If you are in the market to buy a new TV, you will notice that 4K does not command as much premium over 1080p sets. You can get 55" 4K TV for under $1,000 for instance.
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
If you are in the market to buy a new TV, you will notice that 4K does not command as much premium over 1080p sets. You can get 55" 4K TV for under $1,000 for instance.
In typical Amazon fashion, the TV in your link is now $965.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Like H.264, the new H.265 has different profiles that define how reference frames are used to compress. Higher level profiles use way more data und require more CPU to create a stream.
For FaceTime it's completely irrelevant, because we are talking about 720p.
For 4k Video, the Apple TV would need way better specs.
Also, in my post I outlined that I do not believe Apple would provide 4k iTunes content. If there's no iTunes content, Apple has no need to build an Apple TV with 4k.
Apple wants to offer the complete package. A 4k ATV without a content service from Apple itself makes no sense.
----------
Do you have an example of an actual device that is not a 4k TV?
Here's a shopping trick I use on Amazon. I add a big ticket item to my cart and then move it to "Saved for Later". By doing that, I get messages that tell me whether the price on that item has gone down or up since I last checked on it. Be patient and don't pull the trigger until the price is as low as you think it could go within a reasonable amount of time.
Delibrately Holding Back from the Consumer
Just like when the 1st Apple TV came out there was no 1080p support. Apple waits until chipsets become cheaper, then they implement so you'll have to buy again.
It's just like the iPhone not having more than 1GB RAM, because if it did, the performance would be fantastic, and you wouldn't think about buying another iPhone for 3 years.
Just like when the 1st Apple TV came out there was no 1080p support. Apple waits until chipsets become cheaper, then they implement so you'll have to buy again.
It's just like the iPhone not having more than 1GB RAM, because if it did, the performance would be fantastic, and you wouldn't think about buying another iPhone for 3 years.
The A8 already supports decoding and encoding h265 in hardware. They're not waiting for anything. Eventually, they would be able to support it from this box with just a software upgrade when the time comes. The issue is elsewhere, not Apple's own hardware.
You really aren't sure why?
It's the same reason why the iPhone 3G and original iPad didn't have a front facing camera... planned obsolescence.
Apple is a hardware company that makes most of it's profit from hardware sales. Intentionally omitting features that are widely available means that there is the opportunity to sell you an upgraded model in the future.
If you want an Apple TV, then you can buy one now that is 1080p capable, and then you can buy another one that is 4K capable in 2 years time.
You only think that because you are looking at things in hindsight. By your logic, Apple should put a terabyte of RAM in the AppleTV to future proof it but that doesn't make sense with what a person will want to use it for for the next few years and would make the price of the device more than anyone would want to pay. Electronics will always be subject to future upgrades because new technologies with higher requirements and new wants and needs happen. Do people complain the same when they buy a new car and the very next year the new model has one more feature they wish their now almost new car had? Be glad electronics doesn't do the old "provide a lesser product every year to keep the price the same but profits up" like most grocery store items do. Ever notice how many items in the store have less product in the package than it used to but still costs the same?
This shouldn't be the least bit surprising for anyone at all familiar with how Apple has historically done things. If it's Pushing out legacy technologies (let's get rid of floppies, CDs, ethernet, Flash, Java) they will aggressively push to get rid of it. If it's adopting an existing technology with a low adoption (1920 HD, 4K, Blu-Ray) they will wait it out and see what happens.
Yes, and the quality of those sets, just like the "quality" of most bottom lcd/led sets is absolutely terrible, particularly terrible with compressed content. But, most people seems to not care since they are cord cutters who already see their compressed shows streamed on monitors of dubious qualities and don't seem to care...
I really can't see how they'd do without 4k either, the more people want it the more that it will be produced.
It's not that much of a big deal to me either, but I don't mind the little door stopper for Netflix and my music and stuff, 4k would have been good. I'm not married to Apple that's for sure, and if they keep taking backward steps I'll drop them altogether.
Lol he wasn't talking about apple removing features to compel users. He is referring to apple having the latest things before they become mainstream like bt 4.0 as one example or the latest w the new power cord for the new MacBook. apple tends to put the tech inside before the rest.
IMO the new atv can and will support 4k just not out of the box. Prob in the next fw os 2nd gen of the new os style for the upcoming box. Similar to what they did w MacBooks w bt etc in the old days.
That is a false analogy. The difference between 1 and 2 GB RAM or supporting 4K video is not an unreasonable proposition. Apple is in the business of selling disposable portable electronics as its major profit driver. Albeit they are very good with what they make, but at the end of the day, it is about supporting the shareholder first and consumer later.
I call shenanigans...
1) Buzzfeed
2) "The A8 chip that's going to be in the AppleTV supports 4K, and we're not telling you ANYTHING about why it wouldn't support 4K, we're just telling you it's not going to."
Did anybody read the article? There's no technical reasoning behind anything they say. They don't even attempt any reasoning.
Also...
3) Buzzfeed
Will it ship with 4K enabled? Maybe... maybe not. Maybe we get this with a software update down the road... maybe we never get it. I dunno. I do know that this article provided zero information about anything at all.
1) Buzzfeed
2) "The A8 chip that's going to be in the AppleTV supports 4K, and we're not telling you ANYTHING about why it wouldn't support 4K, we're just telling you it's not going to."
Did anybody read the article? There's no technical reasoning behind anything they say. They don't even attempt any reasoning.
Also...
3) Buzzfeed
Will it ship with 4K enabled? Maybe... maybe not. Maybe we get this with a software update down the road... maybe we never get it. I dunno. I do know that this article provided zero information about anything at all.
It's about perception, not reality, and the need for consumer electronics companies to sell more product and streaming companies to lure in more subscribers. I mean, we've all heard stories about people getting HDTVs and going "Wow, HD looks amazing!" when all they were watching was a distorted SD broadcast but since it was on their new HDTV they assumed it was HD. TV makers just flat out stopped making SD TVs so customers would be forced to by HD TVs. Throw out some marketing terms, some big numbers and wait for the 'keeping up with the Jones'' effect to kick in and 4K will be the talk of the town even if the people buying the new TVs can't tell the difference between 480p and UHD.
The poster I responded to said there was no finical incentive to get behind 4K but there is a HUGE financial incentive for 4K streamers and 4K TV/device makers to push 4K into the public space and phase out HD-only gear.
Are there any <$100 set top boxes that can stream 4K content?
I actually think apple is working on two products here. One is the evolution of the Apple TV set top box we all know. Sells for $69 but with new hardware could be sold for $99. The other is their full TV set (for really rich people). I remember a rumor a few years back that apple was developing a TV set with 12 speakers that could give the full surround sound experience without extra external speakers. It would undoubtedly be 4K at this point and will likely have some other amazing specs. Because it's their rich people TV they can make it super nice and charge $2999+ depending on size for it.
I actually think apple is working on two products here. One is the evolution of the Apple TV set top box we all know. Sells for $69 but with new hardware could be sold for $99. The other is their full TV set (for really rich people). I remember a rumor a few years back that apple was developing a TV set with 12 speakers that could give the full surround sound experience without extra external speakers. It would undoubtedly be 4K at this point and will likely have some other amazing specs. Because it's their rich people TV they can make it super nice and charge $2999+ depending on size for it.
Last edited:
Yes, it's interesting that the article says that "the 4th generation Apple TV will not initially support 4K video," implying that the same device may support it at some point. Either way, I'm not going to get a new TV until there's a lot more 4K content available.
Please research before posting next time.
4k TV for $340....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY0...&ie=UTF8&qid=1428279181&sr=1-1&keywords=4k+tv
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Please research before posting next time.
4k TV for $340....
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY0...&ie=UTF8&qid=1428279181&sr=1-1&keywords=4k+tv
Yeah a 39", you are not going to see a picture quality difference in a tv that small, please research before posting next time
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Of course it's established. There is also HW decoders that are power efficient enough for even Apple to use, as evidenced by the iPhone 6 series release.
Not having the content available from content owners even though they've been filming in UHD for many years now is what would keep this from happening, but that doesn't mean the HW won't be able to support 2160p@60Hz, even if Apple doesn't have it enabled until there is content via iTunes as per Apple's desire to have symmetry.
You seem to think that HEVC/H.265 and 4K UHD have to come at the same time, but they don't. The ideal solution is for universal HW H.265 support to come before 4K UHD content so when they can flip the switch on their backend several years of devices will support the codec.
This may or may not mean Apple will re-encode their other content use H.265 over H.264 (perhaps even adding in more audio channels, language support, etc.).
Personally, I think a company like Apple that likes simplicity will use H.265 and UHD content as a demarcation point to make it easier for customers to differentiate, even though a more complex backend with double the content (for 480p, 720p, and 1080p) would allow for those devices that support H.265 to have file sizes that download/queue/stream faster, and use less space on their devices. Maybe 1080p could have this option because there is no benefit to watching 2160p on your iPhone 6.
Also, even though the iPhone 6 series supports H.265 codec and there there are tests showing 4K playback, albeit with the less optimized H.264 codec, I would wager that when Apple flips the backend switch for 2160p content the iPhone 6 series isn't likely to be supported because it's too close to the edge.
It has to have 4k, Sony has a 4k content box out now, I think every 4k TV connects to the web and to a multitude of streaming services, without 4k it's a non starter. 4K Blu-ray is around the corner, Apple should really get into the mix or the people who go for a 4k set are going to skip out on the Apple TV.