
No one is going to "upgrade" from 1080p to 4K like they did from DVD to HD (a FAR bigger upgrade, and substantially more worthwhile)
So what. Adoption will rise quickly due to the natural upgrade cycle. There are already tens of millions of UHD-capable sets out there. The Apple TV will look outdated to all the people who will buy shiny new UHD TVs during the holidays.
when there's SO little 4K content broadcast yet.
People who buy streaming boxes obviously look beyond just broadcast (they may even be cable cutters). But the main reason for the success of UHD TVs is that they are barely more expensive than 1080p sets. If you buy a TV >45" today, there is very little reason not to choose UHD (in fact I'd say it would be pretty stupid to go with 1080p at this point).
 

uid15

Suspended
Mar 9, 2015
1,186
637
It's also far away from 1%, which seems to be your claim. And I bet the percentage is substantially higher among enthusiasts that are likely to buy a streaming box.
So what. Adoption will rise quickly due to the natural upgrade cycle. There are already tens of millions of UHD-capable sets out there. The Apple TV will look outdated to all the people who will buy shiny new UHD TVs during the holidays.
People who buy streaming boxes obviously look beyond just broadcast (they may even be cable cutters). But the main reason for the success of UHD TVs is that they are barely more expensive than 1080p sets. If you buy a TV >45", there is very little reason not to choose UHD.

Okay. That's nice :)

I'm out of this thread, better things to be doing, thanks for the chat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thepixelpusher

thepixelpusher

macrumors 6502
Jan 2, 2015
346
178
Dimension C-137
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.

And there is the problem. A person buys a 4K TV thinking that it supports high end content only to find out that it doesn't fully support some standard and gets less than that window to reality look they wanted.

Okay. That's nice :)

I'm out of this thread, better things to be doing, thanks for the chat.

Don't blame you. Some claims here are without facts to back them up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thepixelpusher

macrumors 6502
Jan 2, 2015
346
178
Dimension C-137
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.)

Totally agree and I've been saying the same thing in this thread. No one is getting the crisp clean 4K videos on their 4K set at home that you see at Best Buy. That is a large demo video file made from a high end camera. Your 4K Netflix won't look like that.

Sit back from the TV at a normal 4-6 feet away in a smaller room and you'll be hard pressed to see the difference from a really good 1080p LED TV vs the 4K TV. Yeah some on here say they can say they can, but I have better than 20/20 vision and it's negligible. And, right now 4K TV's are a premium over the 1080p TV's even with Black Friday specials going on.

I'm not against 4K. I just think it's largely unnecessary and largely indistinguishable for a good 1080p LED TV. I'll buy a new 1080p TV this Black Friday instead and get a new 4K TV several years later when it's more affordable and the features of 60 fps are on all models.
 

richardamp

macrumors member
Jan 18, 2013
43
37
Totally agree and I've been saying the same thing in this thread. No one is getting the crisp clean 4K videos on their 4K set at home that you see at Best Buy. That is a large demo video file made from a high end camera. Your 4K Netflix won't look like that.

Sit back from the TV at a normal 4-6 feet away in a smaller room and you'll be hard pressed to see the difference from a really good 1080p LED TV vs the 4K TV. Yeah some on here say they can say they can, but I have better than 20/20 vision and it's negligible. And, right now 4K TV's are a premium over the 1080p TV's even with Black Friday specials going on.

I'm not against 4K. I just think it's largely unnecessary and largely indistinguishable for a good 1080p LED TV. I'll buy a new 1080p TV this Black Friday instead and get a new 4K TV several years later when it's more affordable and the features of 60 fps are on all models.

Well said. I wouldn't call 4K a marketing gimmick, but it's close. Something of relatively no perceptible value just to sell more TVs.

What people should really be excited about it OLED. That's a game changer. I'd take a 1080p OLED over a 4K LED 100 times out of 100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuddyRich

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
662
2,968
Okay. That's nice :)

I'm out of this thread, better things to be doing, thanks for the chat.

Probably a good move considering your posts which lack any basis in fact. 4K isn't just about a resolution standard either. It's about the color.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/4k-uhd-color-space-gamut-frame-rate

http://hometheaterreview.com/the-colors-the-thing-that-will-make-4k-so-amazing/

What people should really be excited about it OLED. That's a game changer. I'd take a 1080p OLED over a 4K LED 100 times out of 100.

OLED is a display technology, 4K is a resolution. OLED has 4K resolution. Your post makes no sense.
 
Last edited:

BarcelonaPaul

Suspended
Jul 1, 2015
185
243
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 :apple: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 :apple: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 4K:apple:TV so they can play their own 4K videos on their own 4K TVs means a 4K :apple: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 :apple: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 :rolleyes:. 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 :apple: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?


So totally agree. 4K TVs are everywhere here in the UK. I've been shooting 4K videos since 2013. Today VIMEO started selling the 4K download to a surfing film that I wanted - View from a blue moon. Filmed using the world's best RED 6K and 4K cameras, I really wanted a way to watch this on my 4K TV. So this has for me, totally proved that as from today, the ATV4 is totally out of date. I'm really surprised the Apple would do this. I'm also surprised that it's the first Apple product that was made super fat instead of being thinner! I've also edited my iPhone 6S footage using Final Cut Pro on my MacBook in 4K so i'd loved to have streamed it to an ATV in 4K - not possible. Seriously bad - very embarrassing for a brand new product to be so dated on its late launch :(

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/viewfromabluemoon4k
 

Chill2

macrumors newbie
Oct 26, 2015
26
14
Brisbane
It is confounding and some what ironic that the company that changed expectations for computer and phone screen resolution with retina would be late to the 4K party. Even if it's mostly marketing hype, it does sell equipment and ATV sakes need a boost.

The fact that the hardware can easily support 4K and that other Apple devices and record it makes it even stranger in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StumpyBloke

mchoffa

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2008
832
52
Asheville, NC
I actually didn't care about the 4K aspect when I ordered my Apple TV.

...but then I saw an incredible deal on a 65" 4k TV at Best Buy, one that is only 2" thick and mounts almost flush to the wall, as oppose to the 7 year old behemoth Samsung 52" that stuck out a total of 10" from my wall. Now I've got a bigger TV that's 4K, and the ATV's 1080p looks rather crappy on it. Until a 4K ATV comes out, I will probably use Netflix in the WebOS interface (which, by the way, is actually a great TV interface in my opinion) just so I can watch the 4k content, even though it's limited.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.