Yea I side by side compared Sony VW1100 with a Sony HW55 and I couldnt tell much difference then either, on a 230 cm screen, so 4K doesnt impress me at all. Granted, source was bluray.
If it was Blu-Ray then it wasn't 4K!
Seriously, you do know that in order to see a real difference on a 4K TV you need a 4K source? Trying to claim 4K makes no difference with a Blu-Ray is like saying watching a VHS tape on a 1080p set looks like crap. Of course it does.
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.
This is made up nonsense. There is no 4K AppleTV so how could anyone complain how
awful it is? According to Ookla, the "
average" non-mobile Internet connection in the US is now over 30Mbps (jumped over 10Mbps in one quarter alone last year see:
http://cordcuttersnews.com/average-...ed-jumps-10mbps-in-just-one-year-to-33-9mbps/). I know my own ISP connection just doubled my own bandwidth for the same price to 32Mbps just this past month. That is more than enough bandwidth to handle a 4K movie at 60fps (Netflix needs around 12-15Mbps for 30fps 4K) download in real time, let alone a download of slightly pre-buffered "rental". That's the AVERAGE speed. I can get up to 150Mbps here if I actually NEEDED it and I don't have anything close to Google Fiber around here. 50Mbps is only $15 more a month (paying $45 a month now not counting a tri-package cable discount, less with it).
In other words, the idea that 4K should be avoided because "some" people can't stream it is ridiculous. I had HD 720P movie rentals off AppleTV back in 2008 when my connection was closer to 5Mbps and less reliable. It simply buffered for about 15 minutes and then told me my rental was ready. The same would be true for people with slower speeds here if Apple offered 4K. You simply pre-order and it will inform you when you can start. It's still faster than runing to a video rental place. The alternative comparison for prior HD is to rent the equivalent of VHS in an era of Blu-Ray instead because you have to wait 15 minutes to watch the movie in HD quality? That's not worth waiting a few minutes for? Give me a freaking break! Your argument is terrible.
One doesn't have a 4K set? Then one could still rent a 1080p, 720p or even a 480p movie off AppleTV even if it DID have 4K support! No one makes you use 4K if you don't have it! In other words,
THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST OFFERING A 4K APPLE TV!
Worse yet, by letting its competitors (Roku and Amazon FireTV) get a head start on 4K, Apple is basically forfeiting early market share right now and furthering its own sad reputation for playing "catch up" behind everyone else since Steve Jobs died. You often can't reclaim early market share because people tend to stick with what they already have over time. That's why the first iPhone put Apple in such a good position that has lasted until this day for a large extent? Do you seriously think the iPhone would have an 18% market share right now if it had come out 3 years after a Samsung equivalent? No, it would be more like Microsoft's share (<3%). Too little, too late especially for a closed system. AppleTV got as far as it did because it came out first. Now everyone else is eroding away at its share and moving on ahead. This is a mistake on Apple's part like so many others lately. They keep heading in the wrong direction and the iPhone is the only real thing keeping Apple from imploding already. It is the cachet that keeps Macs selling even when they offer poor value for the price and features (i.e. they match well to iPhones better than Windows). As a stand-alone platform, the Mac has fallen behind everyone else technology-wise including Linux.