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

[Tech198]

Why would u want 4K on an Apple TV, when Apple themselves don't even offer it yet on the iTunes Store ? It will look better for content. Not sure if Netflix can even do this yet, but Apple defiantly can't....

Plus, the limitation of bandwidth of ISP's ... Not all of us have NBN yet...

 

[sampaul]

And I wasn't even trying to make them look like idiots.....so you should probably stop assuming.

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

 

[terrapinjess]

Who the hell wants to stream 4k with data rates as expensive as they are in the US anyway?!

 

[Ciclismo]

Yes there is.

The new Apple TV software. Streaming TV,Apps etc. will require the newest Apple TV.

Apple won't support the 3rd. Gen Apple TV for it's soon to be new Apple TV O/S.

By that logic, my second gen Apple TV shouldn't work for streaming Netflix or Watcher. But it does.

 

[Keirasplace]

Why would u want 4K on an Apple TV, when Apple themselves don't even offer it yet on the iTunes Store ? It will look better for content. Not sure if Netflix can even do this yet, but Apple defiantly can't....

Plus, the limitation of bandwidth of ISP's ... Not all of us have NBN yet...

They can for the last few months for a very small part of their catalog.You need ad 25Mbs connection (and hope not everyone around you is using it at the exact same time ;-). They'Re certifying TVs before sending out the streams; many low end UHD tV's can't handle the streams properly seemingly. Though many of those cheap UHD TVs are so small anyway that I don't see the point unless your using them as crappy monitors ;-).

Right now, the best thing is probably watching it on a good quality 4K 27 inch computer monitor; that isn't cheap though.

Myself, it costs me $66 bucks a month for 25Mbs + 150G (9 Netflix UHD movies). Unlimited costs an extra $20 bucks. Don't think its worth it right now even if my computer screen could handle it. I prefer getting the highest quality 1920x1080 monitor for now (or a bit higher than that). Much cheaper for what you get.

I'm not changing my plasma for a crappy 4K TV. Next stop, hopefully OLED in a few years.

Low end 4K screens are not that great quality wise, so I'd stay away until the high end quality sets falls down to the lower mid range ($1500) (probably will take about 3 years, depends how desperate companies are to sell, and if the panel supply is too high).

 

[Keirasplace]

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

Right.. And I could also buy 32 inch LCDs for less than $200 bucks... Why did they sell the $800 ones then, for kicks? Resolution is obviously more important than any other considerations (sic) Quality, compatibility (many of the lowest end 4K tvs can't take Netflix 4K..) and availability of good content be damned.

Considering very little streaming of 4K, or even native 4K content existed before this year, why did these people buy really crappy 4K TVs? If you said marketing, well you'd be right. Margins on 1080P TVs has fallen through the floor and that's why makers are trying to sell higher priced models. Even for watching photos, they're not that great considering their not so fine color accuracy; better watch it on your IPS computer screen if you have one.

 

[SactoGuy18]

By the way, the problem with Ultra HD is that unless your flat panel TV is above 60" (152.4 cm) diagonal in size or have a digital projector capable of playing back Ultra HD and projecting it on an 80" (diagonal) or bigger projection screen, Ultra HD is overkill. With below 60" 1080p flat panels, the sharpness and clarity is more than good enough for home users.

 

[2IS]

By the way, the problem with Ultra HD is that unless your flat panel TV is above 60" (152.4 cm) diagonal in size or have a digital projector capable of playing back Ultra HD and projecting it on an 80" (diagonal) or bigger projection screen, Ultra HD is overkill. With below 60" 1080p flat panels, the sharpness and clarity is more than good enough for home users.

Lesson of the day... The post above is commonly referred to as an "opinion" and doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[MacBH928]

Chromecast stuttering is a WIFI issue. You need to use 802.11n instead of 802.11g and hope you don't live in a dense environment like apartment or dorm with interfering 2.4GHz devices. Ideal set up like mine is TP-Link Archer C7 v2+ dual-band WIFI router, dedicate 5GHz 802.11ac for streamer device like Windows tablet/set top box/etc. and dedicate 2.4GHz 802.11n for Chromecast which works perfectly for 1080p internet streaming and also local streaming using Videostream Chrome browser app.

Thanks for your informative input. I have 802.11n but no dual band. If you are knowledgeable in routers, can you tell me which should I pickup? I am not looking to spare any money. Or shall I wait another 6 months until I get a new macbook PRO (broadwell hopefully) to get a router?

 

[RazorWriter]

50" 4K for $899 http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-P502ui-...TF8&qid=1428270288&sr=1-3&keywords=50+inch+4k

Costco had this TV for $699 last month! I bought one for a bedroom and am blown away with the picture - contrast ratio is plasma-level with the local dimming... regular 1080p netflix show look amazing, and Blacklist in 4k is truly stunning. I'm disappointed if Apple won't at least support 4k even though programming is currently skimpy. Maybe they don't want to seem like they're over selling it. If vizio can include an h265 capable decoder (quad core video chip), so can Apple.

 

[steve-p]

What I find strange is people here touting and defending the great picture quality of the current crop of 4K TVs, when LCD is inherently and noticably inferior to plasma or OLED in just about every single metric that you care to name. Except resolution, of course, where 4K plasma is not going to happen, and OLED is frighteningly expensive. Another 'megapixel' style victory of marketing over substance. Nice trick if you can pull it off.

 

[s2mikey]

What I find strange is people here touting and defending the great picture quality of the current crop of 4K TVs, when LCD is inherently and noticably inferior to plasma or OLED in just about every single metric that you care to name. Except resolution, of course, where 4K plasma is not going to happen, and OLED is frighteningly expensive. Another 'megapixel' style victory of marketing over substance. Nice trick if you can pull it off.

Thank you for getting it! These current LCDs no matter what resolution they are FAIL at many basic picture quality characteristics. It's comical that some folks believe that reoslution is the key component to video quality. That just goes to show you how uninformed the public is and why they wouldn't know a good image if it bit them in the behind. A good 1080p plasma murders any LCD out there. Not even a contest.

And, LG is already toying with 8K resolution. Yeah, search around, several articles on tech sites mentioned this. So, great....let's cram MORE pixels into crappy displays so it's "nice and sharp, man". Oh my lord, what a joke.

Coming next year: 24K LCDs. Great.

 

[diamond.g]

Go to Best Buy and count the TVs for sale. There's lots of 4K sets now. It is widely adapted by TV Manufacturers. In fact, can you name a TV manufacturer that doesn't currently offer a 4K set?

Challenge accepted.... Hitachi... Yeah they make TV's and none of them are UHD... Which is ironic cause they make a UHD studio camera...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

http://advanced-television.com/2012/01/24/hitachi-quits-tv-production/ How about Philco, Westinghouse, Admiral and Magnavox too?

----------

Thank you for getting it! These current LCDs no matter what resolution they are FAIL at many basic picture quality characteristics. It's comical that some folks believe that reoslution is the key component to video quality. That just goes to show you how uninformed the public is and why they wouldn't know a good image if it bit them in the behind. A good 1080p plasma murders any LCD out there. Not even a contest.

And, LG is already toying with 8K resolution. Yeah, search around, several articles on tech sites mentioned this. So, great....let's cram MORE pixels into crappy displays so it's "nice and sharp, man". Oh my lord, what a joke.

Where is this sentiment with Apple "retina"? I know, I know, "that's different." If Apple adapts cramming more pixels into an LCD screen, it's "best _______ ever" but if Apple appears to be rejecting some technology, it's "FAIL" and a "joke"... and the people who covet it anyway are "uninformed", unable to "know a good image", etc.

However, let this rumor be wrong (meaning let Apple surprise with a 4K version of the little box) and you won't be in that thread putting it down. Instead, with an Apple endorsement of 4K, I'd bet you and many against it in this thread will either vanish from such a thread or praise the glories of a 4K TV. How could that possibly be? See:
-bigger screen iPhone threads before the rumors of 4.7" and 5.5" piled up enough to make it seem Apple really was going there
-NFC in smart phone rumors before Apple finally implemented it
-1080p in Apple TV rumors before the third generation rumors piled up such that it seemed likely.
Etc.

Then, look at the threads after Apple endorsed such topics. Funny how "stupid", "99.9% don't want", "man purses", "pants with bigger pockets", "gimmick", "until the whole internet is upgraded to handle...", etc is transformed into "best _______ ever", "how did we ever get by without ________" and "shut up and take my money" as soon as Apple goes there.

That .1% slice of the population's purchasing power must be AMAZING. I can't believe how many "abomination"-sized iPhones they've purchased, nor how much just they are buying things via Apple Pay and why they are so foolishly pretending to see a difference at 1080p when everybody knows "720p is good enough" and "human eyes can't resolve", "the chart", etc... WHILE the rest of us (that 99.9% so often surveyed and quoted around here), stand on the sidelines clinging to our perfect 4" or perfect 3.5" smart phone screens, buying things with credit cards or cash and ONLY watching the perfect HD maximum format of 720p.

 

[jermy4]

Makes me wonder if the new apple tv will be powerful enough to include 4K support later down the line in a software update or if they will release another hardware version to support 4K in the future.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If it doesn't come with 4K touted in the marketing, my best guess is that we'll have to buy an TV5 to get 4K. It's not that often that Apple builds such a tangible upgrade option into their iDevice products such that just a software update can activate such a feature.

Worse, given the attention this "hobby" gets, if it doesn't arrive with 4K, we might be waiting 3-4 years for a 4K version. In my own experience I was there for the first generation way back in 2007. I piled up a lot of 1080p content for many years (shot with consumer camcorders) awaiting a 1080p TV that didn't arrive until 2012. Apple gave us Macs capable of handling 1080p content and software able to edit and render it at 1080p. It would even go into iTunes as a 1080p video file just fine and play on those Macs at 1080p. BUT, the one link in the chain- TV gen 1 & 2- remained capped at 720p for (IMO) much too long.

If this next TV isn't 4K, I would expect that many will have 4K camcorders/DSLRs and 4K televisions long before Apple gets around to giving us a way to push 4K content we've shot, edited on Macs capable of editing & rendering 4K, to our 4K TVs. If so, they open the door for products like Roku, Amazon, Chromecast and others to step in there first... just as they ceded 1080p playback to products like those for a good while before finally getting around to going 1080p themselves.

I am hopeful they will lead this time instead of following. However, what I think most led to a 1080p TV was a product problem. Several months before gen 3 arrived, Apple launched iPhones with a touted benefit of being able to shoot 1080p video. How could one play that beautiful 1080p video on their 1080p TVs. NOT through 2nd generation TV. To solve that problem, they upgraded the "hobby".

The bigger problem in hoping a new TV is 4K is that the non-"hobby" iDevices like iPhone and iPad are not shooting 4K now. I unfortunately believe we have to see iPhones and maybe iPads shooting 4K video before we get a 4K TV. So in spite of my own obvious desire for a 4K TV4, I expect another 1080p TV with some signature features that can't/won't be implemented on the current 1080p TV3. But I'd love to be wrong about that... especially with the history of many years between meaningful hardware updates.

 

[diamond.g]

http://advanced-television.com/2012/01/24/hitachi-quits-tv-production/ How about Philco, Westinghouse, Admiral and Magnavox too?

dangit. They were last on my list, lol. I didn't even think of Westinghouse (man they made decent tvs at one point then it went down hill from there).

Honestly was only trying to be humorous, no ill will from me. I am in the Apple should do a 4k Apple TV camp, but then again I am usually in the camp that gets looked down on until Apple does it. (iPhone 1 apps, MMS, NFC, bigger screen, higher resolution, etc).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I take no ill will. And I was trying to be humorous with that comeback.

But in our fun, the point was made. What point? I originally issued the challenge of identifying ONE major TV manufacturer who is not offering a 4K model in answer to the implied argument of how it's not "widely adapted by TV manufacturers" now...

4K content is still years away to become the status of choice. While we're seeing more all the time it's still not widely adapted by TV manufacturers etc

My own experience even in stores like Best Buy is that it feels like 4K TVs are getting close to having more units on display than 1080p. That's probably not literally true just yet (I haven't actually counted each) but the marketing focus is definitely there (which is where the better profits are too). I do expect that if one did do such a count even 6 months from now, the 4K sets will likely outnumber the 1080p sets (and if not 6 months, then 12). Go try to find 720p HDTVs today. It won't be that long before 1080p sets are like that: increasingly hard to find, fading, gone.

4K hardware is out there. Lots of it is being purchased and used (not exclusively by the elite rich but by consumers willing to pay a little more (which is not $6K for any 4K TV) to embrace the next technology sooner than later). Personally, I'm still pretty happy with my 1080p Plasma but that doesn't change my desire for a 4K TV. While I couldn't feed 4K signals to my own HDTV today, I can shoot 4K video now, edit and render it at 4K on my Mac and it can be ready for 4K resolutions when I buy that new 4K Hitachi, er Philco er Magnavox er Etc. I'd like to go pick up both in my new 2015 DeSoto.

 

[DaveN]

Here's a shopping trick I use on Amazon. I add a big ticket item to my cart and then move it to "Saved for Later". By doing that, I get messages that tell me whether the price on that item has gone down or up since I last checked on it. Be patient and don't pull the trigger until the price is as low as you think it could go within a reasonable amount of time.

I do the same. I also put in in the cart for a while and then take it out. If you search the web for the same item, Amazon finds the cookie and Amazon ads for your item show up on the pages you visit. Doing so seems to give Amazon 'incentive' to lower the price.

I also play the Amazon prime game. I save up several items and then place an order and take them up on the 1 month Amazon prime offer to get free two day shipping. I then cancel the Amazon Prime before the month is out. I'm on my second Amazon Prime trial. I don't know how many they will offer.

 

[laurim]

I do the same. I also put in in the cart for a while and then take it out. If you search the web for the same item, Amazon finds the cookie and Amazon ads for your item show up on the pages you visit. Doing so seems to give Amazon 'incentive' to lower the price.

I also play the Amazon prime game. I save up several items and then place an order and take them up on the 1 month Amazon prime offer to get free two day shipping. I then cancel the Amazon Prime before the month is out. I'm on my second Amazon Prime trial. I don't know how many they will offer.

I can't imagine Amazon letting you get away with that grift for very long. At least I hope not since that would p*ss off people like myself who pay for Prime

 

[DaveN]

I can't imagine Amazon letting you get away with that grift for very long. At least I hope not since that would p*ss off people like myself who pay for Prime

Well I only do it for a month at a time. Normally I'll wait the week or two to get the free shipping but I used the Prime option this time because I needed the item sooner than the free delivery time but I didn't want to pay for delivery.

 

[laurim]

Well I only do it for a month at a time. Normally I'll wait the week or two to get the free shipping but I used the Prime option this time because I needed the item sooner than the free delivery time but I didn't want to pay for delivery. Hey, I'm from Wisconsin. I'm cheap.

Really? People have the dumbest excuses for criminality. How about you not buy things on Amazon if you are that cheap? Use your legs for delivery if you don't want to pay for it. I'm too cheap to tip a pizza guy to deliver a pizza for less than a mile. But I don't still get delivery but stiff the delivery guy. I get off the couch and go get it myself.

P.S. I'm from MN. Heard plenty of jokes about Wisconsin people over the years but being cheap wasn't one of them. Not an excuse anyway.

 

[brinary001]

The chips will probably add about $10 if that, to Apples cost. They're not in it for the money so I'm sure they can absorb that, besides its only a hobby for them.
I don't know what part of the world you come from, but from where I come from its probably less than 5 and for me around 3 to 4 years.

Congrats on being able to afford to do that. It has nothing to do with geography, bud. It's a financial thing, and most people can only afford or (want to afford) a one or two thousand dollar TV once per decade.

 

[Keirasplace]

4K hardware is out there. Lots of it is being purchased and used (not exclusively by the elite rich but by consumers willing to pay a little more (which is not $6K for any 4K TV) to embrace the next technology sooner than later). Personally, I'm still pretty happy with my 1080p Plasma but that doesn't change my desire for a 4K TV. While I couldn't feed 4K signals to my own HDTV today, I can shoot 4K video now, edit and render it at 4K on my Mac and it can be ready for 4K resolutions when I buy that new 4K Hitachi, er Philco er Magnavox er Etc. I'd like to go pick up both in my new 2015 DeSoto.

I don't think you get the reason 4K stuff is now filling stores... It is MARGINS, nothing to do with those crappy low end 4K sets being actually decent. People see 4K as being superior because you know "4K" (sic) and thus the TV maker can price them higher even when the panels and electronics are the same price as the 1080P.

A 720P and 1080P plasma from the distance most people look at their TV would deliver a much much better experience on a 42-60 inch TV than even a 4K panel that's 3-4 times more expensive. Everything else than resolution is better by a large margin.

So, why did they drop plasma... MARGINS, plasma cost a lot more to make and people seemingly didn't put value in contrast, movement resolution, angle, color reproduction, etc. Not able to convince people to pay more means low pricing power and thus very low margins.

The people buying low to mid end 4K because marketing and a channel push to watch their sub-standard 4K videos or highly compressed streams(!!), are the same types of people buying the low end 1080P sets. BTW, you do know that Netflix need to certify those crappy low ender because some can't play its UHD streams properly.

----------

Lesson of the day... The post above is commonly referred to as an "opinion" and doesn't apply to everyone.

No, it isn't. That's the standard for distance to screen which you can actually seen. What YOU just said is an opinion.
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship
There's more info about that if you go Google a bit.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Not one bit of that has anything at all to do with whether Apple product buyers can want and/or buy a 4K TV.

I appreciate every point you're making but its not up to Apple to first get all the TV manufacturers, all the Internet backbone managers, all the 4K video shooters & editors, etc to all signficinatly improve their parts of some 4K future first BEFORE Apple can roll out a 4K TV. Apple can just make what they can make. And we can buy it or not.

Again, LTE was not available to every possible LTE iPhone buyer before Apple rolled out LTE iPhones. There are tons of apps not yet updated with Apple Watch compatibility and won't be before Apple rolls out the Watch. ALL of the apps in the iOS app store are not yet updated to take full advantage of the A9 chip likely coming in the next round of new iDevices and won't be when Apple rolls out those A9 iDevices. All the apps in the Mac store are not yet updated to take full advantage of the the new chipsets coming later this year from Intel in the form of new Mac updates, yet Apple will roll out those new Macs anyway.

Hardware updates come first. Then, software updates can catch up. It doesn't work the other way. Apple can roll out a 4K TV and it's up to the other players to make better 4K TVs, shoot-edit-render better 4K video and for those in charge of internet bandwidth to build it out to handle the potential shifts in greater demand. In the meantime, 1080p content will play just as good, as will 720p and as will SD on better hardware... just as iOS apps will run just fine on that A9 when it rolls out and Mac apps will run just fine on those new Intel chipsets when the next-gen of Macs roll out with them.

I prefer Plasma TV picture quality myself. But you and I feeling that way doesn't move the TV-making industry to build better 4K TVs, nor should it block Apple from rolling out 4K-capable TVs.

And if other consumers are too ignorant to see the difference such that they might be happy watching sub-standard quality and/or over-compressed 4K on their 4K cheap or substandard TVs through that 4K TV, what it to you or me? If they are happy, good for them. If evil marketers have tricked them into buying into 4K but they don't know better and are happy, again good for them. It doesn't affect you or I in the least.

All that written: I'd still rather see Apple roll out a 4K version than go another round capped at 1080p. I don't care if I can't get a suitable quality 4K TV. I don't care if any content I can possibly find is substandard quality. I don't care if my broadband connection might not be able to handle 4K streams. I'd still rather Apple's product go there anyway. Why? Because I'd rather see it advance and hopefully spur the rest of the players to move along over the next few years than cling to the current standard that has been dominant for the last few. I'll shoot my own 4K. I'll edit it to my own quality standards. I'll buy some form of 4K playback device that meets my own quality objectives and I'll enjoy it. None of that has to effect you at all.