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

[Boatboy24]

I wouldn't do that, Dave.

It's not time yet. If you buy one you will be at a disadvantage when they kick in. I was going to buy one but researched but instead went for a standard one in 65". 4k and the bandwidth needed (physical media is dead) means we need to wait a few years. Be sensible, think about it.

Thanks. Off topic, but if you were buying today, what would you do in that size? This is for a 'main' TV in a family room, not a theater. Appreciate the input.

 

[HenryDJP]

Not sure why Apple wouldn't want to be cutting edge in this area, the first service to bring 4k mainstream from all the content providers could very well win the future of TV. Apple already has a $69 1080p box which is plenty powerful for video streaming..

Not saying Apple shouldn't bother making AppleTV support 4K, but it's not really up to them anyway. They can make their product 4K compatible but if the content providers aren't delivering then Apple being on the "Cutting Edge" as you put it ends up being wasteful.

 

[Boatboy24]

But then you thought "Eh. 3d sucks, and nothing is in 4k." So you saved yourself 800 bucks. Good job :!

Well, sort of, yes. I'm not sold on 3D. But in many cases, it is only $100 more than the same tv without it. I'll be buying something in the next 3 months and it will be either 55 or 60". I can go with or without 3d and would likely go without (I think it is a little gimmicky, for my taste). But I'm looking for something I can use for the next 5-7 (maybe 10) years, so I don't want to short change myself. Don't need ultra-everything, but want to future proof myself a little.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It has nothing to do with sticking up for 1080

Yes it does. Go back and look at threads before TV3 and you can see nearly duplicate arguments being made for 720p being "good enough" and 1080p being a gimmick, "human eye can't see at normal distances", "until iTunes is full of 1080p", "until bandwidth everywhere is improved", "the chart", file sizes, and on and on. So much of the same. It seems the rule is "whatever Apple endorses is the ideal until Apple shifts and then the new is the ideal."

A 4K TV should be able to downscale 4K content to exceptional 1080p or 720p for people with those kinds of sets. However, 1080p or 720p iTunes files upscaled to 4K is far from the same.

There are relatively cheap 4K camcorders out now and more coming. Our new Macs have the horsepower to process such footage. The new iMac marketing even brags about being able to display & edit 4K (what's the point if our human eyes can't see it)?

Even if there was no content available (forget select Netflix, Amazon and camcorders), those high resolution photos we take with those beyond-HD cameras built into our iDevices will simply have that much more detail pushed through a 4K TV to a 4K TV.

I don't know how we can rationalize retina on 4" screens while dismissing 4K screens on 50" as a gimmick? Is retina a gimmick? (rhetorical: I know, "that's different").

----------

4K content is still years away to become the status of choice. While we're seeing more all the time it's still not widely adapted by TV manufacturers etc
While the IMac is a good start let's hope it catches on

Go to Best Buy and count the TVs for sale. There's lots of 4K sets now. It is widely adapted by TV Manufacturers. In fact, can you name a TV manufacturer that doesn't currently offer a 4K set?

 

[HenryDJP]

I love how the Apple devotees are sticking up for 1080p just like they did for 3.5". I haven't got a UHD TV yet but will have within 18 months, I was hoping the Apple TV would have 4k but I can understand Apple cheap skating on it, just like they're doing on the Macbook and Mac Mini.

Just stop. This has nothing to do with people sticking up for 1080p in honor of Apple. Oh the people on this forum sometimes...

You obviously don't know much or anything at all about TV's or available content. What good is a product that offers a higher resolution when there's barely any available content to take advantage of it. And you do realize that in order to take advantage of such high resolution you need a TV 70" or larger. Yeah, and I guess you think everybody here owns a 4K television. Not to mention, Netflix who actually does stream in 4K offers a very poor representation of it. It's not even up to it's full potential and once again, the content has to be available.

 

[dampfnudel]

LOL, you obviously never seen one displaying 4k content. Let me put it this way, you can sit closer to a larger 4k screen and not see anything resembling a pixel. It would be like comparing a retina screen to Apple's old 1280 screens they foisted on us for so long. In scenes with lots of tightly packed detail, or very complex geometrical patterns, hell even some tiled wall in the back ground, the difference between 4k and current 1080 is very noticeable.

If the new Apple TV doesn't support 4K what features could it support to justify buying over the existing model?

App store support and gaming come to mind. For a lot of people, that's bigger than 4K support, at least this year and probably next year as well. 2-3 years from now it might be a different story, but that's when Apple TV 5 with 4K support will probably be released.

 

[Coleman2010]

4K isn't going to take off in the consumer marketplace, and Apple knows it. There is no financial incentive for broadcasters to produce and broadcast 4K content at this point.

I own 2 Sony XBRX900B 4K TVs and I'm preordering the XBR75X940C and XBR65X930C this month. This is very disappointing to here. I was holding off buying another Sony 4K media player in hopes of buying a 4K AppleTV instead. I guess I'll continue getting my 4K content from Sony, Netflix, Amazon and UltraFlix.

 

[HiRez]

...and much hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing did follow, by the several hundred consumers worldwide that actually have 4K, know they have it, and can see the difference from 1080 from sitting on their couch 11 feet away...

 

[WilliamLondon]

Yes it does. Go back and look at threads before TV3 and you can see nearly duplicate arguments being made for 720p being "good enough" and 1080p being a gimmick, "human eye can't see at normal distances", "until iTunes is full of 1080p", "until bandwidth everywhere is improved", "the chart", file sizes, and on and on. So much of the same. It seems the rule is "whatever Apple endorses is the ideal until Apple shifts and then the new is the ideal."

A 4K TV should be able to downscale 4K content to exceptional 1080p or 720p for people with those kinds of sets. However, 1080p or 720p iTunes files upscaled to 4K is far from the same.

There are relatively cheap 4K camcorders out now and more coming. Our new Macs have the horsepower to process such footage. The new iMac marketing even brags about being able to display & edit 4K (what's the point if our human eyes can't see it)?

Even if there was no content available (forget select Netflix, Amazon and camcorders), those high resolution photos we take with those beyond-HD cameras built into our iDevices will simply have that much more detail pushed through a 4K TV to a 4K TV.

I don't know how we can rationalize retina on 4" screens while dismissing 4K screens on 50" as a gimmick? Is retina a gimmick? (rhetorical: I know, "that's different").

It's all about the size of the market, which is exactly the same way Apple looked at it when this was 1080p vs. not.

How many potential consumers are going to be so upset about their not supporting 4K they don't buy one, and how much lost revenue will Apple forgo? 10s/100s/1000s?

But, that's not the real issue. If they were to support 4K, there would be a demand for 4K content by new owners of the product, which Apple doesn't *yet* have, which most content producers don't *yet* have, which most consumers can't download, store or stream.

This is such a non-issue.

It doesn't mean they won't ever support 4K, but today, the stars aren't aligned the way Apple demands them to be, and for the vast majority of people, we simply don't care.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The "average man" doesn't have a 4K TV set... so why would they build it in? Makes no sense.

The average man doesn't have USB Type C, so why should they build that into new laptops?

The average man doesn't need an A9 processor in the next iPhone and no apps currently available can max it out, so why should they bother building an A9?

The average man doesn't need 5K iMac screen, so why bother?

Why bother with cutting edge graphics cards when all software can't maximize them?

Why bother with new CPUs when the current one work sfine for the average man?

See the pattern here? Apple can lead or follow. A transition to 4K is already underway and that will only progress in time. Apple could adopt it like they adopted LTE in iPhones before everyone had access to LTE signals or they can cling to 1080p liked they clanged to 720p when pretty much everything else had moved on to 1080p. Lots of the very same arguments (pro 720p) flew around back then too.

If Apple goes 4K and they sell gobs of these new TVs because they come with long-awaited features (other than 4K), they push lots of 4K-capable units into homes. Each unit will tempt those who could put 4K content in the iTunes store. Somebody will take that temptation, make profit by being first and their success will motivate others.

Otherwise, clinging to 1080p creates no such motivation. No studio has any reason to give some 4K content a try for TVs that are limited at 1080p.

 

[HenryDJP]

I just recently bought a 65" Sony 4K TV this past month and it absolutely rocks. On a large screen the pixel density really comes into play and also I love Sony's triluminos display. The colors really pop. Current 1080p sets are hitting the budget market right now.

Sadly it's an LCD. True home theater movies should only be enjoyed on a Plasma or OLED.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

Go to a store like Best Buy and watch some demos. 4K is dazzling vs. 1080p. A lot of the promises of 1080p like "moving photographs" seems to be realized with 4K. Huge sets or smaller sets. If we're going to argue the merits of retina on a 5.5" iPhone 6 screen, I just can't see how we can discount about double 1080p on screens 8-12 times bigger.

 

[Coleman2010]

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 =\

The 2015 4KTVs support VP9 and HVEC. All of the 2015 Sony models support YouTube in 4K.

 

[iPro97]

As fast as 4k prices are dropping, hopefully Apple will decide to pull the trigger on this.

 

[Michael Scrip]

There is no reason to have USB Type C in the new generation of MacBook as most hardware is not yet available to connect through USB Type C.

Let me guess: "that's different." It's fine for Apple to step toward the future with a new USB port that connects with just about nothing available but 4K makes no sense until "most content" is 4K.

One small difference... you can buy cables with any kind of end on them... Type C to Type A... for instance. At least it's possible to utilize the new Type C port with your existing devices.

On the other hand... you can't do too much with a 4K streaming box unless there's a lot of 4K content.

4K is definitely a chicken & egg situation... more than USB Type C.

 

[Macboy Pro]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Following up on last month's claim that Apple is planning to show off a revamped Apple TV set-top box with App Store and Siri support at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference in June, BuzzFeed now reports that the new box will not include support for 4K video streaming even though several services like Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube offer content in the high-resolution format.The report points out that 4K streaming is expensive for content providers given the bandwidth required, and the vast majority of Americans do not even have Internet connectivity at fast enough speeds to support such streaming. Still, those who do currently stream 4K content or hope to in the relatively near future are likely to be disappointed by Apple's decision to forgo support in the next Apple TV.

Image​

Beyond existing Apple TV services and new third-party apps, the revamped Apple TV is also expected to support a package of streaming television channels if Apple can manage to reach agreements with the necessary content providers. Apple is reportedly in talks with ABC, Fox, and Disney, as well as Discovery and Viacom, to try to put together a "skinny" TV package of select channels that would reportedly cost consumers somewhere in the range of $25 to $40 per month. Apple is said to be aiming to announce the service at WWDC in June and launch it in the September timeframe.

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

Probably chose a thinner design over added function. Thats how Apple innovates nowadays.

 

[RockSpider]

Right , so only make it for the sake of you guys while the rest of us the U.S. don't truly have a need for it nor can we truly benefit it from it.

I didn't know America was that far behind the rest of the world. If Apple had put 4k on the doorstop everyone would have been jumping for joy, but because they haven't we all of a sudden don't need it.

 

[\-V-/]

To get the best out of 4K streaming, you need a 4K tv....which I am not willing to pay $6000+ for a freaking tv

It's amazing how people can just make up numbers without having any knowledge whatsoever of the current TV marketplace. You can get a 55" 4K TV for around a grand these days.

Not having 4K support on the Apple TV is absolutely stupid, I'm sorry. Looks like I'll be switching boxes. 4K content is still limited, but that doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there. I have 4K Netflix and I'm enjoying it just fine on my 65" Bravia. The difference is noticeable.

Probably chose a thinner design over added function. Thats how Apple innovates nowadays.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

You obviously don't know much or anything at all about TV's or available content. What good is a product that offers a higher resolution when there's barely any available content to take advantage of it.

The content is fine and it continues to grow.

And you do realize that in order to take advantage of such high resolution you need a TV 70" or larger

Lol ... no ... no you don't.

Not to mention, Netflix who actually does stream in 4K offers a very poor representation of it. It's not even up to it's full potential and once again, the content has to be available.

It looks much better than 1080p, even in its compressed version for streaming.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

This thinking makes no sense. The hardware has to lead. Software that depends on something special about the A9 would make no sense in the App store today. Software that would depend on something special about the next-gen CPUs from Intel before they are in any computers would make no sense in the app store today. It made no sense to have blu rays on store shelves before there were blu ray players. It made no sense to have CDs on store shelves before there were CD players.

Hardware first, then the software that leverages it can follow. It never works the other way. Apple should lead by doing what it does: sell hardware. If we can rationalize embracing USB type C in the new MB as embracing the future (before there is practically anything available to use it), how can we rationalize NOT embracing 4K when there is a fair amount of that available (including the ready availability to shoot that ourselves... for a long time now)?

 

[bflowers]

TVs are usually long term items. My oldest is an eight year old plasma, the newest is my 55 inch 1080p LCD. I don't expect to need a new one until I can convince the wife that we need a 65-75 inch screen in another 5 or so years. I really don't care about 4k at this point.

What makes me NOT want 4k is the streaming. Sure, I have a decent internet connection, with 22 meg down, but I still see plenty of stutters in streaming video. Google tells me it is because AT&T isn't a quality ISP for HD content.

Add to that, with data caps of 250 gigs a month, I can see 4k being an issue.

 

[mi7chy]

Probably chose a thinner design over added function. Thats how Apple innovates nowadays.

It's still a box so no thinner/smaller than a dongle device like Chromecast. Even Intel/Microsoft are releasing a PC on a dongle.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's too early to peddle 4K; Apple still can sell one more generation of Apple TV before rendering all existing ones obsolete.

If I was a betting man, THIS would be the BEST reason that this rumor can be true.

 

[RockSpider]

Just stop. This has nothing to do with people sticking up for 1080p in honor of Apple. Oh the people on this forum sometimes...

You obviously don't know much or anything at all about TV's or available content. What good is a product that offers a higher resolution when there's barely any available content to take advantage of it. And you do realize that in order to take advantage of such high resolution you need a TV 70" or larger. Yeah, and I guess you think everybody here owns a 4K television. Not to mention, Netflix who actually does stream in 4K offers a very poor representation of it. It's not even up to it's full potential and once again, the content has to be available.

No I know absolutely nothing about TV, that's why I have a BluRay PVR, a Foxtel cable box, a Mac Mini, an Apple TV, a Yamaha receiver and 8 speakers B&W and Jensen and a WII all connected to it, oh and a Chromecast which I move between 4 TVs.
I know nothing.
Sorry I forgot the Router Modem and NAS.

 

[elmateo487]

App store support and gaming come to mind. For a lot of people, that's bigger than 4K support, at least this year and probably next year as well. 2-3 years from now it might be a different story, but that's when Apple TV 5 with 4K support will probably be released.

This. The App Store for me is the only thing I am looking for extra. If they include 4k even better. But if they release the EXACT same box with an App Store. I would buy it.

 

[tongefactor40]

It sounds like the limit is not a hardware limit so 4k can be added in the future. While it would be nice, having no 4k TVs here it isn't a deal breaker for me. Give me an App Store and I'm happy.

I sure hope so! I agree that there isn’t much content out there, but not to support it from a hardware point is just silly, especially when the device only gets updated every couple years. 4K will become the norm and if a company like Roku comas out with a 4K set then I will jump ship to them.

Would be nice to see some specs on the new apple TV. hopefully it will have hdmi 2 capabilities.