No 4K Video Streaming Support for Upcoming Apple TV Set-Top Box

[2457282]

You can erase an entire digit. $500 gets you a 49-incher.

i understand your point, but it really would have been nicer if you could have erased the first digit instead of the last.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Same arguments (when Apple clung to 720p when 1080p was dominant).

You keep repeating this over and over and over as if it means something, like Apple did something wrong (setting aside the whole argument that 1080p was even dominant then) which I will not concede they did then or are doing now.

They made a business decision, it didn't affect their sales (in any large way and perhaps not at all), they're going to make the same decision again, and again it won't affect sales.

I simply don't understand why people insist on being angry or upset about this, it's so predictable and perfectly consistent with how Apple does things, there is no surprise here at all.

 

[RockSpider]

3.5" is the best size for phones

1.1 ghz is the best for laptops

1gb ram is the best for tablets

1366 * 768 is the best resolution for Air

1080p is the best for ATV

Any problems with the above, you're holding it wrong.

 

[vmachiel]

Since when does apple care about 4k not being widespread? Or not yet needed? They did firewire, retina, going air on the macbooks all of that, when it wasn't technically time yet.

 

[2457282]

Apple usually jump at the newest so it would be a little strange if they dont.
I guess if its not supported its not because of Apple´s wishes but a compromise.

No, i think there is slightly different motivation going on here. Looking at NFC, Apple waited until the CC companies forced vendors to switch over before they added it to the phones -- they wanted to ensure this was really going to take off. right now there is not enough content or TVs in homes to justify 4k. I have two 1080p TVs at home and unless they break, I have no intention of upgrading them, probably for years. i think that Apple is focusing on other technology and waiting for 4k to get closer to mainstream before supporting it. I am also thinking that the hardware may be capable, and it will simply be a firmware upgrade in the future.

 

[Baumi]

Interesting point you raise apple is the past, though it was a different company in the 1990s, and had to be very careful in making decisions . Recent Apple, is happy to jump on new standards, mini DP , TB, USB-C, which can also be frustrating for its users.

Actually, my examples were from around the same time Apple decided to ditch all ports except USB and FireWire, and do away with floppy drives – all of which were industry firsts, IIRC. Also, "recent Apple" isn't afraid to drag its feet in some areas, either – look at how long it took them to offer large-screen iPhones.

Apple's philosophy is usually not about cramming in as many features as possible (I can still remember people complaining about the lack of an FM radio in the iPhone) but about the overall quality of the experience. Lots of competing phones and computers offer more marketing bullet points, but they usually cannot match Apple's devices in terms of usability.
With the Apple TV, Apple arguably didn't find the right formula yet, so an overhaul is definitely needed. I just don't think 4K is an essential feature.

knowing the upgrade cycles of the appleTV

Past performance is not indicative of future results. They could easily push out a 4K version a year or two from now if there seems to be enough of a market for it.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I'm sure the hardware will be 4k capable with HDMI 2.0, no reason not to be.

 

[malexandria]

Eh - iTunes Can Barely Handle HD Streams

My broadband can barely handle HD Streams, I'm not fussed about 4K and iTunes itself can barely support HD Streams on a consistent basis. It drives me NUTS when I can't watch an HD Film that I purchased because the damn service times out. Even though I've never had an issue streaming HD Content from AppleTV Apps like Netflix...

Although I do feel like the only reason they aren't adding it is so people will have to upgrade and get Another AppleTV in a few years. Which I think is pretty crappy.

----------

You keep repeating this over and over and over as if it means something, like Apple did something wrong (setting aside the whole argument that 1080p was even dominant then) which I will not concede they did then or are doing now.

They made a business decision, it didn't affect their sales (in any large way and perhaps not at all), they're going to make the same decision again, and again it won't affect sales.
.

Get sick to death of people always justifying every poor Apple decision by saying it doesn't affect sales. Who the heck cares about whether Apple makes money? Of course they do. At some point it'd be nice if they thought about their CUSTOMERS. But hey keep drinking the cool aid.

 

[cmChimera]

More than content, bandwidth is low. Comcast caps most major cities at 300GB.

Yeah that sucks too. But widespread 4k content could force ISPs to reconsider these caps.

Just remember that you're commenting on a rumour. The new Apple TV will likely be able to support 4K video from a technical standpoint, but they won't have the feature enabled. Could you imagine some granny getting a bill in the mail for exceeding their bandwidth quota after watching a couple of movies? Basically 4K is ahead of the game.

What would be disappointing is if we still received MPEG-2 video because the codec technology wasn't quite with us yet. The reality is that it is with us, and it's ahead of what we can realistically consume in our households.

Yeah, but I think widespread 4k content will change the caps that ISPs have on consumer accounts. You're right though, it's very possible that the hardware will be capable but not enabled, and a software update could enable it.

 

[MH01]

Actually, my examples were from around the same time Apple decided to ditch all ports except USB and FireWire, and do away with floppy drives – all of which were industry firsts, IIRC. Also, "recent Apple" isn't afraid to drag its feet in some areas, either – look at how long it took them to offer large-screen iPhones.

Apple's philosophy is usually not about cramming in as many features as possible (I can still remember people complaining about the lack of an FM radio in the iPhone) but about the overall quality of the experience. Lots of competing phones and computers offer more marketing bullet points, but they usually cannot match Apple's devices in terms of usability.
With the Apple TV, Apple arguably didn't find the right formula yet, so an overhaul is definitely needed. I just don't think 4K is an essential feature.



Past performance is not indicative of future results. They could easily push out a 4K version a year or two from now if there seems to be enough of a market for it.

I agree with you, generally apple gets the balance right, though while I am for removing unnecessary devices and ports, they are going extreme these days. It was good when you could buy a MBP and have choice, now you get a USB and a tb, or worse one USB-C. Dongles for me are a step backwards. I'd like to see choice in 4K , though I understand why apple is not offering it. When the content becomes available and Apple can make good money out of it, it will support it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But you're oversimplifying it. People still need to buy new TV's.

No they don't have to buy new TVs. If they already have a 1080p or 720p HDTV they like they can keep using that. Sure, they won't see 4K video on that TV but it will downscale from any 4K content to the max of whatever they have, just like those with 720p sets now can own a 1080p TV and it will downscale 1080p content to 720p.

Scaling down from a higher quality source to a lower resolution screen will max out what that lower resolution screen can display. But it doesn't work the other way.

The rest of your post about LCD vs. Plasma vs. OLED makes sense but not in terms of motivating a company who could make a 4K TV to cling to 1080p max until the other guys get their act together. Did Apple wait on the other guys getting all of their hardware on USB Type C jacks? Did Apple wait until there was LTE available everywhere before rolling out an LTE phone? Did all apps have to fully support "metal" before iDevices that have it were available? Is Apple Watch waiting on all apps supporting it? Did Thunderbolt wait until all monitors could be linked up that way? How about lightening connector accessories? And on and on.

I know, I know: "That's different".

 

[RockSpider]

I agree with you, generally apple gets the balance right, though while I am for removing unnecessary devices and ports, they are going extreme these days. It was good when you could buy a MBP and have choice, now you get a USB and a tb, or worse one USB-C. Dongles for me are a step backwards. I'd like to see choice in 4K , though I understand why apple is not offering it. When the content becomes available and Apple can make good money out of it, it will support it.

They have said on numerous occasions that they're not in it for the money, besides a couple of chips would only set them back a few dollars. You are correct in saying that they will offer it when they can make good money out of it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Your "if you're waiting for something better, you'll wait forever" argument might be valid for computers and smartphones right now, but when it comes to 4K TVs, anyone who buys one right now will probably need to replace it in 3 years.

A 4K TV doesn't force anyone to buy a 4K TV now. It will be able to downscale to 1080p or 720p just fine. So anyone who feels as you imply, can simply wait until TV technology gets to whatever standard of 4K they need before they buy.

Anyone buying an Watch right now will probably need to replace it in 3 years. So we shouldn't buy Watch? Anyone buying an iPhone right now will probably need to replace it in 3 years. So we shouldn't buy iPhone? And so on.

Why does such thinking only apply to this ONE thing... but not pretty much everything else that Apple makes?

----------

4K video is not on radar now.
In 2 years, maybe, depending on internet infrastructure.
Then you will have new update for AppleTV.
As simple as that.

Apple tends to update their TV in meaningful ways about every 4 years. So per that thinking, should they be 2 years ahead or 2 years behind?

4K is in a lot of places now. You can shoot 4K yourself with relatively cheap cameras. There's some netflix, amazon and youtube. The photos you've been taking with your iDevices for year have resolutions well beyond 1080p. Etc.

----------

Nobody needs 4k so this is a good decision by Apple. Maybe in future a newer Apple TV will include support for this, but Apple is right to focus on content and experience over supporting technologies 99% of all consumers don't have in their home.

100% of people don't have Watches in their homes, so Apple shouldn't support that?

100% of people don't have next-gen intel CPUs in their computers, so Apple shouldn't support that?

100% of people don't have next-gen graphics cards in their computers, so Apple shouldn't support that?

Etc. Again, why do we rationalize the present or past with this ONE subject but not think the same way toward everything else Apple produces?

 

[oldmacs]

Oh Apple this was the only reason that I was going to upgrade. Especially now that Netflix Australia offers Ultra HD.

This means we'll have to wait another 3 years for the Apple TV 5 to get 4K.

Apple is freaking lazy with the Apple TV. We should have had an App store, Face time support and some sort of external media server years ago.

Everyone arguing that 4K is not common, that is not a reason not to include it. Were tablets common when the iPad was introduced? NO. Does that mean Apple shouldn't have introduced it? NO.

 

[MH01]

They have said on numerous occasions that they're not in it for the money, besides a couple of chips would only set them back a few dollars. You are correct in saying that they will offer it when they can make good money out of it.

And I think that is the bottom line, Apple needs to make money out of it. I suppose this also gives them time, I case they want to introduce their own TV, in which case they can introduce 4k support at that stage.

 

[SPUY767]

To get the best out of 4K streaming, you need a 4K tv....which I am not willing to pay $6000+ for a freaking tv

This argument is kind of moot. I've seen 55" 4k TVs for sub 1k. I mean, they're Vizio, but still. Even the Samsungs can be had at 2-3k for a 60-65". At the 6k prices you're talking about, I've seen 80" plus 4k tvs. Don't forget, that 4k content would positively pummel most broadband connections.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I simply don't understand why people insist on being angry or upset about this, it's so predictable and perfectly consistent with how Apple does things, there is no surprise here at all.

If by "people" you mean me, I'll tell you why: I'd like Apple to lead with this. I like my TVs very much but it's easy to see where they can improve. Rather than settle for the now or even "old technology", I'd like to see them push the envelope here. It's not about disliking Apple, it's about wanting them to deliver something ahead of the curve... you know, like they do with iPhones, iPads, Macs, Watches and so on.

In this case and IMO, 4K is close enough to go ahead and embrace it. Those thrilled with 1080p can still enjoy their 1080p to the MAX with hardware capable of more than 1080p. But it doesn't work the other way.

More simply, if "people" like you are completely satisfied with 1080p (or 720p) as your max, a 4K TV would have NO EFFECT on you- you could still consume 1080p (or 720p) to your hearts content on such a box. In fact, a 4K TV would probably drive down prices of 1080p TV boxes so you could probably save money too.

However, other people (who are not you) craving 4K playback options for their 4K TVs could get what they want from a little Apple box too. You get your 1080p (or 720p) and they get their 4K. Everybody wins. Cling to a 1080p MAX and a segment of buyers can't get what they want from Apple (for now) so they buy someone else's products.

 

[k1121j]

wow is cutting the cord going to cost more then having actual cable w/internet

 

[RockSpider]

And I think that is the bottom line, Apple needs to make money out of it. I suppose this also gives them time, I case they want to introduce their own TV, in which case they can introduce 4k support at that stage.

I don't believe they'll ever make a TV, it's just garbage spruked by Gene Munster or whatever his name is, I think they should just throw the chips in the new box and bring out a software and firmware update down the track.

 

[okwhatev]

If by "people" you mean me, I'll tell you why: I'd like Apple to lead with this. I like my TVs very much but it's easy to see where they can improve. Rather than settle for the now or even "old technology", I'd like to see them push the envelope here. It's not about disliking Apple, it's about wanting them to deliver something ahead of the curve... you know, like they do with iPhones, iPads, Macs, Watches and so on.

In this case and IMO, 4K is close enough to go ahead and embrace it. Those thrilled with 1080p can still enjoy their 1080p to the MAX with hardware capable of more than 1080p. But it doesn't work the other way.

More simply, if "people" like you are completely satisfied with 1080p (or 720p) as your max, a 4K TV would have NO EFFECT on you- you could still consume 1080p (or 720p) to your hearts content on such a box. In fact, a 4K TV would probably drive down prices of 1080p TV boxes so you could probably save money too.

However, other people (who are not you) craving 4K playback options for their 4K TVs could get what they want from a little Apple box too. You get your 1080p (or 720p) and they get their 4K. Everybody wins. Cling to a 1080p MAX and a segment of buyers can't get what they want from Apple (for now) so they buy someone else's products.

Exactly. It would be really foolish of Apple to simply block 4K support in the new apple TV if the hardware is perfectly capable to support it (as the A8 chip CAN decode 4K h265 codec natively)... it just seems rather cruel to not support 4K... if not just for the added resolution photos would be able to be displayed on a 4K set.

 

[BigBear14]

There is no reason to have USB-C as the only port or use it at all on the new macbook as most peripherals are not yet available in USB-C.

By the time USB-C peripherals become mainstream, Apple will be prepared…

Oh God, i will never ever give up MagSafe lol -- off topic, but, will they introduce USB-C to new iterations of MacBook Pro's? Not as a source for everything, but for new ports.

A 4K Apple TV is necessary even if there isn't enough content to justify it, either that or Apple want to gimp the feature set in order to sell people a new Apple TV that has 4K. I don't think they have that kind of market pull though, unless they strike a good deal with TV channels and have alternatives to cable subscriptions.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Given that you need a TV set that has not only HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 connectors but also handle the wider color gamut from the new Ultra HD video standards, plus enormous bandwidth requirements (the 20 megabit/second requirement from streaming companies now may not include the wider color gamut support which will need even more bandwidth). No wonder why Apple has decided against supporting Ultra HD on the new version of the Apple TV streaming box.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

A 4K Apple TV is necessary even if there isn't enough content to justify it, either that or Apple want to gimp the feature set in order to sell people a new Apple TV that has 4K.

Why do they have to "gimp a feature set" to roll out a 4K TV? Did they have to gimp a feature set to roll out a 5K iMac? How about retina 4.7" and 5.5" iPhones? Should we not be buying those Apple products because apparently, building in higher video resolution requires gimped feature sets?

Somebody please resurrect another goodie from back when Apple was clinging to 720p over 1080p, "I'd rather have a high quality 1080p video stream than a low quality 4K stream" as if those are the only 2 choices too. Why not a high quality 4K stream on an un-gimped 4K TV?

I hear 4K boxes kill kittens and lead to world wars or global pandemics. I'd rather save the kittens, avoid global war and resist deadly diseases, so let's stick with 1080p.

 

[antmarobel]

On the meantime I'm watching Marco Polo 4K on Netflix. Thanks.

 

[oldmacs]

Given that you need a TV set that has not only HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 connectors but also handle the wider color gamut from the new Ultra HD video standards, plus enormous bandwidth requirements (the 20 megabit/second requirement from streaming companies now may not include the wider color gamut support which will need even more bandwidth). No wonder why Apple has decided against supporting Ultra HD on the new version of the Apple TV streaming box.

Just because its 4K doesn't meant that it won't work with 1080p TVs. Same as how the current Apple TV (1080P) works with 720p TVs.

Just beccause some people don't want 4K, why should that mean nobody gets it?