How about an 8k iMac then. http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/06/lg-pu...ill-release-imac-8k-with-8k-screen-this-year/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No 4K Video Streaming Support for Upcoming Apple TV Set-Top Box
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think this is a case of Apple saving a couple bucks now, and then also being able to sell us another box in a year.
Readiness for 4K is a combination of numerous factors. Have a 4K capable device like an apple TV is ONE of these factors. Apple could be easily offering that as a solution now with very little burdon on either them of us.
Maybe I'm older than most of the forum members here - but it's like this with every advancement in technology, it's happened over and over and over...
I bet we'd be amused to see the same discussions happening when people were talking about the seemingly insurmountable challenges in tech and content when going from B&W to Color tv.
Readiness for 4K is a combination of numerous factors. Have a 4K capable device like an apple TV is ONE of these factors. Apple could be easily offering that as a solution now with very little burdon on either them of us.
Maybe I'm older than most of the forum members here - but it's like this with every advancement in technology, it's happened over and over and over...
I bet we'd be amused to see the same discussions happening when people were talking about the seemingly insurmountable challenges in tech and content when going from B&W to Color tv.
And here we go, the degeneration of the discussion into insults, good old MR where nothing says civility like an angry mob of 10s of technophiles venting their anger with Apple and directing it toward the people who don't have a problem with one of their business decisions.
The point I made is that the number of potential customers for which this is important today is so minimal as not to be something they should worry about. Poor decision? Cool aid?
There is delusion, but it's not the people who understand capitalism and the business decisions, right or wrong, that are made in that world.
Sorry if you think I should be pissed off they're not supporting a feature that appeals to almost no one today and might not ever appeal to the majority of people, but instead believe they should focus on features that could be appreciated and enjoyed by everyone today, like a proper app store and all that is required to make that work.
When (if) they support 4K they'll roll it out with full support, meaning the content they offer on iTunes Store, as well as the content from a good number of their partners so that their customers can enjoy the 4K feature on the device they've just been sold. That's simply good business sense and very Apple (all about the experience of their products). Rolling out a feature that is nearly impossible to enjoy for the majority of people who buy it, well that's just not very Apple. If you don't like this, I'm sure other manufacturers would enjoy your money, and you can smugly complain about Apple and the morons who buy their products on their forums.
You keep saying this as if it's true. LTE was out before the first iPhone with LTE was released which was the 5.
I did, I would give up if I was you
http://cdn.referencehometheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg?dfb8f9
And yet they have included Thunderbolt on their MacBooks for a couple of years now. And we know popular and widely used that is.
This seems a little odd to me. It's pretty clear that we are on the verge of widespread 4k adoption, and a device like an ATV is likely to be kept by the average buyer for 5 years or so. Sure, 2015 may be a little early, but I would expect that by this time next year most of the TV's for sale will be 4k. Why would Apple want to stay so far behind the curve?
It's technically correct, though, that not nearly *everyone* had access to LTE at that time. I don't know about the US, but over here in Germany LTE coverage was almost non-existant when the iPhone 5 came out. When Apple and other high-profile manufacturers released LTE-capable devices, that really increased the demand for the technology, spurring the networks to upgrade their towers.
You're right, of course, that the Apple TV is a different beast. The main driver for 4K demand are compatible TV sets, not set-top boxes. Nobody is going to buy a $6000 TV merely because their new set-top box now supports 4K. In the same vein, I don't think there are lots of people delaying their 4K TV purchases merely because there isn't a corresponding Apple TV available yet. So it makes sense for Apple to wait until the installed base has grown big enough. This also gives them time to prepare the rest of their content infrastructure (bandwidth, server space, etc.) for 4K deployment.
100% agree... streamed 4K will look worse, even with the improved compression algorithm. And uncompressed 4K looks exactly the same at a typical viewing distance unless you have a projector or huge TV. A 1080p OLED or Quantum Dot panel would look much better than a typical 4K LED at this stage.
Since all 4K TV´s are smart TV´s you really don´t need theTV if you have one. Why stream 1080p from the
I agree with this My UHD 4K Samsung TV has built in Netflix which is already streaming 4K. I dumped my Apple TV about a year ago and while I think it is short sited of Apple not to include the functionality "assuming that the Rumor is accurate" it is really not relevant to most with a 4K smart TV.
Apple is always in it for the money.
----------
LTE over here was rolled out in about 2010. There was multiple LTE phones long before the iPhone, they didn't spur anything.
My New 70" VIZIO 4K TV cost $2000 so you example is way off. I was not even looking to get 4K but the 70" without 4K was $1500 so went ahead and got it. My point is the prices for 4K are coming down very fast. Very soon all New TV's will be 4K. So to me (of course) the New ATV should support 4K. My TV does have a Netflix App and Amazon App that supports 4K. But it does not have a iTunes App so I can not buy any 4K movies from iTunes and download it to my Mac and Stream from there. But it appears you can buy movies from Amazon in 4K ($5 premium it appears). My guess is Amazon will come out with a New STB to support 4K. If Apple does not come out with a 4K box and they do not offer 4K movies then I assume people would consider buying from another source. Just seems short sited to me if they do not include 4K.
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
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.
Okay, now you're misunderstanding me.
I wasn't saying that people would be "forced" to buy a new TV if they bought a 4K AppleTV. I know that it would scale down to 1080p, but further makes my point. In order for the consumer to take advantage of what a 4K AppleTV can offer (provided there is available content they want to watch) they would have to buy a new TV that supports 4K. And as I was mentioning, in order to get the best cinematic quality a 4K OLED is really the best way to go, but it's too expensive.
It's really the other way around. The movie studios and content providers need to deliver the 4K product first and foremost and saturate the market with availability. The internet providers need to also make high-speed streaming more affordable for the masses. This will cause the hardware manufacturers such as Apple to create 4K devices. At this point the consumer has very good reason to consider investing in a good quality 4K TV. Yes, there are some cheaper 4K LCD's but I hate LCD's. It should not be expected by content providers that consumers buy into near useless hardware before it's time. If they want to make money, they need to put out the content first.
I bought a 4K GoPro camera. I spent an extra $100 for the 4K feature rather than than the standard 1080p model. This same argument comes up on the GoPro forums.
Many of the forum members feel it to be an unnecessary waste of money to buy a 4K GoPro because in order to enjoy it they need a 4K TV or computer capable of 4K. For them perhaps it makes sense because many of them replace their cameras every other year (just as people here do with Macs and iPhones) because they are camera techies.
I replace my camera every 5-10 years so it made sense for me to buy one. But, guess what, I still record many of my videos in 1080p. It uses up far less of my memory card, and unless it's my kid's wedding or I get a new 4K TV I see no point in recording in 4K right now.
So the bottom line is the movie studios, content providers and internet providers need to move first and have content available to entice hardware manufactures to create hardware and get customers to buy into it. AppleTV is not something most people will keep for 5-10 years. Apple will most likely offer new features that will give people reasons to upgrade so it makes no sense for someone to invest more money (because you know the 4K version will be more than $99) in an AppleTV when they can't really use it to it's full potential, only to find themselves possibly upgrading to the next version in 3 years or so.
If the next AppleTV is a 4K model then great but mark my words, people here will complain that Apple is charging too much for it when there's not enough content available for them to enjoy it.
I stand corrected. I did not know they were at that price point already. I'm still not convinced people will rush to upgrade their TVs: There's hardly any 4K content out there, and the Full HD boom wasn't all that long ago. Not sure if non-techies fell the itch to upgrade their screens again already.
My guess is that it's going to be at least two more years before there's a significant installed base for 4K TVs – which would give Apple plenty of time to release another Apple TV. (Those are much cheaper than TV sets, so I don't think upgrading them would be as big an issue as buying a new TV.)
Still, I was way off in terms of TV pricing. My bad, and thanks for the correction.
We'll have to wait and see - as other's pointed out the original ATV and 1st Gen 2 model were only 720p which provoked much grumbling at the time (1080i and 1080p were expected)...taken in that context its not too surprising.
For technology they don't control, Apple seems to take their time in implementation...which is probably a wise thing. That said I would have liked to have seen them offer 4k with Netflix rolling it out to some customers already. Oh well.
Something that is going on in the 4k TV space is the Mfr's offering increased color gamut (from what I understand up to now we've still been seeing things with the color gamut (palette) available with our SD TV's (which is rather restricted) - and now there are TV's offering greatly increased color gamut (which is impressive when viewed side by side) - the problem is that every manufacturer has their own standard at this point (the Dolby folks offered one as a standard, but none of the Mfr's went with it so far). So this is another area that needs to consolidate to one standard before it can be useful and is another reason to wait before upgrading all your content to 4k.
Games?
I thought part of the rumor was an SDK where developers can create games. I am not a gamer but wouldn't games really benefit for 4K resolution? Or do none of the current game consoles support 4K? Maybe that would be a reason for some to get a 4K ATV it it did.
For those that say you need the content first. That is like the chicken and egg. I think you need a customer based that can buy your content before you spend the money to create it. My understanding is the A8 would have the power to support 4K and also allow for better gaming. And does't it support the iPad with that resolution. My point is it does not seem to cost that much to support 4K in the STB (unlike buying a new tv) and then as Amazon is doing start to offer 4K Movies at a premium to those that have them. Then when someone is looking to get a new tv they can see a real benefit to spend a little extra money to get a 4K set.
To give the other side of the argument. I did just get a 4K TV and then watched a Netflix movie in 4K and the same movie on ATV in 1080P and it was pretty much the same for me. But I am not the best and detecting the difference. However, I do believe that a movie downloaded to my Mac and Stream from there could see a difference. Even for me (maybe).
I thought part of the rumor was an SDK where developers can create games. I am not a gamer but wouldn't games really benefit for 4K resolution? Or do none of the current game consoles support 4K? Maybe that would be a reason for some to get a 4K ATV it it did.
For those that say you need the content first. That is like the chicken and egg. I think you need a customer based that can buy your content before you spend the money to create it. My understanding is the A8 would have the power to support 4K and also allow for better gaming. And does't it support the iPad with that resolution. My point is it does not seem to cost that much to support 4K in the STB (unlike buying a new tv) and then as Amazon is doing start to offer 4K Movies at a premium to those that have them. Then when someone is looking to get a new tv they can see a real benefit to spend a little extra money to get a 4K set.
To give the other side of the argument. I did just get a 4K TV and then watched a Netflix movie in 4K and the same movie on ATV in 1080P and it was pretty much the same for me. But I am not the best and detecting the difference. However, I do believe that a movie downloaded to my Mac and Stream from there could see a difference. Even for me (maybe).
Try watching fast moving sports on a 4K <$1000 TV.
Try watching just about anything on just about ANY 4K LCD. Be prepared to barf. As me and other astute video guys are quite aware: LCDs have inherent image quality problems that they can NOT easily fix but are too busy cramming more pixels and useless "features" into the sets. And, the public is sucking them up like hot-cakes.
Where the hell are you getting those prices? Some of the UHDTVs are cheaper than my $1700 HDTV I bought nearly a decade ago.
I'm not sure what is harder for people to face up to; that their complaining won't change the hardware specs of the next Apple TV, or the fact that hundreds of millions of people are not about to go and upgrade a TV that's only a few years old, just because the upgrade would mean 4K (because, you know, Apple want to sell LOTS OF THESE to lots of average people, not just a few who are obsessed with 4K and whom can afford to buy new sets on a whim).
Apple know reality, it's shown in their interfaces and designs, and they know how humans behave, which means that they understand more than most people here, that people need more substantial reasons than a lecture from a cinemaphile about the quadrupling of pixels and it being "way way better" to get a 4K set. £1,000 is not "only" £1,000 when you're the average working person with a 1080p set that you're perfectly happy with, and on which the majority of content IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE in 1080p. £1,000 is a LOT of money at any time, moreso when you've already invested in a TV you're perfectly happy with.
The world doesn't all live in California, nor do we all earn £100,000+ pa wages where a purchase like this is pocket money.
Apple know reality, it's shown in their interfaces and designs, and they know how humans behave, which means that they understand more than most people here, that people need more substantial reasons than a lecture from a cinemaphile about the quadrupling of pixels and it being "way way better" to get a 4K set. £1,000 is not "only" £1,000 when you're the average working person with a 1080p set that you're perfectly happy with, and on which the majority of content IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE in 1080p. £1,000 is a LOT of money at any time, moreso when you've already invested in a TV you're perfectly happy with.
The world doesn't all live in California, nor do we all earn £100,000+ pa wages where a purchase like this is pocket money.