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

[SteveW928]

While that was true with the first few years of 4K tvs and a way to upsell to them that's really not the case now that we have actual connection standards and the hardware that meets those requirements is in the tvs. Hollywood will be doing more and more in 4K and 8k as time passes, many are already there. Unlike 3D which was a tangent and needed a parallel processing 4/8k is linear and doesn't require any real additional steps to creat. In fact it's easier in some ways and simply running it through a down converter to Hi Definition is simple. 4K is coming. It will come from every path except over the air IMHO in about 5 years with a decent amount content since there is already a lot of content being produced in it now. It's just going to be a few more years before anyone has adequate way to get it to a customers home. One exception is DIRECTV. They are about the only ones who could launch several channels in short order. Short order being tomorrow.

With that said I expect a 4K appletv within 2 years. I think they will want a good App Store first and see if they need to tweak anything before going that route. The big thing is also hvec decoding in the home device. That would have required a larger box and if you wait another year or two it'll be able to be put in something about the same size as the new one is today.

The question is, why?... we're going to up our stuff to 4K just because we can? Upping the source material almost always makes sense (within reason) as you'll end up with a better edited end product. But, if you can't tell the difference at the display point (i.e.: most of the current selling 4K TVs in real-life environments), it's kind of a waste (i.e.: downsides for no reason).

You might be right that it's going to happen, eventually... but it might not be a bad idea to question whether it really should happen. The trend I see seems to be more towards people watching content in their own personal ways on small screens (i.e.: mobile devices). One of my friends, the other day, even told me he thinks they are just going to get rid of their TV. Homes will probably get smaller with less space. And, I don't think most people get TVs over 60" in size... even if they can afford them. IMO, it's more like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

$500 4K TVs are utter garbage, and watching 4K 50 inch TV's at 8-10 feet, is useless. Doesn'T matter if you can get a better 4K for 55 inch for $1500... It'S still useless because we don't have eagle eyes.

It amazes me how VITRIOL people are AGAINST 4K on here and calling GARBAGE (ridiculous; even if it's not the best 4K, it's still better than the old NTSC set I had to watch the first 2.5 decades of my life. In short, son, you don't know what garbage is. That ALONE disqualifies you and others from replying, IMO). Ultimately, I can come to only one possible conclusion and it's called JEALOUSY. And that is because 4K isn't HURTING YOU ONE BIT. So WTF are you on here RAGING AGAINST IT????? Think about it.

 

[SteveW928]

It amazes me how VITRIOL people are AGAINST 4K on here and calling GARBAGE (ridiculous; even if it's not the best 4K, it's still better than the old NTSC set I had to watch the first 2.5 decades of my life. In short, son, you don't know what garbage is. That ALONE disqualifies you and others from replying, IMO). Ultimately, I can come to only one possible conclusion and it's called JEALOUSY. And that is because 4K isn't HURTING YOU ONE BIT. So WTF are you on here RAGING AGAINST IT????? Think about it.

Well, first (and the one I know less about, but have been reading other's comments and articles on), if most of the 4K sets out there aren't as good as better 1080p sets (for roughly the same price), then I don't like the hoodwinking going on by the industry. I don't like dishonest marketing which takes advantage of the tech illiterate. I hate gimmicks!

And, 1080p is a lot better than the old NTSC as well. What is in question isn't 4K over NTSC, but 4K over 1080p.

Second, if the above is true, than I want to educate people so they spend their hard earned money on something that will give them better results... i.e.: a better 1080p set, or save some money.

Third, it might hurt me if the demand for 4K content starts pushing more content in the format to take up unneeded space or processing power, or in an attempt to support 4K other tradeoffs are made, etc. (A great example was 3D. All this effort was put into something mostly useless that was a flash in the pan to sell new stuff... that effort could have been put into something much more productive.)

Fourth, the fact that people are complaining about Apple not doing something there isn't necessarily a good reason for them to do.

 

[toke lahti]

Apple is usually not willing to adapt new tech until it's common place, the 4k fad is the tech industry to get customers to upgrade from their perfectly working and functioning TV's to something new

People said 720p is enough, when watching 30" tube across the room.
2k is enough for many situations, tv's are getting bigger all the time and home theathers are becoming more common.
When Apple stayed in 720p longer than comptetitors, some said it was good enough for them and for others it was a dealbreaker.
So this is again about balancing the costs and how wide audience is targeted.
Do you want an enthusiast that buys 4k-bd-player as soon as it's available?
Maybe not, because same quality would need too much bandwidth.
Do you want the next guy, who buys 4k-bd-player as soon as it gets lower than $300 and he'll watch mainly Netflix with it?
This might get close...

if the Apple TV did support 4k, the only thing that would be 4k resolution would be menu screens

Which would be very useful. They could insert more info as "small print", which would be kind of would-you-like-to-know-more thing, which would magnify bigger, if you are watching 40" from the other side of the room, but you could read unmagnified, if you are sitting 10' from 65" and have normal vision (20/20).

 

[SteveW928]

People said 720p is enough, when watching 30" tube across the room.

It probably is. Especially with a tube where the 'pixels' are blurred together anyway. But, 480p and 720p (by a bit) aren't enough for a typical size current TV. So, I'm all for 1080p. (That said, a lot of video games are 720p, and are OK most of the time.)

Also, note, I'm not against 4K in principal. I'm against the current effects of it. If, when I buy my next TV, I can get a 4K model that is JUST AS GOOD as 1080p models at around the same price, I probably will. I just won't care if the content is 4K or not, until I have a much bigger screen (which I probably never will) or end up in a house where I have to sit a few feet away (more likely... but by then we'll probably just be watching on our iPads anyway.)

Which would be very useful. They could insert more info as "small print", which would be kind of would-you-like-to-know-more thing, which would magnify bigger, if you are watching 40" from the other side of the room, but you could read unmagnified, if you are sitting 10' from 65" and have normal vision (20/20).

They can already do that (and do do that) and it happens in software/video hardware. There would be no need for the DISPLAY to be any higher resolution than necessary (i.e.: what you can actually see and perceive) to do so.

 

[nia820]

Only a handful of people actually have a 4k television. Not really a deal breaker.

4k hasn't really caught on yet.

 

[SteveW928]

Only a handful of people actually have a 4k television. Not really a deal breaker.

4k hasn't really caught on yet.

Is that really the case? I have no data, but when I've been in any of the big-box electronics stores, they are prominently displayed... and in smaller sizes, not all that expensive. I can't imagine some people aren't falling for them.

 

[toke lahti]

They can already do that (and do do that) and it happens in software/video hardware. There would be no need for the DISPLAY to be any higher resolution than necessary (i.e.: what you can actually see and perceive) to do so.

All I'm saying is that there are user cases when 4k is beneficial and there are cases where it's not.
There's no harm having too many pixels, if the pixel's quality is otherwise just fine.
4k is of course marketing gimmick, which means that market is trying to sell you lower quality with numbers. But this happens in many areas of consumer tech and by no means make 4k by itself a fraud.

Only a handful of people actually have a 4k television. Not really a deal breaker.

4k hasn't really caught on yet.

Only a handful of people actually have a television. Not really a deal breaker.

tv hasn't really caught on yet.

 

[SteveW928]

All I'm saying is that there are user cases when 4k is beneficial and there are cases where it's not.
There's no harm having too many pixels, if the pixel's quality is otherwise just fine.
4k is of course marketing gimmick, which means that market is trying to sell you lower quality with numbers. But this happens in many areas of consumer tech and by no means make 4k by itself a fraud.

On the display-side, I agree. All things being equal, I'd buy one too, as I mentioned. But, there are other implications of a movement towards 4K I'm not so crazy about, and as you noted, I'm not happy about the marketing aspect of it. So, as to the original topic of the thread... I don't think that the Apple TV not having 4K support is really that big of a deal, currently. If it had it, I suppose that would be OK, with minor concerns (on my part).

 

[nia820]

Is that really the case? I have no data, but when I've been in any of the big-box electronics stores, they are prominently displayed... and in smaller sizes, not all that expensive. I can't imagine some people aren't falling for them.

Of course people are buying them. But they aren't that popular yet where is it a deal breaker of the majority. It's like with HD Televisions. Ten years ago majority the population still had SD televisions whereas HD televisions were only making up a fraction of TVs in homes.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) TV's won't take off until televisions support two things:

1. All HDMI ports must be HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible.
2. The TV supports HDR and wider color gamut used by the new Ultra HD Blu-ray disc and the upcoming ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard.

Don't expect either to start becoming widely available until the fall of 2016.

As such, Apple wisely chose NOT to include Ultra HD support on the new Apple TV, since the hardware now being released may not be ready for the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 standard. Now, the new box may get Ultra HD support, probably through an update to tvOS and possibly additional firmware updates to the box itself so it makes itself HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible.

 

[chucker23n1]

As such, Apple wisely chose NOT to include Ultra HD support on the new Apple TV, since the hardware now being released may not be ready for the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 standard.

By which you mean "they wisely chose to save some money".

Now, the new box may get Ultra HD support, probably through an update to tvOS and possibly additional firmware updates to the box itself so it makes itself HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible.

Doesn't sound likely to me. Like with the 1080p move, they'll probably introduce another version.

 

[toke lahti]

By which you mean "they wisely chose to save some money".

..."by using outdated chip", since all current gen chips support 2.0. Some are even updateable to 2.0a, which means HDR. So atv might not have HDR for years...

 

[chucker23n1]

..."by using outdated chip", since all current gen chips support 2.0.

Not sure what chips you're talking about. Even Skylake doesn't support HDMI 2.0 out of the box (without Alpine Ridge).

Apple Ax doesn't appear to have full support for H.265 at this point, and the Apple TV only ships with the A8.

Maybe with the A10.

 

[toke lahti]

Not sure what chips you're talking about. Even Skylake doesn't support HDMI 2.0 out of the box (without Alpine Ridge).

Apple Ax doesn't appear to have full support for H.265 at this point, and the Apple TV only ships with the A8.

Maybe with the A10.

My, bad.
I wasn't aware how outdated these media boxes are. Or skylake. Hdmi2.0 was released 2 years ago and pretty much every gpu, tv or bd-player released this year has had 2.0.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

My, bad.
I wasn't aware how outdated these media boxes are. Or skylake. Hdmi2.0 was released 2 years ago and pretty much every gpu, tv or bd-player released this year has had 2.0.

Yeah, but nobody needs those standards. No one needs HDMI 2.0 or 2.0A. No one has 4K yet so who cares. Put OLD stuff in there. No one will notice. Use a lightning connector to charge the remote, but don't put a USB port on the AppleTV to charge it. Use lightning instead of USB-C even though Lightning is obsolete with USB-C and there's no reason for its continued use what-so-ever (I said that the year it came out). Lightning in general doesn't do faster than USB 2.x speeds (getting long in the tooth for the newest iOS devices especially when that new Intel high-speed memory that's up to 1000x faster than current NAND memory is about to come out will make even USB 3.x look too slow), but USB-C can handle Thunderbolt III now and it's reversible like Lightning and can charge/transfer on one cable, etc. Apple has already put it on one Macbook. Why don't they start moving everything over to USB-C? You'd think they would take that into account when releasing a new AppleTV that's at least supposed to be a few years lifespan to it.

As I said before, the thing is OBSOLETE on launch. It should have used A9, 4K and HDMI 2.0A and had USB-C on it (for external storage, etc. that Apple should be supporting, particularly when they know Apps WILL support other options than just iTunes). An A9 based box would have been a lot more competitive gaming-wise as well (throw in a real game controller and it could have been decent). But as usual, Apple does things half-arsed. It's too expensive for people to consider who just want to stream media to another room when Apple's own 3rd gen unit is now $69 and yet it's too under powered and using obsolete parts to be a high-end 4K streaming unit or a competitive gaming box. I'd rather pay ATV Gen1 prices ($299-399) and have something that could not only do high-end 4K streaming and not be obsolete for 5+ years on that end, but could also give XBox/PS4 a run for its money and THAT in turn would also create more games for OSX as well since iOS/Metal are closely related to OS X. They still could have had a "lite" model that's like the one they released, but I don't think anyone would buy it. You either want power or you don't. You want a little power? You can just Airplay from your iPhone or Mac to do what this box does for the most part! Apple screwed up...again.

 

[doddsey]

but 4k tvs are less than a grand and apple is releasing 4k video support for the iphone? makes no sense

 

[diamond.g]

but 4k tvs are less than a grand and apple is releasing 4k video support for the iphone? makes no sense

To make it more clear they are supporting 4K video in an iPhone that can't actually resolve all the pixels it is displaying. The only portable device they have that can is the iPad Pro.

EDIT-- by displaying I mean capturing in the camera.

 

[Mago]

Besides offering 4K, the Amazon Fire TV, bundles a lots of high quality free apps (from android ecosystem) including very popular games, plus access for free to many paid games and apps, also offers more TV options, besides netflix,hbo and all the common stuff, Amazon Originals are Plus, froamwhat I've seen new Amazon Fire TV it's the deal breker on streaming content and the one to beat, amazon maybe a looser on phones, tablets, but TV Streming is the strongest offering over Android and Apple, actually Amazon Leads the way, Apple just follows (too late, too Little ATV).

 

[gkarris]

but 4k tvs are less than a grand and apple is releasing 4k video support for the iphone? makes no sense

aaaaaaaand the 8K TV goes on sale next month:


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34267265

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

To make it more clear they are supporting 4K video in an iPhone that can't actually resolve all the pixels it is displaying. The only portable device they have that can is the iPad Pro.

EDIT-- by displaying I mean capturing in the camera.

The POINT is to capture the video on your phone and then transfer it at home to another medium. That's what CAMERAS are generally for. Who the hell wants to watch high definition video on a tiny phone all the time? That other medium SHOULD have been iTunes + AppleTV, but it would have to be downgraded to 1080p to work. It's just plain stupid on Apple's part to not go for it. The brand new Amazon FireTV comes out in October for $99 ($140 with a real game controller) and it has 4K support galore and it's compatible with Android apps and you can get Kodi for it. It comes with Netflix 4K and Amazon Prime (with new 4K support) and it has a Siri-style voice input as well (Alexa). Now THAT is the way to go and for less money. Apple missed the boat here and will be BEHIND the curve for 1-3 more years (sadly as usual these days). Apple needs to stop being cautious and take some flipping chances once in a while. Steve Jobs wouldn't have waited. He would have wanted to either be there first or if he couldn't be first, he'd be the BEST. Apple is NEITHER these days (save Thunderbolt which no one supported for the first few years now; MAYBE with Thunderbolt III + USB 3.x + USB-C it will actually go somewhere).

aaaaaaaand the 8K TV goes on sale next month:


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34267265

Very few homes will be able to take advantage of 8K and notice an actual difference as the screen sizes versus sitting distance would be enormous. My home theater room has a 93" screen at a mere 11 feet and I could resolve slightly better than 1080p at that distance with 20/20 corrected vision. If I moved to a 2:35-1 screen, 4K would work well there (same height, much wider with digital Panavision conversion) for the ultra-widescreen movies. 8K would be overkill unless I moved to a screen that is bigger than my current wall size at that distance. That's not to say it wouldn't be great in a movie theater or a really really big home theater, but I think 4K is just about right for a very large home theater or a large monitor (close distance). I see no point in a 4K set if you're going to get a 65" screen and sit 15+ feet away (720P would probably do, really; my 47" Plasma for my upstairs living/music room is only 720P and at 14 feet away at that size, 1080p would make zero difference).

 

[Girder_Shade]

Those that are saying 4K is pointless on the new Apple TV... Are you implying 4K recording on the iPhone 6s is pointless too?

 

[diamond.g]

The POINT is to capture the video on your phone and then transfer it at home to another medium. That's what CAMERAS are generally for. Who the hell wants to watch high definition video on a tiny phone all the time? That other medium SHOULD have been iTunes + AppleTV, but it would have to be downgraded to 1080p to work. It's just plain stupid on Apple's part to not go for it. The brand new Amazon FireTV comes out in October for $99 ($140 with a real game controller) and it has 4K support galore and it's compatible with Android apps and you can get Kodi for it. It comes with Netflix 4K and Amazon Prime (with new 4K support) and it has a Siri-style voice input as well (Alexa). Now THAT is the way to go and for less money. Apple missed the boat here and will be BEHIND the curve for 1-3 more years (sadly as usual these days). Apple needs to stop being cautious and take some flipping chances once in a while. Steve Jobs wouldn't have waited. He would have wanted to either be there first or if he couldn't be first, he'd be the BEST. Apple is NEITHER these days (save Thunderbolt which no one supported for the first few years now; MAYBE with Thunderbolt III + USB 3.x + USB-C it will actually go somewhere).

Those that are saying 4K is pointless on the new Apple TV... Are you implying 4K recording on the iPhone 6s is pointless too?

That was more or less my point, they are supporting a video capture resolution and offer no means of watching it in native resolution, save the iPad Pro. It just seems un-Apple like.

 

[FLKitty]

Apple does things for a reason. 4K requires a lot of bandwidth which most homes do not have. What happens is, the average consumer tries to steam a 4K movie and they can't, so they blame Apple TV, they get on the blogs and say how awful Apple TV is etc etc etc. There isn't any 4K content out there but let's blame apple for not investing in "just having it" right now - I guarantee you if there is a 4K stampede of content Apple can push an update.

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple does things for a reason. 4K requires a lot of bandwidth which most homes do not have. What happens is, the average consumer tries to steam a 4K movie and they can't, so they blame Apple TV, they get on the blogs and say how awful Apple TV is etc etc etc. There isn't any 4K content out there but let's blame apple for not investing in "just having it" right now - I guarantee you if there is a 4K stampede of content Apple can push an update.

"Apple does things for a reason. 4K requires a lot of storage which most iPhones do not have. What happens is, the average consumer tries to record a 4K movie and they can't, so they blame iPhone, they get on the blogs and say how awful iPhone 16 GB is etc etc etc."

Except, you see, they did add 4K to the 16 GB iPhone 6S. Funny how that works, huh?