New Apple TV Obsolete - No 4K

[Mac'nCheese]

Sigh...... When the FCC forced terrestrial networks to switch to digital it was for HD Digital. That was the whole point of changing to digital.

What I am trying to get across to you is that it takes more than tv manufactures and early adopters to make the networks change broadcast standards.

If you want 4K content now, start lobbying the FCC to change the standard

Wrong again. The whole point of switching to digital was to free up spectrum. There was absolutely no mandate to switch from SD to HD. That's why the mandate was only for over the air stations and not for cable networks.



Clearing up resources
The most important reason to make the switch to a digital signal is because it will free up valuable portions of the broadcast spectrum, which can then be used for other purposes, such as advanced wireless services and for public and safety services. Plus, networks and TV stations can stop spending the time, money, effort, and electricity doing double duty and transmitting both analog and digital signals.

 

[2010mini]

Wrong again. The whole point of switching to digital was to free up spectrum. There was absolutely no mandate to switch from SD to HD. That's why the mandate was only for over the air stations and not for cable networks.



Clearing up resources
The most important reason to make the switch to a digital signal is because it will free up valuable portions of the broadcast spectrum, which can then be used for other purposes, such as advanced wireless services and for public and safety services. Plus, networks and TV stations can stop spending the time, money, effort, and electricity doing double duty and transmitting both analog and digital signals.

We are going to do this dance again? Ok here we go.....

Back in the late 80s the FCC began the framework for HDTV broadcasts by forming the grand alliance. They were tasked with developing the American Digital Television standards: SDTV, EDTV AND HDTV. Now the FCC mandate for networks to switch was back in 2004 I believe. But by 1998 HDTV standard was completed.

 

[moxxham]

Just saying; Apple, but those slow motion wallpapers in 4K would look incredibly amazing!

 

[zachlegomaniac]

Probably. Who knows. 99.9% of TVs are still HD. Who would the 4K audience even be?

I, too, am not worried about it not having 4k. My wife and I don't plan on upgrading our TV anytime soon so it won't affect us in any way. I was just wondering if anyone had a direct answer to my two questions above, but I see where you're coming from.

I'm looking forward to getting it on launch day. I read here on MR in an interview with Tim Cook within the past month that he said they never hold anything back (as far as implementing new technology goes), and was just wondering how that applies here.

 

[zachlegomaniac]

Roku has a 4k player coming out for $129.99. If they can do it with their resources at that price, I would think Apple could do it for what they are charging ($149 and $199). The Roku also has an optical port:

https://www.roku.com/products/compare

Yeah. That's what I don't get. If Roku can include it for that price point it seems like it would be simple enough for Apple to do. I understand the, "It doesn't matter right now, anyways," mentality, but if I did have a 4k TV I'd be a little bummed as I'd buy the Apple TV anyways. I do prefer their products over their competitors.

It seems like there are some fans of Apple products who say, "Why would they include it at this point in time," and others, like me, who ask, "Why wouldn't they just include it?"

I'm still looking forward to picking one up a couple of weeks from now!

 

[TrueBlou]

Yeah. That's what I don't get. If Roku can include it for that price point it seems like it would be simple enough for Apple to do. I understand the, "It doesn't matter right now, anyways," mentality, but if I did have a 4k TV I'd be a little bummed as I'd buy the Apple TV anyways. I do prefer their products over their competitors.

It seems like there are some fans of Apple products who say, "Why would they include it at this point in time," and others, like me, who ask, "Why wouldn't they just include it?"

I'm still looking forward to picking one up a couple of weeks from now!

Because it's typically Apple. They have a pretty good history of holding things back to make selling points of the next revision of hardware.

This time round the focus is going to be the AppStore on Apple TV. Next time it'll be (in best Apple marketing voice) an all new more powerful Apple TV to deliver greater fidelity for games and apps. With 4K playback for richer, more immersive movies and tv shows.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

We are going to do this dance again? Ok here we go.....

Back in the late 80s the FCC began the framework for HDTV broadcasts by forming the grand alliance. They were tasked with developing the American Digital Television standards: SDTV, EDTV AND HDTV. Now the FCC mandate for networks to switch was back in 2004 I believe. But by 1998 HDTV standard was completed.

I understand. You are one of those people who is never wrong. All I said was the mandate was to go digital. NoT HD. YOu then said that digital and HD is the same thing. You were wrong about that. You then changed what you claimed to mean by saying switching to digital was to make sure that tv stations went HD. That's also not true. The mandate to digital was to free up spectrum space. Now you say that they were tasked to develop standards. Fine. That doesn't mean that you were correct about the mandate or digital and HD are the same thing or the reason for going digital was to make sure everyone went HD.
Sigh.... Dance by yourself brah....

 

[boltjames]

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

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

 

[Uofmtiger]

I understand. You are one of those people who is never wrong. All I said was the mandate was to go digital. NoT HD. YOu then said that digital and HD is the same thing. You were wrong about that. You then changed what you claimed to mean by saying switching to digital was to make sure that tv stations went HD. That's also not true. The mandate to digital was to free up spectrum space. Now you say that they were tasked to develop standards. Fine. That doesn't mean that you were correct about the mandate or digital and HD are the same thing or the reason for going digital was to make sure everyone went HD.
Sigh.... Dance by yourself brah....

Just a case that supports this fact, CBS started going to HD around the year 2002. CSI was on board early. By comparison, Big Brother didn't convert to HD until 2014. If the Digital mandate was for ~2009, it still took Big Brother another 5 years to switch.

The comparisons of 4K with 3D are comparing apples to oranges. The problem with 3D was the glasses and the fact that it made some people nauseous. 4K doesn't suffer from those issues. Also, iPhones didn't record and edit 3D and the iMac wasn't 3D.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Just a case that supports this fact, CBS started going to HD around the year 2002. CSI was on board early. By comparison, Big Brother didn't convert to HD until 2014. If the Digital mandate was for ~2009, it still took Big Brother another 5 years to switch.

The comparisons of 4K with 3D are comparing apples to oranges. The problem with 3D was the glasses and the fact that it made some people nauseous. 4K doesn't suffer from those issues. Also, iPhones didn't record and edit 3D and the iMac wasn't 3D.

I think 4K might fail for networks and tv makers because people are sick and tired of buying new ****. Going to HD was one thing. It was a huge leap in quality, both for video and audio. And flat screens also came out roughly the same time, so people didn't mind getting rid of their bulky, impossible to move sets to get bOth HD and a thin, light screen. But how many people are ready to buy new tvs again just within a few years of buying all HD stuff? What do you get in addition to 4K, a curved screen sometimes. Who cares? Before HD, you only bought a new set when the old one broke pretty much. Add to that, so many network don't even send out full HD anyway and with compression, you're aren't really getting the full HD experience. Just work on that and leave 4K out of it. IMHO of course.

 

[zhenya]

I understand the frustration, but there are a lot of good reasons to leave 4k out of the ATV right now. As stated repeatedly, there are very few 4k tv's in circulation right now. Adoption will be slow for the next couple of years as the change is nowhere near as dramatic as going from SD to HD in the first place.

Second, if the ATV were 4k, Apple would have been compelled to offer their entire streaming library in 4k - but most of it isn't available in that resolution at all - and that which is would be a tiny subset of the overall catalog. Apple's 1080p content is still heavily compressed (as is everyone else's). I'd FAR rather see them reduce that compression before upping the resolution again.

In short, Apple will release 4k support when the market is ready for it or there is a compelling reason for them to push the market towards wider adoption. That time is not right now.

 

[2010mini]

I understand. You are one of those people who is never wrong. All I said was the mandate was to go digital. NoT HD. YOu then said that digital and HD is the same thing. You were wrong about that. You then changed what you claimed to mean by saying switching to digital was to make sure that tv stations went HD. That's also not true. The mandate to digital was to free up spectrum space. Now you say that they were tasked to develop standards. Fine. That doesn't mean that you were correct about the mandate or digital and HD are the same thing or the reason for going digital was to make sure everyone went HD.
Sigh.... Dance by yourself brah....

Nope. I am wrong often... Just ask the wife. My point is the FCC wanted terrestrial transmission to go Digital HD. That was the goal of going to digital. Freeing up spectrum and being able to transmit multiple Channels at one time were some of the benefits.

And you are absolutely correct DTV and HDTV are not technically the same. But in the case of how we have HDTV content, yes.

And you are a great dance partner. Cheers.

 

[phrehdd]

Meh, who cares?

4K is not fully rolled out, and I'm sure the next rev of the Apple TV will include it. So this year I'll learn how to enjoy the millions of apps on the new AppleTV4 and when the 4K version comes out I'll enjoy it more.

Roku, that's a laugh. It might beat Apple at pure specs, but AppleTV4 will blow all the other smartTVboxes out of the water in content choices with thousands of app beyond all others. Not to mention all the consumer products that will tie into the AppleTV ecosystem for the whole home.

I think your vision is the one that's nearsighted, not Tim Cook's.

You seem to be as opinionated as I am. However, we do disagree.

ATV is great if you are into the iTunes store and that is all. Roku is great if you are into an elegant streaming device that now can do more than the latest ATV to be released.

Apps - I'll go for quality over quantity. I find little difference between the App store offering and say Google's counterpart. I doubt I want to sort through 10,000 apps to get 4 installed. Just make sure the right 4 are offered (quality).

What I see -

ATV if you want iTunes store, 1080p max, and minimal ability (unless Plex could be installed) access to other types of media files. Perhaps moderate gaming capability (we shall see).

Roku - if you just need an elegant streaming box that can also do local medai a la PLEX or XBMC, handle 4k, but no real gaming, this is an excellent solution for the price.

Amazon Fire TV - similar to ATV in that it pushes its own "market" (Amazon Prime) for movies, has Google apps, plays 4k though not the leader of the pack, and is for those that refuse to be bothered with iTunes.

Nvidia Shield TV - perhaps the most interesting new kid on the block. This is a Google orient box that plays the usual fair of Netflix streaming and other services (no Amazon Prime as of yet), excellent gaming box, plays local content superbly (including real HD audio streams such as DTS-MASTER unlike the others). Excellent for standard play and true 4k/60.

Specs - From highest to lowest

NVidia Shield TV
Roku 4
Amazon Fire TV
ATV (the latest release not ATV3)

In my book, most people would gravitate towards the ATV and Roku based on simplicity or an Amazon Prime fan would pick the Amazon Fire TV. This leaves the NVidia Shield out in the cold even though it is by spec the best of breed at this time.

 

[TrueBlou]

You seem to be as opinionated as I am. However, we do disagree.

ATV is great if you are into the iTunes store and that is all. Roku is great if you are into an elegant streaming device that now can do more than the latest ATV to be released.

Apps - I'll go for quality over quantity. I find little difference between the App store offering and say Google's counterpart. I doubt I want to sort through 10,000 apps to get 4 installed. Just make sure the right 4 are offered (quality).

What I see -

ATV if you want iTunes store, 1080p max, and minimal ability (unless Plex could be installed) access to other types of media files. Perhaps moderate gaming capability (we shall see).

Roku - if you just need an elegant streaming box that can also do local medai a la PLEX or XBMC, handle 4k, but no real gaming, this is an excellent solution for the price.

Amazon Fire TV - similar to ATV in that it pushes its own "market" (Amazon Prime) for movies, has Google apps, plays 4k though not the leader of the pack, and is for those that refuse to be bothered with iTunes.

Nvidia Shield TV - perhaps the most interesting new kid on the block. This is a Google orient box that plays the usual fair of Netflix streaming and other services (no Amazon Prime as of yet), excellent gaming box, plays local content superbly (including real HD audio streams such as DTS-MASTER unlike the others). Excellent for standard play and true 4k/60.

Specs - From highest to lowest

NVidia Shield TV
Roku 4
Amazon Fire TV
ATV (the latest release not ATV3)

In my book, most people would gravitate towards the ATV and Roku based on simplicity or an Amazon Prime fan would pick the Amazon Fire TV. This leaves the NVidia Shield out in the cold even though it is by spec the best of breed at this time.

I hardly think I'd describe the new ATV as minimal in the ability department. We already know that Plex is coming to the ATV as will the majority of streaming services. And spec wise, that 64bit A8 chip is actually pretty damn powerful. Just because Apple has chosen not to go down the 4K route isn't a reflection on the capability of the hardware.

Look at the mobile handset market it's coming from. While other manufacturers put 4K recording and playback capability into their handsets, the A8 still outperformed many of them in benchmarks.
Lets not confuse doesn't with can't. I have no doubt that if there were a developer with access to an ATV 4 who was willing/able to talk openly about its capabilities they would say that it can play back 4K video. There's bound to be some who have tried it, they just can't comment on it for the time being.

Or, I could be completely wrong, it happens.... A lot

 

[Aluminum213]

4k iPhone, 4k-5k iMac, 1080p Apple TV


4k is the obvious update next year: Now stream you 4k iPhone media on your 4K Apple TV!!

 

[aesc80]

4k iPhone, 4k-5k iMac, 1080p Apple TV


4k is the obvious update next year: Now stream you 4k iPhone media on your 4K Apple TV!!

And that's why I cringe whenever I hear "4K is a fad. It's not going anywhere".

It's obvious that broadcasters aren't going into 4K, but the streaming providers are. Amazon and Netflix have already started delivering in (to use the correct term) UHD. From my understanding, all Netflix and future Amazon major originals will be in UHD. As someone who is doing 130 Mbps with a wired connection (Netflix recommends at least 25 Mbps), I am and do see some differences between UHD and HD.

All that said, Apple has gone in pretty aggressive in the 4K world. As Aluminum mentioned, the iPhone records at 4K (though it's pretty much poop), and have already put out 4 and 5K iMacs. iMovie has moved forward with 4K support. But it completely stopped with the AppleTV. I think we can all see, Apple will push it out on the next ATV, even though the hardware on this coming ATV is actually capable. Being that a number of us are that much invested in iTunes, it's not like a number of us can go anywhere else, anyway.

 

[thepixelpusher]

You seem to be as opinionated as I am. However, we do disagree.

ATV is great if you are into the iTunes store and that is all. Roku is great if you are into an elegant streaming device that now can do more than the latest ATV to be released.

Apps - I'll go for quality over quantity. I find little difference between the App store offering and say Google's counterpart. I doubt I want to sort through 10,000 apps to get 4 installed. Just make sure the right 4 are offered (quality).

What I see -

ATV if you want iTunes store, 1080p max, and minimal ability (unless Plex could be installed) access to other types of media files. Perhaps moderate gaming capability (we shall see).

Roku - if you just need an elegant streaming box that can also do local medai a la PLEX or XBMC, handle 4k, but no real gaming, this is an excellent solution for the price.

Amazon Fire TV - similar to ATV in that it pushes its own "market" (Amazon Prime) for movies, has Google apps, plays 4k though not the leader of the pack, and is for those that refuse to be bothered with iTunes.

Nvidia Shield TV - perhaps the most interesting new kid on the block. This is a Google orient box that plays the usual fair of Netflix streaming and other services (no Amazon Prime as of yet), excellent gaming box, plays local content superbly (including real HD audio streams such as DTS-MASTER unlike the others). Excellent for standard play and true 4k/60.

Specs - From highest to lowest

NVidia Shield TV
Roku 4
Amazon Fire TV
ATV (the latest release not ATV3)

In my book, most people would gravitate towards the ATV and Roku based on simplicity or an Amazon Prime fan would pick the Amazon Fire TV. This leaves the NVidia Shield out in the cold even though it is by spec the best of breed at this time.

AppleTV4 will have a larger developer database with quality and quantity, just like on the iPhone.

Plex is already announced for the new AppleTV and the support of consumer products beyond the apps support will be just as big as for the iPhone.

Roku might be fine for people that want to do under the hood work with adding custom features. In the past I did that too. But, the capabilities of AppleTV and apps to address customization make this largely unnecessary.

Roku is a great product, but it won't match the abilities and features of ATV4 once developers get their apps ported.

At this point that's my humble prediction. Time will tell.

 

[phrehdd]

I hardly think I'd describe the new ATV as minimal in the ability department. We already know that Plex is coming to the ATV as will the majority of streaming services. And spec wise, that 64bit A8 chip is actually pretty damn powerful. Just because Apple has chosen not to go down the 4K route isn't a reflection on the capability of the hardware.

Look at the mobile handset market it's coming from. While other manufacturers put 4K recording and playback capability into their handsets, the A8 still outperformed many of them in benchmarks.
Lets not confuse doesn't with can't. I have no doubt that if there were a developer with access to an ATV 4 who was willing/able to talk openly about its capabilities they would say that it can play back 4K video. There's bound to be some who have tried it, they just can't comment on it for the time being.

Or, I could be completely wrong, it happens.... A lot

Well alas, what is under the hood as far as hardware is "less than" with other players I mentioned. As I said, if you want to remain with iTunes and the "App store" then ATV 4 may work nicely. The Roku remains a stronger contender with respect to ability to upscale and is a neutral player (meaning it may get more services than Apple). Skipping over 4k, we'll see the later reviews comparing output and which items have remained missing and which ones are actually added.

I can say easily that many will like the ATV4 but I bet many simply prefer the other premium offerings for what they do and do very well.

 

[phrehdd]

AppleTV4 will have a larger developer database with quality and quantity, just like on the iPhone.

Plex is already announced for the new AppleTV and the support of consumer products beyond the apps support will be just as big as for the iPhone.

Roku might be fine for people that want to do under the hood work with adding custom features. In the past I did that too. But, the capabilities of AppleTV and apps to address customization make this largely unnecessary.

Roku is a great product, but it won't match the abilities and features of ATV4 once developers get their apps ported.

At this point that's my humble prediction. Time will tell.

I am sure in the near future we'll see a proper run down of all the major players including the ATV4 and Roku 4. I can only say that I don't believe the ATV4 will be a top contender for moderate to complex games as are some of the Android/Google counterparts. I might as well add Roku into this lot as well as not a gamer's delight.

For now, I have my eyes on the Nvidia Shield for myself, and most likely the Roku 4 (over the Amazon Fire) for a family member that is heavily invested in Amazon Prime. It is nice that there are choices.

 

[Ray Brady]

I will be buying 3 ATVs as soon as they become available. One for me and two for relatives for Christmas presents. I have no plans on replacing my TV, as I expect my current set will last me at least another decade.

I'd say Apple understands my needs pretty well.

 

[thepixelpusher]

I am sure in the near future we'll see a proper run down of all the major players including the ATV4 and Roku 4. I can only say that I don't believe the ATV4 will be a top contender for moderate to complex games as are some of the Android/Google counterparts. I might as well add Roku into this lot as well as not a gamer's delight.

For now, I have my eyes on the Nvidia Shield for myself, and most likely the Roku 4 (over the Amazon Fire) for a family member that is heavily invested in Amazon Prime. It is nice that there are choices.

I think the Nvidia Shield is Dead On Arrival.

It pricier than the low level game smart TV boxes like AppleTV4, FireTV, etc., and offers less speed and games than the full fledged Steam game boxes like Alienware starting around $449. It's the worst of all worlds and lives in an in between space that no one is asking for.

I'm betting that Amazon FireTV and AppleTV win out over the next year solely based upon content offerings. This is the year the set top smart boxes start to mature and people expect more without having to hack their boxes.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I think the Nvidia Shield is Dead On Arrival.

It pricier than the low level game smart TV boxes like AppleTV4, FireTV, etc., and offers less speed and games than the full fledged Steam game boxes like Alienware starting around $449. It's the worst of all worlds and lives in an in between space that no one is asking for.

I'm betting that Amazon FireTV and AppleTV win out over the next year solely based upon content offerings. This is the year the set top smart boxes start to mature and people expect more without having to hack their boxes.

I agree with your main point about popularity, but I don't agree with your reasoning. If Apple sold the exact same box at $199 with the inclusion of the Apple ecosystem it would sell like hot cakes. The issue isn't the price for performance. Apple sells (or will sell) a $199 box that can't come close to the performance of the $199 Shield (16gb version, but can easily and cheaply be expanded thanks to the micro SD slot).

Also a $449 gaming machine vs $199 4K media console that happens to also be great for gaming isn't really much of a comparison. I think the gaming machine, that costs more than twice as much as the Shield, would be even more of a niche product at that price.

The problem, as far as sales #s are concerned, is the lack of press and the lack of a mature ecosystem. However, sales #s had nothing to do with why I bought one. It does 4K, audio pass through, has Kodi, has easy expandability thanks to the microSD slot, it will sideload apps like Lynda.com and Dropbox, play high resolution tif files (important for my photos), works with Casting, works with Airplay audio, work with DLNA, will play audio through USB, has a remote with a headphone port, voice search, will work with 4K video shot on my iPhone, etc. The power makes it a joy to use because things load quickly. It is more future proof than the 1080p boxes that Apple is bringing out to replace their last 1080p box.

I will still get an AppleTV because of the ecosystem and because it has promise. However, if I had to choose one, it would be the Shield and I would live with the slower AppleTV3 since it already has a huge App Store available thanks to AirPlay and already works well in the Apple ecosystem. The main downside is lack of speed, but it hasn't stopped me from using it over the past several years. I still think the AppleTV will sell more units than the Shield, but I don't care.

 

[noslenam]

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

Ok I've got a 4K tv but don't want he content to be streamed. Just using Netflix and let me
Say the 1080p looks fantastic on the 4K tv I'm going over my monthly limit for data as it is. Do I want to pay that much extra for the 4K streaming at this point until they get a better streaming system and bring down the file sizes no thanks. I'm looking more for functionality and enjoying the great quality I already get.

 

[oldmacs]

Wish it had 4k... Was one of the major things I was hoping with the new one we'd get 4K. You can now buy 4K Tvs on the cheap and I love ours - even 1080P content scales well, but I wanted a way to display to display 4K video and netflix

Trust Apple to build a bloody 5K iMac and add 4K support to the 6S but not the Apple tv -_-

 

[oldmacs]

Ok I've got a 4K tv but don't want he content to be streamed. Just using Netflix and let me
Say the 1080p looks fantastic on the 4K tv I'm going over my monthly limit for data as it is. Do I want to pay that much extra for the 4K streaming at this point until they get a better streaming system and bring down the file sizes no thanks. I'm looking more for functionality and enjoying the great quality I already get.

You'd obviously be able to change the settings - like in iTunes now you can choose HD or SD.