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

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Anyone thinking about buying a 4K TV should wait a few more months or maybe even until next year. Personally, I plan to wait at least another two years before I buy a 4K TV. Pricing, compatibility/future-proofing and quality will be much better by then.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreymorrison/2015/02/25/dont-buy-a-4k-tv-right-now/

If after you wait those 2 years, you'll wait 2 more, 4K TV sets 4 years from now will be much better by then.

And if you wait 2 more years beyond that, 4K TV sets 6 years from now will be much better by then.

If we'll wait another year or two for every new thing Apple rolls out, it will likely have cheaper pricing, compatibility/future proofing and higher quality. Will Apple Watch 2 be better than 1? How about the next MB? How about iPhone 7 instead of 6s? And so on.

----------

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.

Plenty of uses for a 4K TV even if the content providers would never get around to making money by selling or renting their 4K content through it. Shoot your own with cheap camcorders and DSLRs. All your photographs will look that much sharper on a 4K set. Some vodcaster would go 4K just to be first. Netflix has some 4K. Youtube has some 4K. Movie trailers could be 4K. Etc.

Entrench a 4K-capable TV4 in millions of homes and content owners will be increasingly tempted to try making something available in 4K via iTunes. If they make profit, others will follow.

On the other hand, ignore 4K for now and there is ZERO reason for any content owner of 4K content to test 4K offerings in the iTunes store. See how that works?

 

[HenryDJP]

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.

Well you're making up scenarios in your head. People that know about TV's and broadcasting (because it's obvious you don't) understand that buying into 4K is extremely premature. The only reason it makes sense to buy the 5K iMac is because cameras such as the GoPro and some DSLR's record in 4K. It makes sense to have a computer and screen that handle 4K for editing purposes particularly since personal videos will be preserved for many years.

 

[solipsism]

The only reason it makes sense to buy the 5K iMac is because cameras such as the GoPro and some DSLR's record in 4K.

One can benefit from a HiDPI display without ever looking at 4K video.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

Same arguments (when Apple clung to 720p when 1080p was dominant). Apple doesn't even have to tell people the new TV can handle 4K. They can sell other benefits of the new box and just build in the extra capability. When the first LTE iPhones came out, not everyone could get LTE yet but that didn't seem to cause mass unhappiness with Apple being blamed.

And Apple doesn't ever "have content". That's the studios. It's the studios content. Put a bunch of 4K TV in homes and some studio will be tempted to play ball. Not everything in the iTunes store was 720p when the first TV arrived. And not everything was 1080p when the 3rd generation arrived. But look what happened as the quantity of capable hardware grew in numbers (of installations).

Get enough 4K TVs into homes and some Studio will give it a try. If they make a profit, more will follow. However, NONE of them can give 4K rentals for TV a try if there are ZERO 4K TVs in homes.

 

[cocaineheart328]

I find this disappointing. When iTunes finally does offer 4K movies/TV how do customers watch it without Apple TV ready for it? This is what is keeping 4K behind, because tech companies aren't putting the content in the consumer's hands. Vizio has quite a few very affordable 4K TVs on the market, but we need companies like Apple to step up and deliver us the content we want.

 

[HenryDJP]

If after you wait those 2 years, you'll wait 2 more, 4K TV sets 4 years from now will be much better by then.

And if you wait 2 more years beyond that, 4K TV sets 6 years from now will be much better by then.

If we'll wait another year or two for every new thing Apple rolls out, it will likely have cheaper pricing, compatibility/future proofing and higher quality. Will Apple Watch 2 be better than 1? How about the next MB? How about iPhone 7 instead of 6s? And so on.

----------



Plenty of uses for a 4K TV even if the content providers would never get around to making money by selling or renting their 4K content through it. Shoot your own with cheap camcorders and DSLRs. All your photographs will look that much sharper on a 4K set. Some vodcaster would go 4K just to be first. Netflix has some 4K. Youtube has some 4K. Movie trailers could be 4K. Etc.

Entrench a 4K-capable TV4 in millions of homes and content owners will be increasingly tempted to try making something available in 4K via iTunes. If they make profit, others will follow.

On the other hand, ignore 4K for now and there is ZERO reason for any content owner of 4K content to test 4K offerings in the iTunes store. See how that works?

Yeah and other than buying a computer (such as the 5K iMac) capable of 4K to edit your 4K DSLR videos it's simply premature to have a 4K streaming set top box.
You mentioned Netflix streaming some 4K. Did you know that Netflix's representation of 4K is hardly up to the potential of 4K? You do realize that it's not as cut and dry as you're making it seem. People have to have an internet connection fast enough to handle 4K streaming. They need a new 4K TV and much of what is currently being streamed is compressed so it's hardly better than watching the same movie in 1080p.

Buying hardware that's capable of 4K is not going to entice the content providers. Where did you arrive with that type of logic? It costs the content providers more money to stream in 4K, not to mention the programming has to be available in 4K. You need to think this through.

----------

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.

Your posts reveal otherwise, showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. And thanks for giving me a list of your products, like you can prove you own them.

----------

I find this disappointing. When iTunes finally does offer 4K movies/TV how do customers watch it without Apple TV ready for it?

SERIOUSLY?? Do you truly think iTunes will have 4K movies when there's no way to watch them other than on the 5K iMac? Come on.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

A 4K TV would still play 1080p at its MAX. Any 720p content would also play at it's MAX. It's not like adding an emerging technology means that ONLY the content for that emerging technology could feed the box. A 4K TV linked to a 1080p TV simply means great 1080p displayed on that TV.

The reason to make "a lot of 4K content" available will be driven by profit. Could any studio put a lot of 4K content in the iTunes store right now? Sure they could. So why don't they? Where's the TV that can play that content?

----------

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.

That's how it is. When Apple still clung to 720p, these exact same arguments were being made against 1080p. Then, when Apple embraced 1080p, all those arguments so passionately argued against it evaporated. See opinions of bigger-screen phone screens when Apple deemed 3.5" and then 4" as "perfect" or how gimmicky NFC was before Apple adopted it.

This is exactly the same. Right now, we believe Apple is going to be against 4K in the next TV, so 4K is stupid, useless, human eyes can't see, file sizes, "the math says", and so on. Then, if Apple does surprise us and roll out a 4K TV, it will be gushing love and "shut up and take my money".

Personally, I don't have a 4K set today but I'd MUCH prefer the next TV come with the capability even if I couldn't exploit it until I step up from a 1080p TV set. The rumors are that the next one will have an app store and some kind of cableTV subscription "new model". If true, Apple will probably sell tons of these boxes. If so, all that volume installation of 4K-capable TVs will be enormously tempting to the Studios to offer 4K content in the store. In short, if we're thinking we get to 4K for the masses in a few more years, Apple could lead the way there.

----------

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.

4K content would not be forced on anyone as the ONLY way... just as those who don't want the 1080p version of something in the store now can opt for the 720p or SD version. If there was a 4K TV, some content would probably offer a 4K version of the file... ALONG WITH a 1080p, 720p and SD version.

In your case, you just go with the right version for the hardware you have. In other's cases, they go with the right version for the hardware they have. While you have just purchased a 1080p TV, lots of other people just purchased 4K TVs. Apple could feed their sets maximum resolution streams while still feeding your sets your own maximum resolution streams. Everybody can win.

 

[brinary001]

I wholeheartedly agree with where Apple is coming from. 4K is still new, like really new, and there's no reason to charge customers more for a feature only a handful of them can utilize. The higher cost would come from more powerful inside components. If you're streaming 4K, you want it lag-free, right? That'll require a hefty processor among other things.

Also, TVs aren't phones. And good on Apple for realizing the difference. People keep their TVs for +/- ten years, meaning there's still a lot of 720 and 1080p panels out there, some of them even still plasma! (Me being one of them). Phones, on the other hand, see an average lifespan of more like ten moths, and do need to be updated accordingly. Still, I look forward to this new iteration of TV, and will probably finally get one now with all these new additions coming.

 

[RockSpider]

Yeah and other than buying a computer (such as the 5K iMac) capable of 4K to edit your 4K DSLR videos it's simply premature to have a 4K streaming set top box.
You mentioned Netflix streaming some 4K. Did you know that Netflix's representation of 4K is hardly up to the potential of 4K? You do realize that it's not as cut and dry as you're making it seem. People have to have an internet connection fast enough to handle 4K streaming. They need a new 4K TV and much of what is currently being streamed is compressed so it's hardly better than watching the same movie in 1080p.

Buying hardware that's capable of 4K is not going to entice the content providers. Where did you arrive with that type of logic? It costs the content providers more money to stream in 4K, not to mention the programming has to be available in 4K. You need to think this through.

----------



Your posts reveal otherwise, showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. And thanks for giving me a list of your products, like you can prove you own them.

----------



SERIOUSLY?? Do you truly think iTunes will have 4K movies when there's no way to watch them other than on the 5K iMac? Come on.

All your posts prove is that you're besotted with Apple, my posts prove that I own Apple products, they also prove that I know a bit about TV otherwise I wouldn't own all the stuff I do.
Most TVs right now are coming out in 4k so there will be a lot more content coming out in 4k in the near future. Looking at the ATV it looks like it will not have 4k for nearly another 4 years, so years behind.
I was going to buy the new one, but I doubt very much that I will now, no real reason for me. I certainly wouldn't be buying into Apples skinny streaming service.

 

[springsup]

Also, consider that if Apple would release a 4k capable ATV, people would assume that iTunes content would be available for it.

I'm assuming that it's just not feasible for Apple to make that investment now.
Nobody else has.

That really is the important point. If Apple went 4K with this next AppleTV, they would need to somehow get the iTunes content for that an invest heavily in the backend to stream it all quickly and reliably.

Not only that, but 4K isn't the real next advancement in picture quality after HD. The next big thing is called Rec. 2020. The most important thing you should know about it is that it is going to drastically increase the range of colours displays can show, which is going to increase their realism in ways that simply adding pixels can't do.

Just to illustrate how dramatic this is (with numbers. Pictures wouldn't mean anything unless your display was also Rec. 2020 compliant):

In coverage of the CIE 1931 color space the Rec. 2020(UHD/UHDTV) color space covers 75.8% ... and the Rec. 709(HD/HDTV) color space covers 35.9%

Who cares about 4K? In a couple of years, displays are going to be able to show twice the range of colours they can today. That is the real breakthrough. Give it 3 or 4 years maximum and these displays and content to match will be going mainstream. Until then 4K is an experimental, early-adopter technology without much viewing benefit. The hardware industry is pushing it far more than it deserves.

 

[brinary001]

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.

Yeah we have U-Verse and they throttle out the ass. What's funny is the best downrate I've seem from them in the year we've been subscribed is maybe 15 megs. Really?? Don't even bother throttling. You're already doing it! Net Neutrality should fix that though

Nothing from AT&T is good except their cell service.

 

[HenryDJP]

All your posts prove is that you're besotted with Apple, my posts prove that I own Apple products, they also prove that I know a bit about TV otherwise I wouldn't own all the stuff I do.

All your posts prove is that you agree with yourself. And no different than the rest of your anti-apple posts.

 

[RockSpider]

I wholeheartedly agree with where Apple is coming from. 4K is still new, like really new, and there's no reason to charge customers more for a feature only a handful of them can utilize. The higher cost would come from more powerful inside components. If you're streaming 4K, you want it lag-free, right? That'll require a hefty processor among other things.

Also, TVs aren't phones. And good on Apple for realizing the difference. People keep their TVs for +/- ten years, meaning there's still a lot of 720 and 1080p panels out there, some of them even still plasma! (Me being one of them). Phones, on the other hand, see an average lifespan of more like ten moths, and do need to be updated accordingly. Still, I look forward to this new iteration of TV, and will probably finally get one now with all these new additions coming.

The chips will probably add about $10 if that, to Apples cost. They're not in it for the money so I'm sure they can absorb that, besides its only a hobby for them.
I don't know what part of the world you come from, but from where I come from its probably less than 5 and for me around 3 to 4 years.

----------

All your posts prove is that you agree with yourself. And no different than the rest of your anti-apple posts.

If I didn't agree with myself I'd be lying and I don't see the need to do that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yeah and other than buying a computer (such as the 5K iMac) capable of 4K to edit your 4K DSLR videos it's simply premature to have a 4K streaming set top box.
You mentioned Netflix streaming some 4K. Did you know that Netflix's representation of 4K is hardly up to the potential of 4K? You do realize that it's not as cut and dry as you're making it seem. People have to have an internet connection fast enough to handle 4K streaming. They need a new 4K TV and much of what is currently being streamed is compressed so it's hardly better than watching the same movie in 1080p.

Again, exact same arguments made when Apple clung to 720p while the video tech world had pretty much fully moved to 1080p.

You don't have to edit 4K video you shoot on a 5K or 4K screen. One could edit 4K on a relatively low-resolution computer screen as proxy video and then render it as a 4K video playable on screens better than that computer screen.

Buying hardware that's capable of 4K is not going to entice the content providers. Where did you arrive with that type of logic?

You must be misunderstanding me but I'll try again. TV4 rolls out with 4K, an app store and some kind of alternative CableTV (subscription) so enticing the masses jump on it like the masses jump on iPhones. Tens of millions sell. Why doesn't a Studio try to see if they can make a profit on a 4K stream to those masses? Would they dare?

What was the main reason HBO said they chose to launch their new service with Apple? (look it up if you need to).

It costs the content providers more money to stream in 4K, not to mention the programming has to be available in 4K. You need to think this through.

So they charge a bit more for it... you know, like 1080p typically costs more than SD in the iTunes store.

 

[Keirasplace]

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.

streaming.

Those 50 inch sub $1000 4K TV'S are close to garbage (just like most cheap LCDs TVs).

And no, streaming on 4K on the net is not even close to being adequate considering the effect of compression and possible latency on anything but the fastest networks

This inadequacy is especially true on a 50 incher, unless you:
- Have bad eyesight and sit more than 3 feet away (then you don'T need 4K)
- Normal vision and sit more than 6 feet away (then you don't need 4K)

If your talking about 75 inch $5000+ dollar 4K TVs with native content and are siting at 8-10 feet away with normal vision (a more classic distance for a living room). Well, yes that's totally fantastic and the perfect size for a TV like that.

Anyone who has looked at seating distances for 4K TV's were you can actually see the difference with native 4K content
- less than 6.3 feet for 50 inch (that's pretty close...)
- less than 10 feet for 75 inch
- less than 12 feet for 90 inch

You can look this up here. I'm going to guess that even Apple owners don't routinely own 75 inch high quality 4K tvs....

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

So, the whole thing is crazy tiresome. I'd bet most people clamoring for a 4K look at their 50 incher from more than 10 foot away were 720P is adequate like many people I know.

Seeing a 4K 3 feet away in a store with native content is not how you'll be looking at generally at home.

If your really into 4K content right now, at least for your own native content, buy a nice 27 inch computer monitor with good color and contrast and see it that way. Then, your going to get the best experience right now, and not be a victim of some spiel the guy at best buy has spun to sell you some crap.

Apple provides support for something when it is worth it. The first Iphone wasn't even 3G... I guess they sucked then too hey!

 

[Edd.Dantes]

I'm out.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Who cares about 4K? In a couple of years, displays are going to be able to show twice the range of colours they can today.

Who cares about USB type C? In a couple of years, USB type D will be here and offer twice the speed.

Who cares about the iPhone 6S. In a couple of years, iPhone 8 will be here and it will be far superior.

Who cares about the Apple Watch. In a couple of years, the Apple Watch 3 will be here and it will be...

--------

Why do we tend to look at video technology with such a passionate cling to whatever Apple offers now but want cutting-edge from Apple in everything else they make? I know, I know, "everything else is different".

 

[Keirasplace]

That really is the important point. If Apple went 4K with this next AppleTV, they would need to somehow get the iTunes content for that an invest heavily in the backend to stream it all quickly and reliably.

Not only that, but 4K isn't the real next advancement in picture quality after HD. The next big thing is called Rec. 2020. The most important thing you should know about it is that it is going to drastically increase the range of colours displays can show, which is going to increase their realism in ways that simply adding pixels can't do.

Just to illustrate how dramatic this is (with numbers. Pictures wouldn't mean anything unless your display was also Rec. 2020 compliant):



Who cares about 4K? In a couple of years, displays are going to be able to show twice the range of colours they can today. That is the real breakthrough. Give it 3 or 4 years maximum and these displays and content to match will be going mainstream. Until then 4K is an experimental, early-adopter technology without much viewing benefit. The hardware industry is pushing it far more than it deserves.

Yes, increased gamut and having decent resolution of movement, would be fantastic, resolution is really really overdone (except maybe for VR applications). That would be something I'd like to come rather than another useless bump in resolution.

 

[uwdude]

So, if we don't need 4K yet, and 1080p is fine for now, they why do we need new hardware at all this year? The current model handles 1080p just fine, and has some flash memory. Maybe a little more memory might help with an App Store, but that's about it. A pretty ho-hum upgrade then.

 

[pragmatous]

So that's your reasoning?

There is no reason to have USB-C now since there is no support for it.
There is no reason to have Thunderbolt now since there is no support for it.
There is no reason to have Firewire now since there is no support for it.
There is no reason to have SCSI now since there is no support for it.
There is no reason to have M.2 now since there is no support for it.
There is no reason to have SATA 3 now since SATA 2 is not maxed (sata 3 is maxed now with SSD's)
There is no reason to have ...

I have never heard Apple ever say "There is no reason to have...". Apple has always and I mean always been the company to be out there first introducing the technology that people didn't know they wanted.

There is no reason to have 4K support on the current generation Apple TV as most content is not yet available in 4K. By the time mainstream 4K content becomes available, Apple will be prepared.

 

[HenryDJP]

If I didn't agree with myself I'd be lying and I don't see the need to do that.

Not surprising you didn't get that. Oy vey.

 

[ninethirty]

At the rate that Apple upgrades the Apple TV it's a joke it doesn't include 4K. I'd say I was amazed that so many people were defending Apple for whatever they might do, but this is MacRumors, so go figure..

 

[Mliii]

...Apple has always and I mean always been the company to be out there first introducing the technology that people didn't know they wanted.

I'm late to this party, and this is just my opinion not based on anything specific, just my observations over time.
Back when Apple was in the tank and a share of Apple stock sold for about $12, they HAD to embrace cutting edge technologies and be bold in what they did or they were dead in the water.
But that was then.
Now, they are masters of incrementalism. Add a feature here. Tweak something there.
SOME things they do are still cutting edge. But an awful lot of their product development and sales strategy seems to be based on the notion that they can be extremely measured in what they introduce and when they introduce it.
Why sell you an Apple TV now that covers an emerging technology or standard when they can sell you something better than a 3 year old product NOW and a bunch of folks will buy it, and then a year or two from now, sell you the product with a few tweaks that adds something like 4k? Not everyone with the 2015 model will buy the 2017 model, but a lot of people will IF the emerging technology and standard becomes more universal and there is a demand. If not, they move on to something else, or wait till 2018.
They get to sell you twice...
In spite of what Apple fans like about the company and its products, (and I do count myself as an Apple fan for the most part) they are in the business of selling you stuff. And their business benefits by selling you stuff more than once as content and standards emerge.
They're the most capitalized company on the planet now, not struggling for survival like they were back in the day. And perhaps, that makes them more risk averse and much more likely to be conservative and incremental in their strategy now than they were, especially in markets that are still evolving or are stagnant...

 

[winston1236]

I realize content is low, but still somewhat disappointing. Maybe next year.

More than content, bandwidth is low. Comcast caps most major cities at 300GB.

 

[Robert.Walter]

"and the vast majority of Americans do not even have Internet connectivity at fast enough speeds to support such streaming."

As a result of all the choice and vibrant competition no doubt.