Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There is no 4K because this is a product release for today's masses. When 4K is commonplace, you will get a 4K Apple TV. Apple will not limit the sales potential of a future Apple TV tomorrow in order to futureproof you today.

I tend to agree. However, if the new iPhones can indeed record in 4k, and you have services like YouTube who can supply it, I can see Apple using it as a "tentpole". Not that I think they'll be adding YouTube back in, but the precedent is there. It might round out their movement toward retina screens. Record 4k content on your phone, edit it on your 5k iMac, show it on your 4k capable Apple TV.

Just a thought.
 
I hope there will be Safari support on this version. That is my only complaint on the current models and why I like some of the other streaming applications currently.
 
I mostly used my atv3 as a media extender for iTunes since my computer and receiver were too far apart. Now that I have a dedicated music setup closer to my workstation I don't use it anymore. I never used it for video since I don't want the hastle of converting all my MKV with Flac 5.1 audio to m4v with AAC for their inclusion in iTunes.
 
$200 is getting kind of steep for a set top box. We'll have to see what it offers.
 
Yeah, Siri and Motion.... they can have those. I want an app store/apps so I can play my favorite iOS games on my TV with a great controller. I also want to a TV sub that lets me choose what I want to watch and pay for live channels which I want to pay for. All this other fluff, I can do without. They should make it more like Roku, where you can easily plug in your own content networks. If they make this a more expensive walled garden, no thanks.

In other words, they should make it more for your needs and not the rest of ours. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: macpeach55
Now read the line before that one that says "all content outside of applications will be streamed directly from the Internet." To me that says everything except for apps will stream. Why else would there be 8-16GB storage. The OS cannot be more than 1-2GB.

Agree. 9to5 literally says: "as all content outside of applications will be streamed directly from the Internet." Settings and apps are not content (like photos, music, movies are content). I hope for a Plex App and I am sold.
 
Would you like me to search the web for The Sopranoooz?
I'm sorry, I can't take any requests right now....
Uh oh, somethings gone wrong....

I can see it now.
I don't have that problem with Siri searching for Music. Seems to me that as long as it's content that is on the device it has no issue finding it.
 
They need to support 4k + add 4k movies to iTunes. Apple needs to be the leader in things again instead of playing catch-up.
What's wrong with them playing catchup. I would honestly like to see great innovations from other companies for Apple to follow. In turn we will see better stuff from Apple. Expecting Apple to continually be the one and only leader is asking too much, IMO.
 
Part leaks? Or is this going to be another "coming next spring" announcement?

I don't think there will be many part leaks: it might well look the same as the previous version (so the average worker in the factory won't see the difference), it isn't as shocking as a new macbook retina thingy or new iPhone and it won't have the sales figures as the iPhone (and hence not the same expectations). I guess...
 
Agree. 9to5 literally says: "as all content outside of applications will be streamed directly from the Internet." Settings and apps are not content (like photos, music, movies are content). I hope for a Plex App and I am sold.

If you stream from Itunes your music and photos that is content but streamed locally and does not affect Caps. so tha is neither Internet or Stored Locally on the device
 
What's wrong with them playing catchup. I would honestly like to see great innovations from other companies for Apple to follow. In turn we will see better stuff from Apple. Expecting Apple to continually be the one and only leader is asking too much, IMO.

Ok, but 4K, isn't an 'innovation' that is still waiting for another company to invent. It's here, and great 4K TV's are already down below $1000. On top of that, Apple phones can already record in 4k. Their top iMac has a resolution GREATER than 4k. So your comment really doesn't apply to Apple making the ATV 4K compatible. It's borderline inexcusable that it wouldn't have that capability.
 
My father in law just bought a 50 inch 4K Visio TV because he saw it on Woot.com, and that it would fit in his entertainment center. His old TV had broken, and he asked me if this one was a good TV. For $500, it certainly was. He hooked up his SD(!) DishNetwork box to it, and was perfectly happy with the picture. Then I showed him that the TV comes with Netflix/Amazon/YouTube/Hulu/etc apps, and pulled up a 4K show on Netflix.

It's pretty satisfying seeing someone's jaw drop through the floor. You can opine all you want about how 4k is not a target market for today, but if my 60 year old father in law has one, and it ships with multiple apps that support 4k content (which I can pull up after a 5 second search), then it IS today's technology. If Apple isn't offering 4K content, and everyone else is, then why would you buy/rent content from Apple that's also available everywhere else in better quality for the same price or less?

There is still a limited amount of "4k" content available and even less actual "UHD" content available, not to mention televisions that fully support UHD as well (Meaning HDR and Extended Color Depth support in addition to 4k resolution). I'd expect Apple to wait for more fully UHD compliant content and televisions to become available before launching a UHD AppleTV. Personally, I'm holding off on replacing my current 1080p television until fully compliant UHD televisions become more plentiful and reasonably priced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jettredmont
$200 is getting kind of steep for a set top box. We'll have to see what it offers.
Well 9to5 its reporting same number of ports, same 8GB of storage (maybe 199 for 16GB) so you will be paying extra for the A8 and a new remote controller.

This upgrade is looking less and less appealing by the minute.
 
I tend to agree. However, if the new iPhones can indeed record in 4k, and you have services like YouTube who can supply it, I can see Apple using it as a "tentpole". Not that I think they'll be adding YouTube back in, but the precedent is there. It might round out their movement toward retina screens. Record 4k content on your phone, edit it on your 5k iMac, show it on your 4k capable Apple TV.

Just a thought.

That's how it SHOULD be IMO. But around here, retina 5K makes perfect sense to all of us (because Apple has already endorsed it in a product for sale now).

4K recording on iPhones makes little sense today (because current iPhones can't shoot at 4K) but will be one of the biggest reasons cited for upgrading to the new iPhones if they roll out with 4K recording.

A 4K :apple:TV makes absolutely no sense because the current product doesn't support 4K, "no one can see the difference", "it's just a gimmick like 3d", file sizes, until bandwidth everywhere is expanded, "until there is tons of 4K content available" and so on. We have a plethora of rationale for why "1080p is good enough." They are pretty much the same reasons why "720 is good enough" back when :apple:TV was maxing out at 720p. However, let Apple roll out a 4K :apple:TV and all that sentiment against 4K will evaporate... just like it did when Apple embraced 1080p. In other words, I don't recall many of the very passionately "720p is good enough" crowd railing against Apple when Apple embraced the "gimmick" of 1080p. This is simply set up as a repeat of that same scenario.

I think that if the new iPhone can shoot 4K, current Macs can edit it and we can then drop the rendered 4K file into iTunes where it will play just fine, it would be pretty unfortunate for just one link in the chain from phone->computer->iTunes->Apple TV 4->4K TV to lack the ability to pass the file on to that TV (and downscaling a 4K file to 1080p and then letting a 4K TV upscale it back to 4K is FAR from the same).

I continue to be hopeful that new iPhones will shoot 4K. If so, it seems like a better Apple presentation if they deliver a complete solution of providing a way for the 4K we shoot on new iPhones to flow through our new :apple:TV to our 4K TVs. It's harder for me to picture Apple gushing about 4K recording in the new iPhone presentation while holding to 1080p in the new :apple:TV part of the presentation. However, I do remember a new iPad rolling out with a retina screen in the same session where the iPad Mini rolled out without retina (and it was fun watching some of us argue how retina was a must-have in that iPad but was not necessary for the Mini... until the following year when the Mini went retina and then we argued why retina was must-have in the Mini).

If there is the split (phone 4K, :apple:TV 1080p), much like last time, we should expect another new :apple:TV model in about 6-12 months that adds the capability.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Strutten
Well 9to5 its reporting same number of ports, same 8GB of storage (maybe 199 for 16GB) so you will be paying extra for the A8 and a new remote controller.

This upgrade is looking less and less appealing by the minute.

Umm Siri, App store, Games if you want, and that Processor makes a huge difference as does a new remote
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.