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
Actually most people debating 4k and 1080p in here seem to actually know the difference...both through research and personal experience. 4k today is useless. Buying a 4k tv today is even more useless. Very few TVs will take advantage of the blu ray specs and streaming 4k is utterly useless when 1080p streams are far from perfect.
Current AppleTV specs are H.264 video up to 1080p, 30 frames per second
I think we could ignore 2160p (i.e. 4k) for now and still see an upgrade. For example H265 up to 1080p, 72 frames per second.
We can really notice faster framerate (even on smaller screens), but not the higher resolution.
(edit: also if I understand correctly, HDMI 1.4 only supports 2160p24... but can do 1200p60)
2 key things here
1) h265 will allow the same quality at half the bandwidth. Or better quality at the same.
2) It's time for higher frame rates.
I'd really like to never see 1080i again, but a lot of TV networks still create content that way, so it's possible the network streaming deals Apple is making will see 1080i content at times. At the moment 1080i60 TV is converted to 1080p30 - it could convert it to 1080p60 but instead drops half the frames! ... and in either case approximates half the lines. So we actually have a lot of TV content ready for 108p60
(Note that 1080i60 encoded movies are a different case, they convert cleanly to 1080p24.)
Can that be accomplished in any other ways?
I think we could ignore 2160p (i.e. 4k) for now and still see an upgrade. For example H265 up to 1080p, 72 frames per second.
We can really notice faster framerate (even on smaller screens), but not the higher resolution.
(edit: also if I understand correctly, HDMI 1.4 only supports 2160p24... but can do 1200p60)
2 key things here
1) h265 will allow the same quality at half the bandwidth. Or better quality at the same.
2) It's time for higher frame rates.
I'd really like to never see 1080i again, but a lot of TV networks still create content that way, so it's possible the network streaming deals Apple is making will see 1080i content at times. At the moment 1080i60 TV is converted to 1080p30 - it could convert it to 1080p60 but instead drops half the frames! ... and in either case approximates half the lines. So we actually have a lot of TV content ready for 108p60
(Note that 1080i60 encoded movies are a different case, they convert cleanly to 1080p24.)
Can that be accomplished in any other ways?
Last edited:
But then you thought "Eh. 3d sucks, and nothing is in 4k." So you saved yourself 800 bucks. Good job :!
Bad decision considering it's becoming harder to buy a premium TV that doesn't have 4K, can't play 4K recorded clips from phones that have been common since 2013, can't stream 4K YouTube/movies/etc. No reason to upgrade from current. Furthermore, Apple TV is redundant anyway since phones can do more.
YouTube use a different codec than h265. Really no one is streaming YouTube in 4k regardless of what they search. I don't think any TV supports VP9, what YouTube uses.
Bestbuy must be really waxing people with 4k. Literally a few people get it. Most are just spitting garbage they know nothing about =\
How about us non-Americans who do have more than necessary bandwidth? I live 2 miles outside of a town of 24000 people, and my choice is 100M or 1G
I'm disappointed in Apple, they used to be forerunners....
And how much 4k content do you currently have?
That's too bad. I will not be buying the new Apple TV then. 4k support should be a requirement in 2015-16. Especially for those of us that have 4k projectors.
Hopefully Apple updates their Apple TV next year to include 4K support. I'll be waiting and purchase immediately once they do.
Hopefully Apple updates their Apple TV next year to include 4K support. I'll be waiting and purchase immediately once they do.
I wasn't thinking of the removal of features, I was thinking of things like being first to market on things like retina displays or USB 3.1 ports on one hand vs something like this.
Last edited:
Show me where the Apple TV is ready today, it's another 6 months away, they could have easily future proofed it, all they seem to be worried about lately is the Apple watch and making everything else as cheap as possible. By the time Apple gets 4k they'll be streaming 8k.
I'm an average viewer who is happy with SD and HD and will be buying two of the the new AppleTVs when they come out. Does that make me a fanboy, an apologist, or just someone who likes the product?
On a related note, it was much more fun to read these boards before anti-Apple trolls joined to shoot down everything Apple does. Am I the only one that gets the irony of people that bash Apple constantly because they hate Apple fanboys? A zealot is a zealot.
On a related note, it was much more fun to read these boards before anti-Apple trolls joined to shoot down everything Apple does. Am I the only one that gets the irony of people that bash Apple constantly because they hate Apple fanboys? A zealot is a zealot.
If you're serious about 4k you ain't streaming it.
Content providers just can't afford to offer it and the benefits are negligible on 99% of 4k setups by being to far away or too heavily compressed or sharpness turned too high on the TV or many other things.
4K isn't really much of an upgrade in resolution either, it's a little like the megapixel myth that still prevails.
The first issue should actually be calibration of monitors rather than resolution which at 1080p is more than enough to saturate 90% of bandwidth if compressed at a more blu-ray like quality.
There is a massive lack of 4k content, 1080p is enough for most video makers like those on youtube. It requires serious investment in much more than a camera and a tv to make/keep/stream/download/watch/backup 4k.
Like 3D TVs, Curved displays and anamorphic super wide it's not a big deal.
Hell most channels in Europe aren't even HD and most people don't own a HD freeview box or tv to even receive the channels. It really is a slow moving industry once again that we have reached a peak of.
I can't even recall anytime ever someone has said oh this video on your tv isn't HD I can't watch it. We just don't need resolution we need content. We are happy to watch fuzzy but good TV shows and even avoid bad ones in HD.
Loading times also mean 4k is dead for a few years everywhere apart from heavily compressed youtube or hard copies.
I agree with apple on this. Their next gen Apple TV will be out before 4k is ready for any kind of adoption. I love the tech don't get me muddled, 4k is amazing to look at but it's early adopter stuff for 3-5 years and streaming looks like a long way off for most.
Content providers just can't afford to offer it and the benefits are negligible on 99% of 4k setups by being to far away or too heavily compressed or sharpness turned too high on the TV or many other things.
4K isn't really much of an upgrade in resolution either, it's a little like the megapixel myth that still prevails.
The first issue should actually be calibration of monitors rather than resolution which at 1080p is more than enough to saturate 90% of bandwidth if compressed at a more blu-ray like quality.
There is a massive lack of 4k content, 1080p is enough for most video makers like those on youtube. It requires serious investment in much more than a camera and a tv to make/keep/stream/download/watch/backup 4k.
Like 3D TVs, Curved displays and anamorphic super wide it's not a big deal.
Hell most channels in Europe aren't even HD and most people don't own a HD freeview box or tv to even receive the channels. It really is a slow moving industry once again that we have reached a peak of.
I can't even recall anytime ever someone has said oh this video on your tv isn't HD I can't watch it. We just don't need resolution we need content. We are happy to watch fuzzy but good TV shows and even avoid bad ones in HD.
Loading times also mean 4k is dead for a few years everywhere apart from heavily compressed youtube or hard copies.
I agree with apple on this. Their next gen Apple TV will be out before 4k is ready for any kind of adoption. I love the tech don't get me muddled, 4k is amazing to look at but it's early adopter stuff for 3-5 years and streaming looks like a long way off for most.
Not sure if I should be happy or sad about this. 
On one hand, 4K would be nice for future proofing, but not immediately useful at least for me (I have no 4K TV). On the other hand, this leaves room for a different highlight feature. Which may be more useful for me...
On one hand, 4K would be nice for future proofing, but not immediately useful at least for me (I have no 4K TV
). On the other hand, this leaves room for a different highlight feature. Which may be more useful for me...It's because of people like you that Apple is making rubbish lately, bad is good enough as long as it's Apple.
The "average man" doesn't have a 4K TV set... so why would they build it in? Makes no sense. 1080p has been the hype for years - a TV is not an appliance which is continuously "upgraded" year after year, like Macs or PCs - 1080p has been deeply engrained as the top level, and ONLY professionals and movie obsessives care about 4K. Don't forget - what the consumer gets to know about is a MINUTE sliver of the entire span of internal development prototypes and evolution of product prototypes and iterations which they have built, tested and then either abandoned or put on the market... they have HUGE depth and breadth of scope and vision, even if noone else except internal staff know about their plans, doesn't mean they're not already holding the actual future hardware in their hands, inside internal labs. I bet Apple have multiple prototypes and/or finished product ready to go, but just don't feel the time is right yet, if at all.
Apple work on the majority average use case model, not the bleeding edge tech fanboy use case model. Apple are about experience, not about tech specs. The "other" smartphones have 1080p screens as the baseline spec - so what? Apple, and a large proportion of their consumers KNOW it's not about pixel counting, it's about the combined and overall experience.
Apple work on the majority average use case model, not the bleeding edge tech fanboy use case model. Apple are about experience, not about tech specs. The "other" smartphones have 1080p screens as the baseline spec - so what? Apple, and a large proportion of their consumers KNOW it's not about pixel counting, it's about the combined and overall experience.
It won't work
...until H.265, which promises to stream 4K with the same bandwidth as we use for 1080p now. Also, the truth is, the iPhone 6 and 6+ is completely capable of playing (but not displaying) 4K at 60 fps, as was verified by the developers of Waltr, the incredible transcoder that uses the iPhone 6 hardware encoder to produce brilliant H.264 at a speed the software I use at work can't touch -- 10 minutes for a complete copy of a feature film, for instance.
There may or may not be 4K in the next Apple TV. It's got to be ready, software and hardware. Apple doesn't want to put in a knockout new feature that people won't notice, or will just find to be slowing everything down. Part of the problem is the bandwidth it needs from the network. H.265, better firmware encoder/decoders, better screens, and a faster net. If something is shot on film, it transfers to 4K beautifully. Shot on 5K Reds, amazing. When we have screens with better contrast, we've got a new medium. Until they want footage for VR. Hey, somebody needs to invent a camera! Greater definition and color depth, great. 3D, yawn.
...until H.265, which promises to stream 4K with the same bandwidth as we use for 1080p now. Also, the truth is, the iPhone 6 and 6+ is completely capable of playing (but not displaying) 4K at 60 fps, as was verified by the developers of Waltr, the incredible transcoder that uses the iPhone 6 hardware encoder to produce brilliant H.264 at a speed the software I use at work can't touch -- 10 minutes for a complete copy of a feature film, for instance.
There may or may not be 4K in the next Apple TV. It's got to be ready, software and hardware. Apple doesn't want to put in a knockout new feature that people won't notice, or will just find to be slowing everything down. Part of the problem is the bandwidth it needs from the network. H.265, better firmware encoder/decoders, better screens, and a faster net. If something is shot on film, it transfers to 4K beautifully. Shot on 5K Reds, amazing. When we have screens with better contrast, we've got a new medium. Until they want footage for VR. Hey, somebody needs to invent a camera! Greater definition and color depth, great. 3D, yawn.
Yup. Bunch of people trying to convince us that the **** sandwich really does taste ok this time.
Producers have been acquiring content at 4k or higher for 3 years now. There are plenty of DSLR that record 4k video and EVERY camera takes a still shot above 4k.
I'm not sure I'm buying this rumor though it matters little I'm not so wedded to Apple that I wouldn't go with another solution if they can't deliver.
I just doubt that apps and Siri would be enough to warrant buying Apple TV Version 3.5
I've got Netflix....
...and all my photos I like to show. Showing photos on a 1080 or a 4k is a huge difference.
And as for someone elses comment about capped volumes, my 100M or 1G are uncapped and $30 and $40 each...
Considering iPhone 6 (and 6 Plus) have H.265 support and is used for FaceTime chats, I disagree. H.265 is also 50% more efficient than H.264, so even if Apple decide not to offer 4K contents this year, it would be prudent to upgrade Apple TV hardware to H.265 and 4K.
The jump in visual quality from 480i to 1080p was AMAZING. Everyone could see it, and it was noticeable even at smaller screen sizes. Not only that, but flat panel TVs were so much nicer looking and less bulky than the CRTs they replaced. People had at least two VERY GOOD REASONS to upgrade to HDTV sets.
However, the jump from 1080p to 2160p (4K) is hardly noticeable unless you have either a REALLY HUGE screen or you're sitting really close to a more moderate sized (30-40") set. It's not something that people are clamoring for; 1080p is already "retina" at typical TV viewing distances.
This, along with bandwidth requirements is why it will take 4K a long time to go mainstream. I suspect the market will move to 4K only once such TVs cost the same as 1080p sets due now, and even then, more through attrition (people replacing dead sets) than folks wanting to upgrade.
However, the jump from 1080p to 2160p (4K) is hardly noticeable unless you have either a REALLY HUGE screen or you're sitting really close to a more moderate sized (30-40") set. It's not something that people are clamoring for; 1080p is already "retina" at typical TV viewing distances.
This, along with bandwidth requirements is why it will take 4K a long time to go mainstream. I suspect the market will move to 4K only once such TVs cost the same as 1080p sets due now, and even then, more through attrition (people replacing dead sets) than folks wanting to upgrade.