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

[d21mike]

Why would they offer 4K if even the iTunes Store does not have 4K movies yet?

Turn that around. Why offer 4K movies in the iTunes Store if the ATV does not even support 4K.

Answer: They will not offer 4K movies in iTunes until they have an ATV that supports 4K. My point is that the STB must come first. People are not going to buy 4K Movies until they have a ATV that supports it. Most do not want to watch 4k movies only on their computer or iPad.

If they roll our the ATV 4(k) then they can offer 4K Downloads via iTunes at a premium like it appears Amazon has already started doing. In the case of Amazon the 4K TV's have the Amazon 4K Streaming App. Is Apple really going to let Amazon be the place all 4K Movies are purchased. Again, seems short sided to me. Also, the ATV is not even going to be available till around September.

To me they really should support 4K in the new ATV 4.

 

[mdelvecchio]

I'm disappointed in Apple, they used to be forerunners....

i bet theyre doomed, huh? also doomed because they didnt adopt NFC when everybody else did, either? or LTE? yeah, theyre so lame for not adopting everything immediately. and doomed. did i mention theyre doomed?

 

[Nickerbocker]

Not enough 4K video available -- and Apple TV isn't not meant to be a "future proof" device. This really doesn't surprise me.

 

[Barabas]

The 4K party is a lonely one.

Because there is no 4K party. As an example there wasn't a single film that was nominated for best cinematography this year that was done in 4K. Zero. None. Zilch.

The camera used in majority of all films – the Arri Alexa – doesn't even support 2K.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The bitrate for Apple TV could definitely go up to remove banding in dark scenes and quality overall. They could add higher frame-rates.

 

[violentblogger]

the %

"the vast majority of Americans do not even have Internet connectivity at fast enough speeds to support such streaming."

The ones that do have fast enough internet connectivity are probably the people that do purchase apple products and will most likely purchase the next TV update.

 

[uid15]

i bet theyre doomed, huh? also doomed because they didnt adopt NFC when everybody else did, either? or LTE? yeah, theyre so lame for not adopting everything immediately. and doomed. did i mention theyre doomed?

Made me chuckle, because that's the predictable truth of most people's simplistic comments. Funny how NFC is now actually being used, now that Apple have implemented it, and yes - because they did it RIGHT and in their own time, not just to catch up with the Android nerds.

PS: To anyone who boldly states "Mark my words" in reference to anything... why should we? Tell us, what makes your opinion so big and note-worthy, that we must mark YOUR words? Typical MR arrogance. Sit down, open your ears to others' opinions, and drink your coffee quietly.

 

[Mackinjosh]

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

4k tvs cost under 2000 dollars. Stop making excuses for Apple continuing to be idiots.

 

[DotCom2]

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.

That is why I have a 58" Samsung Plasma.
BEST TV EVER!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You keep saying this as if it's true. LTE was out before the first iPhone with LTE was released which was the 5.

4K has been out for a good while now. Via Netflix, YouTube and Amazon, just about anyone with sufficient bandwidth can access it (unlike some who bought LTE-capable iPhones before LTE was available in their area). What's your point?

My point in that example was that we generally look for Apple to adopt future technologies even before we can all personally use them... we'll even grumble some when Apple seems to be dragging their feet on some technologies.

Yet here- in this one kind of technology- we seem to embrace and/or cling to the present or past, spinning the next big thing to the negative in every way we can imagine. We did the very same thing when Apple clinged to 720p when 1080p had pretty much taken over in every other kind of video signal device.

The funny part is that them implementing 4K doesn't actually affect any of the "1080p is good enough" crowd. They could still watch their 1080p as richly and fully as they do now... just as Apple finally adopting 1080p didn't hurt the "720p is good enough" crowd, as they too could keep enjoying their "good enough".

What it would do is make this a great option for an additional segment of set-top box buyers- those who have already or are moving on to 4K sets and/or 4K cameras now. Perhaps it makes us feel more special to screen out what would otherwise be considered the "early adopter" crowd? Maybe we don't want those kinds of people in our special club?

----------

Nobody is going to buy a $6000 TV merely because their new set-top box now supports 4K.

I encourage anyone who believes 4K TVs cost $6K to hop on over to Amazon.com and do a quick search. Implying they are all priced out of the market is completely deceptive. Can you find some priced at that level? Yes. But look at most of the 4K sets- the ones who would likely be purchased by the masses.

And even if they all were at least $6K, how can we find fault with that when Apple has $17K watches coming to market soon?

 

[MarkyMarc43]

4K Support

No 4K - no purchase.

 

[WilliamLondon]

...Apple continuing to be idiots.

Just over 6 months you've been a member on a site for people who like Apple products and reviewing your comments one wonders why. You're actually incredibly negative in nearly every single post, are you trying to shut down discussion or perhaps make people defensive or do you really not realise how trollish all your posts are?

When Apple released the ATV gen 3 with 1080p support (March 2012), several months ahead of the release there was news about studios submitting their content with encoding options that indicated the two options they supported at the time (SD and HD) plus a new format (HD+) which was the 1080p support (this was 2011). Several months later Apple released a new version of iTunes and the new ATV, both of which supported 1080p content. The reason I mention this is that the products they release have an ecosystem surrounding them that is always fully supportive of them. Do we really think they would do anything differently this time?

How many content partners currently can offer 4K streaming?

How much content, in general, is available that Apple could put in their own store?

The answer to both is of course not much, but this doesn't really matter that much because it's all rumour and speculation anyway at this point, though somehow it's Apple who are the "idiots" in all this. How rich.

 

[guzhogi]

I'd like to see the AppleTV at least capable of streaming 4K. As for the whole "But there's no 4K content yet!" and "Internet connections aren't fast enough" arguments, I would hope that AppleTV's capability would at least get the ball rolling and create the demand for the content & internet connections. If not, the creators will say "There's nothing that can play it!" The whole chicken and the egg paradox.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

In order for people to take advantage of USB type 3, they have to buy things (adapters or new hardware).

In order for people to take advantage of thunderbolt, they have to buy things (adapters or new hardware).

Etc.

What's the difference? My point is that people (apparently like you) who are happy with 1080p could still enjoy their 1080p to the fullest. This would have ZERO effect on you. You could buy a 4K set when your 1080p conks... or stick with 1080p then (if they are even still available then). However, a 4K TV would give people who are not you a path to get more out of THEIR 4K sets.

I'm happy for you that you find 1080p optimal for now. That's wonderful. Other people who are not you feel differently than you. They could get their wants met too. Apple could sell them TVs too. So you could "win", they could "win" and Apple could "win".

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.

"Too expensive" is ambiguous. There is OLED 1080p sets too. There are reference quality 1080p sets too. One might consider them "too expensive". Is that an OLED screen in that 5K iMac? No? So is that unable to deliver (another ambiguous, eye-of-the-beholder term like) "cinematic quality"? Are those OLED screens in retina iPhone 6, iPad airs? Is all that junk?

Let me guess: all that "is different". It's not junk screens when Apple has chosen those for their currently-available technology but unless 4K (but not 1080p) screens are OLED, one cannot get a "cinematic quality" experience without enduring a "too expensive" outlay of cash.

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.

So CDs were out en masse before we could get CD player hardware? Blu Ray discs were out en masse before we could get BD player hardware? 720p videos were abundantly available in the iTunes store before there was a 720p TV? 1080p videos were abundantly available in the iTunes store before there was a 1080p TV?

I'm looking through the iOS app store for apps that will utilize unique features only available in the A9 and A10 chips. Where are those apps? I'm looking through the Mac app store for apps that will utilize the unique features built into Intel chips coming out in 2018. Where are those apps?

But this (one) time, it should be different... the software should be out en masse BEFORE there is hardware availability to actually play it.

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.

There you go. Why bother ever shooting any event in 4K when you have the capability? Apparently some events are important enough to you to capture at a level of quality beyond what you can play back on your TV now. Guess what happens in a few years where you can get your "cinematic quality" 4K TV without it being "too expensive" because you waited long enough? That video you shot at 4K will then dazzle.

Why do we have the cameras in our iDevices that shoot beyond what can be displayed on any Mac or 4K screens available now? Why aren't you railing against Apple for the uselessness of putting cameras in iDevices that can shoot at higher resolutions than what can be displayed on any screen we have now? Again, let me guess: "that's different."

Huge hard drives are CHEAP. I'd shoot everything that might matter even a little to me in the future (especially home movies you'll never get to go back and shoot again) at 4K, store those masters on cheap hard drives, and then edit & render them for whatever quality of HDTV you have now. Eventually, when you embrace 4K (which is probably the day that Apple officially endorses it in an Apple product), all those master files can be re-rendered to max out that OLED "cinematic quality".

Don't do that and you can't travel back in time and re-shoot any of that footage at 4K. How much I wish I could go back to the 1970's-1990's and reshoot precious home videos at 4K now! Instead, I have to settle for VHS and 8mm quality scaled up on 1080p HDTV screens. Many of those dear relatives shot at those low resolutions are long-since gone. Many of those events can't possibly be restaged. Children can't be children again. I'd get it while I can.

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.

Why do they have to charge "too much"? The guts of an TV are the same guts as a stripped-down iPad. If an iPad can have the A8 and an A8 can play back 4K, it could be the next guts of a new TV that can play 4K. Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit paying several times $69-$99 for a 4K-capable TV4 with some of the other rumored benefits. But I don't see a reason a 4K TV would automatically have to be priced a lot higher than the current TV when the guts that make it go would be just an A8 instead of an A5. Was iPad pricing jacked up to "too much" because the A8 cost so much more than the A7? A7 vs. A6? A6 vs. A5?

 

[SirCheese]

(unlike some who bought LTE-capable iPhones before LTE was available in their area). What's your point?

My point? False information.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

They don't have to upgrade their sets. Is everybody upgrading all of their USB accessories to go with USB type 3 because Apple just adopted that? Did everybody upgrade all of their accessories to work with thunderbolt when Apple adopted that? Etc.

Like all tech, you buy a "next big thing" standard in something and evolve the rest over time... or use adapters to get by until you can evolve the rest. A 4K option on a new TV will output 1080p, 720p and SD to their max, when attached to those kinds of sets. But it will also be ready for a 4K set when we get around to owning one of those... much like having an LTE-capable iPhone before your area had LTE signals. Waiting until LTE was everywhere on the planet FIRST would mean we still wouldn't have LTE iPhones. So Apple rolled out LTE and left it to those who could serve LTE signals to "catch up."

----------

My point? False information.

Care to clarify? Are you trying to say that LTE was available everywhere BEFORE Apple rolled out LTE-capable iPhones?

 

[SirCheese]

They don't have to upgrade their sets. Is everybody upgrading all of their USB accessories to go with USB type 3 because Apple just adopted that? Did everybody upgrade all of their accessories to work with thunderbolt when Apple adopted that? Etc.

Like all tech, you buy a "next big thing" standard in something and evolve the rest over time... or use adapters to get by until you can evolve the rest. A 4K option on a new TV will output 1080p, 720p and SD to their max, when attached to those kinds of sets. But it will also be ready for a 4K set when we get around to owning one of those... much like having an LTE-capable iPhone before your area had LTE signals. Waiting until LTE was everywhere on the planet FIRST would mean we still wouldn't have LTE iPhones. So Apple rolled out LTE and left it to those who could serve LTE signals to "catch up."

----------



Care to clarify? Are you trying to say that LTE was available everywhere BEFORE Apple rolled out LTE-capable iPhones?

I am saying it was out and people were using it before the iPhone finally added it. Maybe not "everywhere" but yes, people were using it.

 

[HenryDJP]

In order for people to take advantage of USB type 3, they have to buy things (adapters or new hardware).

In order for people to take advantage of thunderbolt, they have to buy things (adapters or new hardware).

Etc.

What's the difference? My point is that people (apparently like you) who are happy with 1080p could still enjoy their 1080p to the fullest. This would have ZERO effect on you. You could buy a 4K set when your 1080p conks... or stick with 1080p then (if they are even still available then). However, a 4K TV would give people who are not you a path to get more out of THEIR 4K sets.

I'm happy for you that you find 1080p optimal for now. That's wonderful. Other people who are not you feel differently than you. They could get their wants met too. Apple could sell them TVs too. So you could "win", they could "win" and Apple could "win".



"Too expensive" is ambiguous. There is OLED 1080p sets too. There are reference quality 1080p sets too. One might consider them "too expensive". Is that an OLED screen in that 5K iMac? No? So is that unable to deliver (another ambiguous, eye-of-the-beholder term like) "cinematic quality"? Are those OLED screens in retina iPhone 6, iPad airs? Is all that junk?

Let me guess: all that "is different". It's not junk screens when Apple has chosen those for their currently-available technology but unless 4K (but not 1080p) screens are OLED, one cannot get a "cinematic quality" experience without enduring a "too expensive" outlay of cash.



So CDs were out en masse before we could get CD player hardware? Blu Ray discs were out en masse before we could get BD player hardware? 720p videos were abundantly available in the iTunes store before there was a 720p TV? 1080p videos were abundantly available in the iTunes store before there was a 1080p TV?

I'm looking through the iOS app store for apps that will utilize unique features only available in the A9 and A10 chips. Where are those apps? I'm looking through the Mac app store for apps that will utilize the unique features built into Intel chips coming out in 2018. Where are those apps?

But this (one) time, it should be different... the software should be out en masse BEFORE there is hardware availability to actually play it.



There you go. Why bother ever shooting any event in 4K when you have the capability? Apparently some events are important enough to you to capture at a level of quality beyond what you can play back on your TV now. Guess what happens in a few years where you can get your "cinematic quality" 4K TV without it being "too expensive" because you waited long enough? That video you shot at 4K will then dazzle.

Why do we have the cameras in our iDevices that shoot beyond what can be displayed on any Mac or 4K screens available now? Why aren't you railing against Apple for the uselessness of putting cameras in iDevices that can shoot at higher resolutions than what can be displayed on any screen we have now? Again, let me guess: "that's different."

Huge hard drives are CHEAP. I'd shoot everything that might matter even a little to me in the future (especially home movies you'll never get to go back and shoot again) at 4K, store those masters on cheap hard drives, and then edit & render them for whatever quality of HDTV you have now. Eventually, when you embrace 4K (which is probably the day that Apple officially endorses it in an Apple product), all those master files can be re-rendered to max out that OLED "cinematic quality".

Don't do that and you can't travel back in time and re-shoot any of that footage at 4K. How much I wish I could go back to the 1970's-1990's and reshoot precious home videos at 4K now! Instead, I have to settle for VHS and 8mm quality scaled up on 1080p HDTV screens. Many of those dear relatives shot at those low resolutions are long-since gone. Many of those events can't possibly be restaged. Children can't be children again. I'd get it while I can.



Why do they have to charge "too much"? The guts of an TV are the same guts as a stripped-down iPad. If an iPad can have the A8 and an A8 can play back 4K, it could be the next guts of a new TV that can play 4K. Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit paying several times $69-$99 for a 4K-capable TV4 with some of the other rumored benefits. But I don't see a reason a 4K TV would automatically have to be priced a lot higher than the current TV when the guts that make it go would be just an A8 instead of an A5. Was iPad pricing jacked up to "too much" because the A8 cost so much more than the A7? A7 vs. A6? A6 vs. A5?

I couldn't even read that entire super long soliloquy because much of it is nothing but analogies that are completely irrelevant.

Also, you're throwing words in my mouth (not surprising when your argument is losing it's power). I never once said or suggested that I felt 1080p is optimal for now. I love when technology moves forward. I have a 64" Plasma myself. Obviously I do care how great the PQ is. I'm trying to explain to you a reality rather than just creating products long before their time. If there's very little reason for people to spend money on 4K technology (and their reasons should be due to plenty of available content and affordable/available high-speed internet) other than for bragging rights, then what's the point of creating a 4K TV when it can't offer the content?

You're confusing my post about how crappy 4K LCD TV's are. You can't compare that to an iMac. Sure, you can say you watch movies on your iMac but that's not the general reason why most people buy a computer. Anyone who has an eye about TV's KNOWS how poor LCD TV's are with flash-lighting, clouding, poor uniformity and horrible off-angle viewing. This is not necessarily a huge issue with an iMac since most people will be using it close up and for computing as opposed to their daily TV watching as you would a standard TV.

You've said your peace and so have I. At the end of the day, according to this article, Apple is NOT making a 4K TV, so your arguments and analogies aren't going to change that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I am saying it was out and people were using it before the iPhone finally added it. Maybe not "everywhere" but yes, people were using it.

4K is out and people are using it. Maybe not "everywhere" but yes, people are using it... for sometime now.

 

[HVDynamo]

As long as it has an AppStore, Im getting it. 4K can wait. I cant even tell the difference from 1080p videos anyways.

4K TV's can be had for a little over $1000 already. Black Friday even had some as low as $800.

 

[Michael Goff]

i bet theyre doomed, huh? also doomed because they didnt adopt NFC when everybody else did, either? or LTE? yeah, theyre so lame for not adopting everything immediately. and doomed. did i mention theyre doomed?

Did he even say anything like that? Not that I could read.

 

[palmerc2]

Netflix 4K streaming will require twice as much bandwidth as U.S. average

“It’s around 15 megabits per second,” said Hastings at the TV Conference. “It’s not too bad. If you’ve got a 50-megabit connection you’ll be fine. As an overall system load, it will grow quite slowly and steadily, giving people lots of time to build the infrastructure.”

A 50 Mbps connection is certainly a viable option, even in 2013, but according to the latest speed rankings via the NCTA, the average American connection sits around 7.4 Mbps, less than half of the required bandwidth needed to stream 4K video. It is true that 4K adoption is relatively slow, so expectations for higher quality streams will rise only gradually in the coming months. Even so, Internet connection speeds will need to climb at a greater pace if Americans wants to access their favorite on Netflix movies in 4K.

Right now I average about 150Mbps so this wouldn't be a problem for me. However my TV is 1080p, I honestly cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I'm fine with the next AppleTV not having 4k.

 

[doelcm82]

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.

So you're planning to buy now, and then again in a year?

 

[0098386]

How about us non-Americans who do have more than necessary bandwidth? I live 2 miles outside of a town of 24000 people, and my choice is 100M or 1G

I'm disappointed in Apple, they used to be forerunners....

(fellow non-American with a 96mbps connection here)
They used to be forerunners. Now they're content in selling disposable devices in the form of phones and watches. It's sad that it happens.

 

[roadbloc]

4K streaming? I can't even stream 720p yet. 480p is only just possible.

 

[Jimmy James]

Apple's chipsets are now powerful enough to support 4k or they're not. My understanding is that they can support this.

I suspect this will simply be a software limitation that can be updated.