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

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, it's because we realize WHY Apple probably doesn't care much about 4K in the Apple TV. It's pointless for the majority, unless you're just going for spec-wars. And, once it's 4K, then you have a whole host of issues trying to stream 4K to it. It's hard enough, for most people, to get a good 1080p stream to one.

What's the majority got to do with a company that runs a minority in the home computer and mobile phone industry? In short, Apple has never been about the majority. It's been about providing the best and/or easiest to use products to a discerning group of consumers. Joe Public tends to buy a cheap $300 Windows Junk notebook from Best Buy. He does not buy a $2000 Macbook Pro. So when I see Apple's name on something like AppleTV, I expect APPLE not CRAPPLE. Apple should be LEADING in the tv set top box field, not following behind a cheap Panasonic BD player that DOES support 4k Netflix streaming. Now if Apple had to pay more to make that new AppleTV to get 4k support, well OK, you can argue price points. But when we read the hardware DOES support 4k and Apple simply has it disabled in their software...well sorry but that's a horse crap pill to swallow. If Apple were selling 4k movies on iTunes, you can be damn sure it WOULD be enabled in software and that brings to light another mistake from Apple.

While Apple may find that many users couldn't STREAM a 4k movie in real time, ALL users could DOWNLOAD a 4k movie over time to BUY or perahaps a 2-3 day rental that you could watch on the weekend you could pre-stream. Give the new box a little more storage and it's not an issue. Besides, some of us have faster Internet and 4k is not a big deal. If I'm going to replace my current AppleTV units, I want a good reason to do it, not find that I need to do it AGAIN next year. As for the Mac Mini to play all formats, I have multiple units around the house, not just one so a pricey Mac Mini isn't a good solution and STILL won't do 4k AFAIK.

 

[SteveW928]

What's the majority got to do with a company that runs a minority in the home computer and mobile phone industry? In short, Apple has never been about the majority. It's been about providing the best and/or easiest to use products to a discerning group of consumers. Joe Public tends to buy a cheap $300 Windows Junk notebook from Best Buy. He does not buy a $2000 Macbook Pro. So when I see Apple's name on something like AppleTV, I expect APPLE not CRAPPLE. Apple should be LEADING in the tv set top box field, not following behind a cheap Panasonic BD player that DOES support 4k Netflix streaming. Now if Apple had to pay more to make that new AppleTV to get 4k support, well OK, you can argue price points. But when we read the hardware DOES support 4k and Apple simply has it disabled in their software...well sorry but that's a horse crap pill to swallow. If Apple were selling 4k movies on iTunes, you can be damn sure it WOULD be enabled in software and that brings to light another mistake from Apple.

While Apple may find that many users couldn't STREAM a 4k movie in real time, ALL users could DOWNLOAD a 4k movie over time to BUY or perahaps a 2-3 day rental that you could watch on the weekend you could pre-stream. Give the new box a little more storage and it's not an issue. Besides, some of us have faster Internet and 4k is not a big deal. If I'm going to replace my current AppleTV units, I want a good reason to do it, not find that I need to do it AGAIN next year. As for the Mac Mini to play all formats, I have multiple units around the house, not just one so a pricey Mac Mini isn't a good solution and STILL won't do 4k AFAIK.

The whole 'pro' aspect of Apple is a bit tricky these days. They killed their servers. They killed the true high-end of their desktop machines. They've purchased numerous pro software tools and cobbled them more towards a prosumer crowd. While their stuff is certainly high-end compared to 'average' crowd of consumer junk, it's still squarely aimed at a majority market, not speciality stuff so much any longer.

But, when it comes right down to it with the Apple TV, they probably just decided it wasn't time for 4K yet. And, aside from a few enthusiasts with deep pockets, I'd agree.

The fact that you can buy some el-cheapo TVs or BD players that support 4K shows it's mostly gimmick at this point. It's a new feature to attract the unaware buyers. Most shoppers who buy a 4K unit are going to be on a <60" display and probably sit at least 6' away, if not more. They'll just be bragging to their similarly clueless friends (or at least feeling good about their new feature) that they've got 4K. They'd have been just as well off with a 1080p unit. Apple probably gets that.

(BTW, I'd actually argue your opening point that Apple is a minority these days... they clearly lead in phones and in actual usage outside the office, I'm guessing they might be close or ahead on the desktop/laptops too.)

 

[inkahauts]

4k in the long run is going to require a few very specific things, like the right Hdmi port (latest spec with 18 not 10) and the latest hdcp encryption, which is very hard to find these days on TVs, (some have one on one port, and one another, but not both of those abilities in the same port. It's ridiculous at the moment) and there's zero consumer devices that output that signal yet. A lot of people are going to be mad when they realize their 4k TV won't work with any of the actual 4k content that's out there in a few years and via Blue Ray players, etc. so I am thinking Apple has decided to wait till those chips are out before launching a slightly more expensive 4k version. Plus this will keep them from having customers return them saying it doesn't work with their 4k TV because they have one they bought yesterday that isn't good for any 4k content other than what can be streamed directly to it and not via a third party device.

 

[richman555]

I think the important thing to understand here is that 1080p will still still be around for many years. Heck I have lots of 1080p content purchased in iTunes already. It looks great upscaled on my 4K TV.

4K will be an option for folks buying TVs today at this present time. Someday the tv buying market will catch up.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

But, when it comes right down to it with the Apple TV, they probably just decided it wasn't time for 4K yet. And, aside from a few enthusiasts with deep pockets, I'd agree.

The fact that you can buy some el-cheapo TVs or BD players that support 4K shows it's mostly gimmick at this point.

If the hardware supports it, they should support it in software period. Anything else is just plain misusing resources. Why look like crap when you can lead the pack? Sorry, but your excuses don't hold water. And an "el cheapo" player supporting 4k in no way makes it a gimmick. It means the hardware out there is plenty powerful enough to drive the 4k on the player end. Whether you think a consumer set is big enough is beside the point. If it looks good at three feet away, it will sell, gimmick or not because it's delivering what it promises. Where you sit is not their concern. If what you suggest were entirely true, then 1080p sets would have never taken off either since my 93" screen is just big enough to see a full 1080p at 12 feet away and yet 40-65" sets with 1080p sold way better than their 720p counterparts once the price difference narrowed to a few hundred dollars. There's also the question of SCALING and most scalers suck (as anyone who has ever played a video game these days in less than the native resolution of an LCD monitor knows all too well). Thus, if your primary source of movies is say Blu-Ray, you want 1080p on your set regardless because the scaler will soften the picture on a 720p set even if you can't see the resolution difference. Now if you have a high-end projector or something with a quality scaler, that might not matter, but then you probably could have afforded a 1080p projector in the first place (I bought my 720p projector when 1080p ones cost $5k+ and now the 1080p 3D ones go for less than what I paid for the 720p one back then).

(BTW, I'd actually argue your opening point that Apple is a minority these days... they clearly lead in phones and in actual usage outside the office, I'm guessing they might be close or ahead on the desktop/laptops too.)

http://dazeinfo.com/2014/08/04/smar...-brands-are-chinese-apple-samsung-struggling/

I'm seeing Apple at 11.9% market share and dropping. They make a lot of money because they get 100% of the hardware sales for that 11.9% whereas Android is used on a lot of different phone brands (ala Microsoft Windows vs Apple OS X). In any case, I'd call 11.9% a minority when Android represents over 80% of the market share in terms of the OS used. I think the Mac has a similar market share (somewhere between 8-12% depending on whom you ask and how recent the sales are that are counted and whether it's home vs business, etc.) Apple has carved itself a nice monetary niche, but in order to keep that niche from dropping to lower numbers, they need to lead in something. One cannot just sin on one's laurels and expect the money to keep flowing in at the same rate forever (e.g. a lesson learned hard by Blackberry). Others catch up and can do it for less money. Steve Jobs combated this by innovation. Apple lacks taht now. They need to concentrate on high-end and/or pro features in terms of hardware and/or software or they need to hire someone that can fill Steve's innovation shoes.

 

[SteveW928]

If the hardware supports it, they should support it in software period. ... Why look like crap when you can lead the pack?

Apple has generally been about quality, not 'do it if it can be done' and adding pointless features. And unless you're really close or have a really big screen, you're not even going to notice, so it won't look like crap.

If it looks good at three feet away, it will sell, gimmick or not because it's delivering what it promises.

What if someone puts there eye an inch away... then 4K will look like crap. Products are generally designed around some kind of common usage common sense. But yea, if it looks good at 3' away, it WILL sell because most people are clueless about taking that stuff into consideration. That doesn't mean Apple needs to keep ALL the clueless people happy with gimmick features.

If what you suggest were entirely true, then 1080p sets would have never taken off either since my 93" screen is just big enough to see a full 1080p at 12 feet away and yet 40-65" sets with 1080p sold way better than their 720p counterparts once the price difference narrowed to a few hundred dollars.

You don't have to guess. There's some science behind it as to what the human eye is capable of. 1080p makes tons of sense at anything over about 40" at a typical viewing distance. Yes, at 12' away, it wouldn't make much sense until you get to a pretty huge screen, as you won't be able to tell the difference.

There's also the question of SCALING and most scalers suck ... if your primary source of movies is say Blu-Ray, you want 1080p on your set regardless because the scaler will soften the picture on a 720p set even if you can't see the resolution difference.

True, but if you're at the limit of not being able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, I'm not sure you're going to see that softening either. I could be wrong on that... but yea, a good quality scaler is important... best to do it outside the display in my experience.

I'm seeing Apple at 11.9% market share and dropping.

OK, first, market share is meaningless for much of anything but tracking trends. For example, imagine next quarter Apple somehow managed to 100% market share. Would you then think there were zero Androids around anymore?

But second, even with a long history of market share data, you have to take into account what was actually reported (shipped or sold), and then you have to try and figure out actual in-use at a given point in time. A lot of Android devices end up in shoe boxes on a shelf, or don't effectively get used as 'smartphones' etc.

So, when you look at things like ad response, web traffic, app purchases, etc. you'll see that Apple pretty much dominates. That's because a lot of Apple devices are in use and actually get used for things that matter.

The same is true in the PC sector, but it's even more dramatic there.

They make a lot of money because they get 100% of the hardware sales for that 11.9% whereas Android is used on a lot of different phone brands (ala Microsoft Windows vs Apple OS X).

They make a lot of money because they have high profit margins (i.e.: they don't have to give their stuff away to get rid of it).

BTW, look where the OS X vs Windows thing has gone. Apple's doing great, Microsoft is trying to figure out how to survive.

I think the Mac has a similar market share (somewhere between 8-12% depending on whom you ask and how recent the sales are that are counted and whether it's home vs business, etc.)

Again, that figure isn't what you think it is. Have you been in a graduate school class lately? (At least 50% Apple, sometimes as high as 75%+) It used to be that when you went to someone's home, you were surprised to see a Mac... now I'm kind of surprised to see a Windows box. (I guess that depends a bit on where you live, but even in very PC dominant areas, there are now a lot of Macs.) Drop by your local retailer that sells both (and has them well setup), and see where the sales action is.

That's not all hard data, but if I were going to take an educated guess, I'd put Apple's actual student/home in-use percentage (excluding business usage) easily above 30% if not close to 50%.

It isn't ultimately that relevant... but just pointing out that Apple isn't a bit player any longer.

Apple has carved itself a nice monetary niche, but in order to keep that niche from dropping to lower numbers, they need to lead in something.

Hehe, you might win an award for understatement on that opening part...

But, I'd argue they do pretty much lead in the sectors they are substantially involved in. Yes, they do need to hold onto that lead to some extent, but I don't really see much in terms of competition either.

I was just joking about that with a friend the other day, as Apple *often* does things that piss me off. But, I said, the other stuff is so horrible, Apple doesn't really stand much chance of losing me at this point.

(e.g. a lesson learned hard by Blackberry). Others catch up and can do it for less money. Steve Jobs combated this by innovation. Apple lacks taht now. They need to concentrate on high-end and/or pro features in terms of hardware and/or software or they need to hire someone that can fill Steve's innovation shoes.

True... and Palm. Remember what the Palm CEO said around the time of the iPhone release? But, I don't see Apple lacking in innovation, just maybe leadership and direction. The Apple Watch is a innovation tour-de-force, I'm just not sure it has a huge market. And, as I noted in another post, Apple seems to be abandoning the high-end / pro stuff in favor of trying to take the top end of the consumer into the prosumer area. I suppose the numbers are just bigger among that group.

Steve's strength was in his vision and ability to say no, and make gutsy moves on stuff like killing Flash or dropping the floppy before much of the rest of the industry did. I'm sure there are a lot of innovative people at Apple, but I'm not sure Cook has the overall vision to lead in the right direction (and make the hard choices).

That said, Apple could stop innovating tomorrow and they'd still probably be fine for another 5+ years with the product lines they've got. Eventually, they'll have to come up with another big thing, or revolutionize another market to stay in their current position... but there isn't all that much urgency on that at this point.

 

[KenAFSPC]

If Apple releases this thing next September without 4K HDR hardware support, it will be dead on arrival. 4K Blu-Ray with HDR is expected this fall, and Amazon, Netflix, and Vudu all plan to launch 4K HDR service in 2H 2015. Cable and satellite providers also plan to launch a small number of 4K HDR channels in 2H 2015.

While many people won't notice much if any benefit from 4K with <60" screens viewed from 8+ feet, they will notice a difference with HDR. Look for Vizio to announce a range of affordable 4K HDR sets next week.

 

[KenAFSPC]

If Apple releases this thing next September without 4K hardware support, it will be dead on arrival. 4K Blu-Ray with HDR is expected this fall, and Amazon, Netflix, and other services all plan to launch 4K HDR service in 2H 2015.

While many people won't notice much if any benefit from 4K with <60" screens viewed from 8+ feet, they will notice a difference with HDR. Look for Vizio to announce a range of lower cost, 4K HDR sets next week.

As much as we hear about cord cutting, cord cutters still account for a relatively small percentage of consumers. Most potential customers for an Apple TV already have cable or satellite service with a commercial-skipping HDTV DVR. Apple has got to give these consumers a reason to purchase an Apple TV. A superior interface for the same content is not sufficient to sell a set-top box in volume, as evidenced by lackluster sales of the current Apple TV and the HDTV TiVo.

Most consumers will stick with their existing cable and satellite HDTV DVRs unless they are given a compelling reason to switch. The television content itself has to be either cheaper or better in some way. Since content providers aren't likely to go for the cheaper option, Apple will likely have to improve the content and access to the content. Apple could offer content without commercials and/or in 4K HDR (for a modest, optional added cost). Bottom line, for Apple TV to be successful, Apple must offer customers something they don't already have and/or can't get with their existing service.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple has generally been about quality, not 'do it if it can be done' and adding pointless features.

I don't call 4K "pointless" if you have a projector. It will be the norm in a few years. It means you can have a truly movie theater sized relative "view" of the screen (e.g. 200 inches at 12 feet on a 2.35:1 screen). What's "pointless" about that? Because YOU don't have a big screen? This is Apple. They should be catering to the high-end, not the low-end. Honestly,l based on your comments, I don't think you get the point of home theater at all. I like having a hard drive run my entire movie collection through Apple TV, but I will either need another product or I will have to use the 4K BD discs when they come out for newer movies if I'm going to keep AppleTV. Meanwhile, like it or not Japan is going straight to 8k.

And unless you're really close or have a really big screen, you're not even going to notice, so it won't look like crap.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand home theater. You WANT a BIG BIG screen with home theater. A 60 inch set is NOT home theater. That's a slightly large TV. I'm at 93" 16:9 right now and I'd like to go to 180" 2.35:1. 4K would make that screen look as good as the 93" does with 1080p. I don't have much interest in going back to a disc format. I've got over 20Mbps downloads so 4K is plenty viable with a small amount of buffering. Again, Apple is the limitation here. Netflix already supports 4k and their library will only grow. Honestly, you sound like an Apple apologist, trying to convince me I don't need 4k just like people don't need the extra bits for BD over streaming. Personally, I'd rather have the 4k than the high bit-rate 1080p. The difference is far more noticeable.

What if someone puts there eye an inch away... then 4K will look like crap.

4k at one inch certainly looks better than 1080p at once inch. Your example is very poor as you are actually arguing for 8k or higher at close distances (e.g. virtual reality).

Products are generally designed around some kind of common usage common sense. But yea, if it looks good at 3' away, it WILL sell because most people are clueless about taking that stuff into consideration. That doesn't mean Apple needs to keep ALL the clueless people happy with gimmick features.

You keep calling it a gimmick and pointless and all kinds of names and yet I've pointed out again and again I don't have a 60" set. Your arguments are meaningless to me and you just sound like an Apple fanatic that supports their decisions now matter how bad those decisions are for people that want a high-end product. Apple is clearly not high-end by your accounts. So why the hell would I want to pay more for less?

You don't have to guess.

No one is guessing dude. I've had the eye resolving distance vs screen size and resolution chart for ages. If someone wants to sit 5 feet away from a 65" set, that's their choice. I'm sitting less than 2 feet away from my monitor right now. If I watched a movie in 4k, I'd notice the difference.

There's some science behind it as to what the human eye is capable of. 1080p makes tons of sense at anything over about 40" at a typical viewing distance.

Actually, it does not. I've got a plasma in my formal living room mounted on the wall that is 720p and I sit 12 feet away. It's 48" and 1080p would not help one bit at that distance. It's why I got the plasma at the sale price instead of an LCD. The plasma is better at motion, has a longer life span and the resolution doesn't matter given the room layout. My home theater room, however is an entirely different story and a 4K projector with a new 2.35:1 screen setup that goes wall to wall would be the height of AWESOME. 1080p wouldn't even be close.

Yes, at 12' away, it wouldn't make much sense until you get to a pretty huge screen, as you won't be able to tell the difference.

It's not hard to get a huge screen with projectors. You can even mount them in the ceiling. They aren't even that hard to set up. I mounted my entire system myself and the projector hangs from the ceiling out of the way. The cost relative to flat panels is far better for the projectors as long as you can make your room dark (Mine can be black in the middle of the day).

OK, first, market share is meaningless for much of anything but tracking trends.

For example, imagine next quarter Apple somehow managed to 100% market share. Would you then think there were zero Androids around anymore?

Bullcrap it is. Market share is EVERYTHING for computers when it comes to software developers. You seem to be under the impression I'm talking about a quarter's sales. I'm talking about the total installed base of usable computers for a given software package and the numbers I gave for the iPhone were total market share as of mid 2014, not a single quarter.

In case you hadn't noticed, not all games are available for OS X and the REASON is low overall market share with Macs capable of running that game (and the number of people that would buy a game for a Mac instead of their gaming console).

But second, even with a long history of market share data, you have to take into account what was actually reported (shipped or sold), and then you have to try and figure out actual in-use at a given point in time. A lot of Android devices end up in shoe boxes on a shelf, or don't effectively get used as 'smartphones' etc.

More apologist talk.... I've got a friend who HATES his iPhone and is looking to ditch it for Android. I mean you act like no one likes Android. Bullcrap.

So, when you look at things like ad response, web traffic, app purchases, etc. you'll see that Apple pretty much dominates. That's because a lot of Apple devices are in use and actually get used for things that matter.

I'd like to see some of this data because I'm calling BS on that one. Android "dominates". Apple makes more money on the hardware than someone like Samsung, but more people make Android phones than just Samsung.

The same is true in the PC sector, but it's even more dramatic there.

Yes, it IS dramatic. Over 90% of all computer gaming sales are for Windows, not Macs. I know you think everyone has a Mac, but it's not true.

BTW, look where the OS X vs Windows thing has gone. Apple's doing great, Microsoft is trying to figure out how to survive.

I got a chuckle out of that one. Microsoft is not in any danger of going bankrupt any time soon. Their high market share assures them they can have many many "Vistas" and do just fine. Perhaps their days of being the most "Profitable" company are over but that doesn't make them extinct by a long shot.

Again, that figure isn't what you think it is. Have you been in a graduate school class lately?

Ah, is this why you're acting like that? I graduated a long time ago, guy. I know it's hard to imagine an old fart like myself (if you call 40 old) knowing anything about the modern era, but clearly education isn't everything.

That's not all hard data, but if I were going to take an educated guess, I'd put Apple's actual student/home in-use percentage (excluding business usage) easily above 30% if not close to 50%.

I think you're utterly utterly utterly utterly living in a dream world. Maybe on campus it's 30%. In the REAL WORLD, it's nothing like that.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes, it IS dramatic. Over 90% of all computer gaming sales are for Windows, not Macs. I know you think everyone has a Mac, but it's not true.

Well, it's more like ~85% these days. Apple has been growing their Mac line by quite a bit. Though I don't see this as the start of a massive sea change that'll leave MS a pauper company, because there are some markets Apple doesn't have an answer for, that MS all but rules.

 

[SteveW928]

As much as we hear about cord cutting, cord cutters still account for a relatively small percentage of consumers. Most potential customers for an Apple TV already have cable or satellite service with a commercial-skipping HDTV DVR. Apple has got to give these consumers a reason to purchase an Apple TV.

Maybe Apple TV isn't the right thing for them then.

A superior interface for the same content is not sufficient to sell a set-top box in volume, as evidenced by lackluster sales of the current Apple TV and the HDTV TiVo.

Do they need to sell a lot of them? Apple's financials seem pretty good.

Bottom line, for Apple TV to be successful, Apple must offer customers something they don't already have and/or can't get with their existing service.

Like the ability to stream content from their OS X and iOS devices, or mirror the displays? I don't think other competitors do that, at least as easily. How about if they launch the App Store on it? That's pretty compelling. 4K would just be something to add to the spec list, as for 90% of those people you're talking to above, they simply don't need it (even if they don't realize that).

 

[SteveW928]

I don't call 4K "pointless" if you have a projector. It will be the norm in a few years.

Ok, when I'm saying pointless, I'm talking about it for the average consumer (maybe the higher end of the average consumer group), which is Apple's target market. Unless you're building a home theatre (which it seems you have) it IS pointless. It's a speciality thing.

No doubt, because everyone and their brother are selling 4K displays, and certainly other makers will implement 4K outputs, eventually the average consumer will decide it's something they want/need, even if it won't do a bit of good for them. Agreed.... but there's no hurry on that one. As another person mentioned a number of posts up, better to wait until the 4K dust settles and some standards are in place.

This is Apple. They should be catering to the high-end, not the low-end.

Well, here might be part of the problem for you. I'm not sure you're getting Apple these days. They USED to cater to the small, high-end market segments. NOW, they cater to the higher end of the mass market.

As I mentioned, they dropped the XServe. They've turned just about all of their absolute top-end software products into lower priced consumer to prosumer level products. They jumped out of the Mac Pro serving the high-end speciality markets. They have focused more of their product lines towards the higher-end of mass-market products. And, like it or not, the vast majority of their profit now comes from iPhones, a squarely consumer product.

Apple just doesn't seem focused on speciality markets any longer (much to my dismay as well!). Yes, they are focused on 'high-end' in terms of quality. But those are two different things.

Honestly,l based on your comments, I don't think you get the point of home theater at all. I like having a hard drive run my entire movie collection through Apple TV, but I will either need another product or I will have to use the 4K BD discs when they come out for newer movies if I'm going to keep AppleTV.

Well, I do get home theatre. I used to follow it quite a bit, though I've never had the budget to put in a special room and don't have (or necessarily want anymore) a projector based setup. I've built MythTV systems, but have given up on that these days. I also have my entire library on disc and stream to the Apple TV.

I simply have no need for 4K, because I'm never going to have a screen that big (which, I get, maybe isn't true home theatre, and I'm fine with that). I'll buy a movie ticket now and then if I run across something worthy of the big screen. Otherwise, I'm quite happy with a <60" screen (and, I think, always will be, especially since homes/condos keep getting smaller). I understand that's not the case with you.

But, I'm in the general market... you're in the speciality market. Are you 'getting' that?

Honestly, you sound like an Apple apologist, trying to convince me I don't need 4k just like people don't need the extra bits for BD over streaming. Personally, I'd rather have the 4k than the high bit-rate 1080p. The difference is far more noticeable.

No, I'm not trying to convince you that you don't want 4K. I'm trying to convince you that you're probably a fraction of a percent of the market... and that Apple isn't focused on you. That way you'll be less disappointed (or at least more realistic) and consider solutions that might solve your problems better.

4k at one inch certainly looks better than 1080p at once inch. Your example is very poor as you are actually arguing for 8k or higher at close distances (e.g. virtual reality).

Nope. I'm simply saying that distance is the key. Retina, for example is far more important on phones, than on tablets, than on laptops and desktops. That's because most people don't sit a couple inches away from their desktop or laptop, but they do their phone.

Similar with TVs. MOST people don't need 4K. When they go into a store and stand 2' away, sure they can tell. But, what does that have to do with anything except a happy salesperson? That's my point.

You keep calling it a gimmick and pointless and all kinds of names and yet I've pointed out again and again I don't have a 60" set.

That's because I'm not talking about you, heh (what's that song... You're So Vain?). We're talking about why Apple TV is not yet supporting 4K, and I'm trying to tell you it's because they are aimed at the average consumer, not home theatre specialists. I understand YOU want it to, and that YOU would have a legitimate use for it.

The reason I'm calling it a gimmick, is that much of the 4K sales I see going on is on smaller displays where it isn't going to matter. The average person is being encouraged (by the marketing and store signs and setups) to think they should buy a new 4K display, when for the vast majority of those people it will make no difference.... thus, a gimmick! It's a gimmick for the vast majority of people it's being sold to. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be on displays smaller than X size, other than maybe speciality models.

What I'm not saying, is that 4K overall is a gimmick. Obviously it is quickly becoming the standard in video production, with good reason. And, sure, the home theatre niche will love it too.

Apple is clearly not high-end by your accounts. So why the hell would I want to pay more for less?

Just to reiterate... they are high-end, just not speciality any longer (I think they once were). Let me know if the difference doesn't make sense to you, and I'll try to explain it better.

I'm sitting less than 2 feet away from my monitor right now. If I watched a movie in 4k, I'd notice the difference.

Well sure. And that is a normal thing to do. Nearly everyone sits just a couple feet away from their desktop screen. Most people don't site just a few feet from their living-room TVs. (I'd guess 6'-8' is pretty typical.)

Actually, it does not. I've got a plasma in my formal living room mounted on the wall that is 720p and I sit 12 feet away. It's 48" and 1080p would not help one bit at that distance. It's why I got the plasma at the sale price instead of an LCD. The plasma is better at motion, has a longer life span and the resolution doesn't matter given the room layout. My home theater room, however is an entirely different story and a 4K projector with a new 2.35:1 screen setup that goes wall to wall would be the height of AWESOME. 1080p wouldn't even be close.

It's not hard to get a huge screen with projectors. You can even mount them in the ceiling. They aren't even that hard to set up. I mounted my entire system myself and the projector hangs from the ceiling out of the way. The cost relative to flat panels is far better for the projectors as long as you can make your room dark (Mine can be black in the middle of the day).

Ok, so just go get a Mac Pro and load some software up on it... problem solved. My point in saying that is that you're clearly in a high-cost, speciality market. There are solutions for what you're trying to do. And, Apple might not be aiming Apple TV at your market-segment currently. If they do, great. But, I'd not necessarily expect it, especially if all the standards aren't worked out yet.

Bullcrap it is. Market share is EVERYTHING for computers when it comes to software developers. You seem to be under the impression I'm talking about a quarter's sales. I'm talking about the total installed base of usable computers for a given software package and the numbers I gave for the iPhone were total market share as of mid 2014, not a single quarter.

I can go back and look at that particular link on the iPhone again... but,

No one really knows marketshare in the sense you're talking about... i.e.: share of the market. If that is what that particular article was, they are guessing based on *something* (and might be wildly off).

When you see figures in the press called marketshare, they are talking about reported sales (or shipped) within some time period (typically quarter).

And yes, share of the market... and even marketshare IS important to developers. But what is even more important (to the ones that actually think clearly about such things) is number of units in use and what % of those units might buy their product. (Why do you think most developers create an iOS version before the Android version, if they even make the latter at all???)

If Apple only had 1% share of the market in some product-line, but that 1% was a million architects and you make CAD software, they'll be right on it!

There is PLENTY (let me say that again PLENTY) enough share of the market for any software developer to put their software on the Mac these days. That's because we're talking about hundreds of millions of units. The reason game makers don't make a Mac port is due to A) Ignorance, B) they think most gamers build up a gaming PC anyway for their particular game, or C) most of their Mac based fans will just run Boot Camp. (ex: I play Battlefield and would love a Mac version, but I'm willing to run it on Boot Camp... unless they feel they'd lose me, why bother with the Mac version? Having BootCamp, Parallels, VMWare, etc. is kind of a double-edged sword.) Most people who aren't technical enough to run Boot Camp will buy a console version.

More apologist talk.... I've got a friend who HATES his iPhone and is looking to ditch it for Android. I mean you act like no one likes Android. Bullcrap.

Well, I am a Christian apologist, but that's a whole other topic. And, I am an Apple apologist in a sense, for sure. But, I think I'm also reasonably familiar with the rest of the market. I'm technical enough to use any platform I choose, yet I keep coming back to the Mac for my own use. (In fact, I spent most of my IT career using non-Apple stuff... maybe even MORE of a reason why I stick to Apple.)

Android certainly has fans too. But, I guess my point is that many people buy Androids on price or various specs, much like many consumers will buy a 47" 4K display and sit 8' away. They aren't doing so for sound reasons. I suppose I need to keep checking out Android, but from past experience, there is no reason I'd want one. And, it's not because I'm an Apple fan. Apple has earned my loyalty.

I'd like to see some of this data because I'm calling BS on that one. Android "dominates". Apple makes more money on the hardware than someone like Samsung, but more people make Android phones than just Samsung.

I'm not sure how many links I could put in here... but it's probably easier to just have you Google: "ios mobile web share" or ad share, application sales, etc. If you've been a MacRumors reader for long (or other Apple oriented sites), I can hardly believe you haven't seen the articles. As a Website designer, I see it in my client's Google Analytics all the time, so I know it isn't just made up by Apple-friendly websites.

I often see stats where mobile visits are over 50% from a combination of iOS devices (i.e.: majority). That said, it used to be a much higher gap (so Android has been gaining over the last couple of years), and some sites, depending on the content of them, can majorly vary on that ration or go the other way. (i.e.: MacRumors probably has a much higher ratio, while an Android news site would have way more Android views.)

Yes, it IS dramatic. Over 90% of all computer gaming sales are for Windows, not Macs. I know you think everyone has a Mac, but it's not true.

What I meant by dramatic, is that back when the marketshare stats for Mac were in the 3-4% range, the actual in-use percentage was MUCH higher than those numbers would lead one to believe. That was because so much PC hardware was included that wouldn't effectively count (i.e.: cash register) and/or that hardware wouldn't be in use very long compared to a typical Mac unit.

Macs have generally been around 10%, and today it's much higher. How much is hard to guess other than through things where usage can be tracked (web site stats, for example, or maybe ad response if the product is neutral enough), or just empirical observation. That's why I mentioned the classroom, as it used to be a Mac here or there, now they are often tied or in majority. When I go to a coffee shop, I see more Macs. A lot of people I know, or homes I've been to have Macs (compared to when I was the odd Mac person). That's why I guessed what I did, and yes, it's a guess. But, I'm positive it's higher than whatever current 'market share' reports say.

I got a chuckle out of that one. Microsoft is not in any danger of going bankrupt any time soon. Their high market share assures them they can have many many "Vistas" and do just fine. Perhaps their days of being the most "Profitable" company are over but that doesn't make them extinct by a long shot.

I remember when people said that about Novell, for example. Do I think they are going out of business anytime soon? No, that would be silly. But, unless they figure out how to succeed again in the market without cheating, they will eventually be gone. Their core product, at this point, is Office. Windows might have a chance if they figure out merging mobile and desktop is a bad idea... we'll see. Companies will hold onto it as long as they can, well, because, how can I put this... they ain't so bright sometimes. (If I had a dollar for every time I talked to a corporate IT guy who bashed Apple and didn't know what the $#&*@ they were talking about, I'd be rich. Yes, it's more complex than that, but most businesses don't have Microsoft because it's the best.)

Ah, is this why you're acting like that? I graduated a long time ago, guy. I know it's hard to imagine an old fart like myself (if you call 40 old) knowing anything about the modern era, but clearly education isn't everything.

Me thinks you might have read that one wrong. I'm 46, BTW. I have been back in the classroom recently (a couple years ago) for my Master's. When I was originally in school, Winders wasn't a thing yet and Macs were out of my price-range (though a friend had one I used quite a bit). I spent the 20+ years in-between working in IT.

I think you're utterly utterly utterly utterly living in a dream world. Maybe on campus it's 30%. In the REAL WORLD, it's nothing like that.

Well, on the campus I was on (a Christian graduate school with people from all walks of life and backgrounds... probably a pretty good cross-sampling), it was well over 50%. I've heard similar reports from others and even some news articles.

It also depends on what you call the 'real world.' If you hang out with a bunch of gamers, you'll probably think it's mostly PC. If you hang out with graphic designers, maybe Mac. If you go to many offices, you'll see mostly PCs. Some parts of the country, or some countries seem heavier in one or the other. (ex: I'm originally from northern Wisconsin, which is still pretty PC heavy, but changing. I've lived in a bunch of places, but more recently in San Francisco and Vancouver, BC, which were heavily Mac.)

----------

Well, it's more like ~85% these days. Apple has been growing their Mac line by quite a bit. Though I don't see this as the start of a massive sea change that'll leave MS a pauper company, because there are some markets Apple doesn't have an answer for, that MS all but rules.

True enough. But, remember that a lot of companies are hanging onto old Microsoft OSs and hoping. If Microsoft doesn't come through, isn't it possible they might actually re-think things? And, although many IT folks seem to be a pretty hard-headed bunch, iOS devices are even starting to soften some of them up a bit towards Apple.

And, having Apple in the news all the time as the most valuable company in the world doesn't hurt either. A lot of business decisions are made based on perception of the company the products are from. It makes a BIG difference if Apple is seen as a struggling bit-player (even if they have the best product) vs a massive powerful company.

In today's world, the solutions could pretty much be built with either.

 

[Anim]

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

Bandwidth issues are being worked on, 4K Streaming can be can achieved on mainstream broadband lines that can only manage 1080p. In your case you could stream 720p on your existing line if this codec is taken up by the industry.

Google V-Nova’s PERSEUS video compression

 

[toke lahti]

And, I sure hope next time I'm in the market for a new TV, I don't have to buy a curved one! At least I never have to use 3D or 4K.

What's wrong with curved? Have you noticed that in thearthers screens are curved and better home theather screens are curved?
Basically, the advance in resolution makes it possible to screen to fill more of your angle of wiev, when it's more important geometrically that the edges of the screen are not much more far away from you than the center.

Only problem with curved comes when watched way offline from center.

Macs have generally been around 10%, and today it's much higher.

Nope, in the long run, macs have just just reached 10% in US and globally are still under 5%. You know, most of global business is not inside US anymore...

 

[iBighouse]

Disappointed!

I just got a Sony 4K 70" tv and was REALLY hoping for 4K on the next Apple tv I bought. Might have to wait and just keep my existing one instead of upgrading.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

What's wrong with curved? Have you noticed that in thearthers screens are curved and better home theather screens are curved?

The REASON some theater screens are curved is that the anamorphic lenses used in projectors result in uneven lighting and pincushion distortion at the extreme edges of the screen due to the distances being further away from the central source (projector lens). This can and does happen in projector setups in very large home theaters. However, mounting a curved screen of that size is more difficult than a flat one at home. This same pincushion effect does NOT occur in typical LCD flatscreens at home for the simple reason there is no projector mounted at a centralized long distance away from the screen to create the pincushion distortion as the LCD elements are all mounted in the same plane on the screen. Curving the screen will actually CREATE a new distortion AND limit your viewing angles (and looks ridiculous IMO).

Thus, a high-end home theater that uses a projector can and should consider a curved permanently mounted screen instead of something like a drop-down electric flat if they can afford the price and space to set it up. It really should not be used in regular LCD sets as there is no benefit it to it what-so-ever except if people find it immersive. It actually decreases the viewing angles at extreme offsets (i.e. if you sit over far enough, you won't be able to see the curved left side of the screen at a point where you could see it if it were flat). What the cameras are filming ends up being in 2D so the screen should be in 2D except where the lens (anamorphic widescreen for example) creates its own distortion in said projection setup (pincushion effect).

Basically, the advance in resolution makes it possible to screen to fill more of your angle of wiev, when it's more important geometrically that the edges of the screen are not much more far away from you than the center.

Only problem with curved comes when watched way offline from center.

It's not the only problem. The other problems include difficulty in mounting a curved screen on a flat wall and creating an inverse pincushion distortion on a set that doesn't have it in the first place due to LCDs emitting the light at each point (but does when you create a curve where this is no distortion such as those LCD panels). Heck, I remember when flat TVs were advertised as a feature over the "curved" CRT (vacuum tube displays). Now "curved" is "in" again or could it be that manufacturers are just desparate to sell more TVs in an era where there's no reason to keep buying sets over and over again (i.e. an LED back-lit LCD or plasma can last over 40 years easy; the fluorescent backed ones need new bulbs eventually but that's it).

 

[skratch77]

I went to best buy and looked at there 4k screens and then came home and watched TV on my zt60 panny and couldn't stop smiling over how better my TV was

I wished Panasonic made one last run of plasmas but I would take my zt60 over any 4k screen out right now.

So I have no issues with a 1080p apple TV

 

[s2mikey]

The REASON some theater screens are curved is that the anamorphic lenses used in projectors result in uneven lighting and pincushion distortion at the extreme edges of the screen due to the distances being further away from the central source (projector lens). This can and does happen in projector setups in very large home theaters. However, mounting a curved screen of that size is more difficult than a flat one at home. This same pincushion effect does NOT occur in typical LCD flatscreens at home for the simple reason there is no projector mounted at a centralized long distance away from the screen to create the pincushion distortion as the LCD elements are all mounted in the same plane on the screen. Curving the screen will actually CREATE a new distortion AND limit your viewing angles (and looks ridiculous IMO).

Thus, a high-end home theater that uses a projector can and should consider a curved permanently mounted screen instead of something like a drop-down electric flat if they can afford the price and space to set it up. It really should not be used in regular LCD sets as there is no benefit it to it what-so-ever except if people find it immersive. It actually decreases the viewing angles at extreme offsets (i.e. if you sit over far enough, you won't be able to see the curved left side of the screen at a point where you could see it if it were flat). What the cameras are filming ends up being in 2D so the screen should be in 2D except where the lens (anamorphic widescreen for example) creates its own distortion in said projection setup (pincushion effect).



It's not the only problem. The other problems include difficulty in mounting a curved screen on a flat wall and creating an inverse pincushion distortion on a set that doesn't have it in the first place due to LCDs emitting the light at each point (but does when you create a curve where this is no distortion such as those LCD panels). Heck, I remember when flat TVs were advertised as a feature over the "curved" CRT (vacuum tube displays). Now "curved" is "in" again or could it be that manufacturers are just desparate to sell more TVs in an era where there's no reason to keep buying sets over and over again (i.e. an LED back-lit LCD or plasma can last over 40 years easy; the fluorescent backed ones need new bulbs eventually but that's it).

Well said. Basically, what you've summed up is that curved TVs are gimmicky crap that is just another way for mfgers to upcharge people on TVs. They've run out of other ways so now they have to try something else. Curved TVs are fine for lonely, single people that watch stuff strictly by themselves. Of course, this isolation points to other "issues" that these folks may have but that's for another forum.

Meanwhile, good old 1080p plasmas still destroy these modern LCDs in just about every PQ category imaginable or that actually matter. Hilarious.

 

[diamond.g]

I went to best buy and looked at there 4k screens and then came home and watched TV on my zt60 panny and couldn't stop smiling over how better my TV was

I wished Panasonic made one last run of plasmas but I would take my zt60 over any 4k screen out right now.

So I have no issues with a 1080p apple TV

Personally, the only way I'll upgrade my st60 is to go OLED. Right now the (at least on Amazon) LG is the only one making OLED tv's and their prices are just ridiculous.

 

[MonkeySee....]

I have purchased a 4K Panasonic 50" TV. Has Netflix and youtube built in both offering 4K streaming.

If the next Apple TV doesn't support 4K i'll be massively disappointed

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I have purchased a 4K Panasonic 50" TV. Has Netflix and youtube built in both offering 4K streaming.

If the next Apple TV doesn't support 4K i'll be massively disappointed

I'll be amazed if there even IS a new Apple TV box. We've had rumors of one with "apps" etc. for YEARS now. I'd like to retire my 1st Gen ATVs, but I can't run XBMC/Kodi on the current model ATV and as of just recently, you can no longer directly run YouTube on the 2nd Gen model (at least via the Apple interface) and since Apple doesn't support the 2nd Gen model, it's effectively been neutered in a big way. I have to use my iPod Touch to send YouTube to it via Airplay and that sometimes takes a few tries for some reason.

 

[toke lahti]

Curving the screen will actually CREATE a new distortion AND limit your viewing angles (and looks ridiculous IMO).

Since I've been waiting for reasonably priced real 4k FALD for the whole year to buy, to be used as a computer screen and movie canvas, I've been thinking this a lot.
Some others have been thinking this too: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1399228517
I think the benefits will occour, when the viewing distance is short enough.
For computer use this should be no-brainer, why buy screen with smaller pixels, if you are not sitting close enough?
For movie watching, I believe that there's same thing that happened with hdtv; more resolution invites to watch closer, which gives you more immersive feeling. Ie. the angle of view to the screen is constantly increasing.
(Flatpanel's article has fun that sweet spot area of 55" with viewing distance of 3-4 meters is too narrow for 2 viewers sit next to each other. Well, why they don't move closer (to the screen or each other...) or buy bigger screen?)

So the obvious benefits for curved screen are:
1) screen appears to be bigger than flat one
2) more of the screen is closer to "on the square" with viewpoint (within sweetspot area)
3) less pincushion distorsion

The last one might be the "w00t?"-thing, but it comes apparent when you really are close to the screen like when working with computer. Lets say you are sitting one meter away from one meter flat screen. A vertical line in the center of the screen (distance 1 m) with a hight of (16:9) screen will have angle of view of 29.4°. On the far side of the screen (distance 1,12 m) the same line has angle of view of 26.7°. These lines should obviously look same since they are the same? Lets assume that camera made no distorsion to the picture and it is shown without any distorsion from the screen, but because the viewer is so close to the screen, flat screen makes a distorsion and curved screen corrects this. Right?
Pretty much the same thing when you take a head shot with very wide angle lens: the nose looks too big, bicause it's so much closer to a lens than rest of the face.

4) Curved looks groovy ≈ cinematic!

 

[SteveW928]

(Flatpanel's article has fun that sweet spot area of 55" with viewing distance of 3-4 meters is too narrow for 2 viewers sit next to each other. Well, why they don't move closer (to the screen or each other...) or buy bigger screen?)

The problem is the real-world. Most families don't have a home-theatre room with a single chair or love-seat in the exact right spot, etc. And, there are other down-sides besides not being in the 'sweet-spot.' (Yes, I suppose it could make some sense for the computer gamer with a pretty big screen on their desk, sitting right in front of it.)

 

[Keirasplace]

That's a whole lot of words to say a bunch of useless crap.

Thanks for sharing you're non sequitur abusive reply; now I can report you.

 

[class77]

If 4K is a gimmick and not necessary on the new Apple TV, why did Apple come out with a 5K 27" iMac last year, reportedly a 5K 21" iMac next month and 4K recording on the new iPhone 6S. Why are Apple fans picking and choosing why it's innovative on some machines and totally unnecessary on others. That argument doesn't make sense to me and judgements to the contrary are totally arbitrary