I think it is telling that Apple puts 4k on a phone that doesn't have the display resolution to show it, and no one bats an eye, but including 4k support on the AppleTV is a waste cause no one has 4k TVs...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No 4K Video Streaming Support for Upcoming Apple TV Set-Top Box
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if it was 4k compatible I would avoid it or turn it off like I do LTE on my phone. My data cap is not ready. Many of you guys are complaining just to hear yourselves, you want a set top box that supports 4k? ATV4 is simply not for you then. Keep calm and carry on.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease...
But really it is about ecosystem completion. Apple is selling a whole chain of devices to manage home made 4K content, but isn't providing a way to get that native content to the big 4K screen.
Then you need a bigger TV or you're sitting too far.
For a normal size TV (let's say 50 inches) you have to sit at around 4-5feet to see the difference between 1080p and 4k.
I use a 4k projector and a 12-foot wide screen. I sit at around 10 feet and the image is stunning!
Then you need a bigger TV or you're sitting too far.
For a normal size TV (let's say 50 inches) you have to sit at around 4-5feet to see the difference between 1080p and 4k.
I use a 4k projector and a 12-foot wide screen. I sit at around 10 feet and the image is stunning!
I have the Sony 75X940C FALD, two Sony 65X930C and one Sony 65X900B 4KTVs. I sit around 8-10 feet from all of them.
Which they Told everyone in their conference why they did - GoPro. Again...for a reason. This was a discussion about TV Right? Get a bigger iPhone if you want 4K or 5 million songs. The reason we Stream is to remove the need for storage.
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.Then you need a bigger TV or you're sitting too far.
For a normal size TV (let's say 50 inches) you have to sit at around 4-5feet to see the difference between 1080p and 4k.
I use a 4k projector and a 12-foot wide screen. I sit at around 10 feet and the image is stunning!
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.
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.
I think there are two reasons why there is no 4K support. Firstly, Apple aren't ready to sell or stream 4K content from iTunes yet, for whatever reason (storage requirements/datacenter bandwidth/licensing restrictions/etc). Secondly, it gives them something to add in a couple of years to make people re-buy. Just like ATV2 was only 720p and ATV3 was 1080p, without much else in the way of significant changes.
I get your point, and it is valid as people without good enough internet would complain, but some of us have perfectly capable Internet! I stream 4K already in Netflix so appleTV Netflix would be s massive step back, but I accept my setup is far from average.
What is a shame though is that your last point can't be valid. They sadly can't push out an update to 4K as the hdmi hardware connection is only 1.4 so whilst the processor in the Apple TV can handle playing 4K, the output plus cannot. A very weird choice.