Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016

[alexgowers]

If it's released in 2016, I doubt the next Apple TV will support 4K.
All the factors working against wider 4K adoption today will remain in place in 2016...

• 4K resolution requires a very large (80"+) screen or very close viewing distance to be appreciated
• Most people don't own or have the space for an 80"+ TV
• Mot people don't want to view a 60" TV from 5 feet away
• Most Americans don't have sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K video at good bitrates w/o terrible compression
• Major ISPs in the US are imposing data caps that would make streaming 4K video prohibitively expensive for most
• Very little content is currently available in 4K

The only place that has 4k is youtube and the compression means that there is very little benefit. It looks great on my retina display 2ft from my face but at arms left i really can't tell the difference. However i can see block noise and compression artefacts on all of them. My connection is great and plenty to stream high bitrate 4k but still there is no one offering it.

The biggest issue with 4k is the hdmi 2.0a standard. If you are looking at a tv with that you really are gonna be spending big cash but you will literally not be able to plug it into anything right now. The delivery medium is the internet now.

I really believe that we should just up the bitrates on 1080p first before jumping to 4k. 1080p bluray still blows any youtube video out the water and also 4k streams for 99% of viewing situations.

Though really when has actually improving the things that mattered sold new tech? never, we are being taught to believe 4k is better blindly without questioning how it could possibly be better if everything else is the same.

 

[freediverx]

Allow me to quote myself, since you're wrong, and those aren't scientific anythings.

Behold, science!

Here's the source of the chart you love to mock, and an explanation of the science behind it. Feel free to offer us a similarly well-documented retort that doesn't rely solely on the subjective and anecdotal opinions of a few non-professionals desperately trying to justify their 4K tv purchase...

Does 4K Resolution Matter?
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Based on the resolving ability of the human eye, it is possible to estimate when 4k resolution will become apparent. A person with 20/20 vision can resolve 60 pixels per degree, which corresponds to recognizing the letter “E” on the 20/20 line of a Snellen eye chart from 20 feet away. Using the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet as a base, I created a chart showing, for any given screen size, how close you need to sit to be able to detect some or all of the benefits of a higher resolution screen.

What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers

It’s important to note that research by Bernard Lechner (former VP of RCA Laboratories) found the average viewing distance of American TV viewers is 9 feet. This is substantially farther than the 5.5 foot distance required to fully resolve normal-sized 4k screens. I don’t see people rearranging their living rooms to take advantage of the otherwise unnoticeable UHD resolution benefits.

Sony lists identical required viewing distances in the Frequently Asked Questions section of their product description. Checkout the Amazon.com product description FAQ for the Sony 65X900A 4k Ultra HDTV. It shows the same distances I have calculated (i.e. 3.6 feet for a 55″ screen and 4.2 feet for a 65″ screen.) If you don’t believe my numbers, confirmation from Sony should help convince you.

Sony FAQ: How close to the TV must I sit to appreciate 4K?
The short answer is that between 5 and 6 ft. is the ideal viewing distance for a 55” or 65” Sony 4K Ultra HD TV. However, on a 55“, you can now sit as close as 3.6 ft and enjoy a visibly smoother and more detailed picture (e.g you won’t see the individual pixels). On a 65“ TV, you can sit as close as 4.2 ft. to appreciate 4K.

Source: Amazon.com product description frequently asked questions for the Sony 65X900A 4k Ultra HDTV
​

THX also confirms similar viewing distances:

On a 50-inch 1080p HD display, most consumers can begin to distinguish individual pixels only when standing within six feet of the screen. Therefore if your viewing distance is 10 feet or greater, an Ultra HD 50-inch display will likely have little perceived benefit in terms of image clarity and sharpness [source]
​

 

[pizzabun]

If it's released in 2016, I doubt the next Apple TV will support 4K.
All the factors working against wider 4K adoption today will remain in place in 2016...

• 4K resolution requires a very large (80"+) screen or very close viewing distance to be appreciated
• Most people don't own or have the space for an 80"+ TV
• Mot people don't want to view a 60" TV from 5 feet away
• Most Americans don't have sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K video at good bitrates w/o terrible compression
• Major ISPs in the US are imposing data caps that would make streaming 4K video prohibitively expensive for most
• Very little content is currently available in 4K

Prediction:

Apple TV5 with 4K to arrive in 2018.

 

[ProMacs]

I call ********. When have Apple ever superseded a brand new product inside of 12 months? Click-bait trash.

The 3rd generation IPad lasted only 221 days

 

[nelmat]

720p and then 1080p were not- and are not today- essential. If progress requires "essential" to drive it, we'll make almost no progress in all things. An iPhone 7 is not essential, nor are Skylake Macs, nor next generation iPads nor major updates to OS X. What future progress on almost anything requires essential drivers?



Such requirements and caps do not apply to everyone. And besides, a 4K-capable TV doesn't force anyone who buys one to burn any more bandwidth than they burn now. Those with tight caps could keep choosing the 1080p or 720p or SD video option. Embracing 4K TV hardware doesn't force anyone to buy new televisions or burn more data or watch different videos or anything at all. It simply gives those that DO desire that feature an Apple product to enjoy too. Rather than excluding that segment, it lets them get what they want as well. Since it would have no effect at all on those who don't care, why do we make so many arguments against it?



Evidence? Are there any competing set-top boxes that already have 4K that are priced higher than TV4 without it? Any at all? Does Amazon or Roku, etc have more power than the mighty Apple to drive down the cost of components for their boxes? (rhetorical). There's no reason for this to cost more to play 4K. That's just something some of us make up to imply it would cost more... and thus support an argument against it (or in support of what Apple has for sale now as the one and only best choice for all consumers... until Apple embraces something else and then THAT will be the one and only best choice for all consumers).

You need to learn to read and not quote partial sentence and state your opinion.

Technology is not 'essential' - that is not any part of definition of development, or the word. I am not suggesting that anything is essential, and do not make this statement in my post.

I'm aware that data caps do not apply to everyone, hence my very clear statement, please read it again.

The price of HDMI-2 components is more than HDMI-1. Google is your friend.

Typical poster on this site - deliberately twisting and misunderstanding the post they reply to through a mixture of arrogance and a lack of basic comprehension skills. Terms such as 'forced' come entirely from your opinion, nowhere in my own post is the term used. I don't state that progress is essential or that anyone is forced to upgrade.

Please re-read my post and try again. You make no point in contradiction to my post, yet seem determined to argue with it.

 

[gkarris]

Prediction:

Apple TV5 with 4K to arrive in 2018.

The 3rd generation IPad lasted only 221 days

Next Holiday:

AppleTV 3: $69
AppleTV 4: $129
AppleTV 5 (4K): $189

 

[freediverx]

...

 

[Lexdexia]

Can't wait to have my current Apple TV 4 feel laggy and slow when Apple TV 5 comes out with next-gen tvOS!

 

[mytdave]

Not likely. If a new one came out early 2016, customers, like me, would be pissed. Since it is no longer a "hobby" I could see a new release cycle, maybe annual, so maybe late 2016 for gen 5.

 

[wizard]

If it's released in 2016, I doubt the next Apple TV will support 4K.
All the factors working against wider 4K adoption today will remain in place in 2016...

• 4K resolution requires a very large (80"+) screen or very close viewing distance to be appreciated

• that is nonsense, spend a few minutes in a store and the value of high resolution becomes obvious.

  [*]Most people don't own or have the space for an 80"+ TV
  [*]

  nor do they have to buy an 80" tv

  [*]Mot people don't want to view a 60" TV from 5 feet away
  [*]

  everyone is different here.

  [*]Most Americans don't have sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K video at good bitrates w/o terrible compression
  [*]

  well this I agree with. The whole idea of streaming video is asinine, the bandwidth isn't there and frankly never will be

  [*]Major ISPs in the US are imposing data caps that would make streaming 4K video prohibitively expensive for most
  [*]

  this is the other issue, people don't enjoy being taken to the cleaners. I suspect we will see more people dropping these plans for other solutions.

  [*]Very little content is currently available in 4K
  [*]

  content isn't a problem though some owners might not want to upgrade their consumer distributions for fear of loosing income.

4K will come, I just don't see streaming as the solution.

 

[mattopotamus]

The only place that has 4k is youtube and the compression means that there is very little benefit. It looks great on my retina display 2ft from my face but at arms left i really can't tell the difference. However i can see block noise and compression artefacts on all of them. My connection is great and plenty to stream high bitrate 4k but still there is no one offering it.

The biggest issue with 4k is the hdmi 2.0a standard. If you are looking at a tv with that you really are gonna be spending big cash but you will literally not be able to plug it into anything right now. The delivery medium is the internet now.

I really believe that we should just up the bitrates on 1080p first before jumping to 4k. 1080p bluray still blows any youtube video out the water and also 4k streams for 99% of viewing situations.

Though really when has actually improving the things that mattered sold new tech? never, we are being taught to believe 4k is better blindly without questioning how it could possibly be better if everything else is the same.

You have a lot of incorrect information. 4K is currently offered by Amazon, Netflix, UltraFlix, YouTube, M-GO, and Vudu. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Amazon and Netflix are really the leaders. All of their new series are released in 4K.

HDMI 2.0 devices are very available. In fact, I would say you will be hard pressed to buy a new AVR that does not support HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2

4K is a lot more than just a resolution increase. If it was just the resolution, I agree, it would not be a big deal. The wider color gamut and HDR are the real benefits. Anyone who has seen HDR content will tell you.....it blows anything else away.

Even early this year I would not have bought a 4K TV b.c it was simply a resolution increase; However, the new sets with HDR actually make a difference in PQ. 4K OLED is a whole other animal!

 

[freediverx]

That has been going on forever and ever. Apple apparently doesn't care about home share movies and can't be bothered to fix it. Their focus is on expensive iTunes downloads that no one buys anymore.

Get Plex. It will let you access your Home Sharing content on your Apple TV with a user interface and features that are even better than what Apple offers for their iTunes content.

 

[thekeyring]

It's it a little crazy, based on the past release track record of Apple TVs (which are years and years between releases), that we'd get any new Apple TV in 2016? 2017, maybe; but this seems a bit premature.

Does anyone with the ATv4 think that it needs to be faster???

It's one of their proper products now (it has its own tab on the apple website!) so I think lots of people expected more regular updates (even if it's just a faster chip, to keep it in line with other iOS devices).

 

[grayskyz]

Hmmm. I'm not seeing it at all. I use Plex to run my local videos on the ATV4 and they have all run perfectly so far. I am running mine off of an early 2009 Mac Mini that I upgraded with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD.

Your Mac mini (while very nice) is overkill. Mine is 2007 with 4GB and the world's slowest hard drive is running plex. Takes a few seconds to start but, never pauses or skips. Plex is great though right? The app made my media center complete.

 

[thekeyring]

The Apple TV is not a regular product... it is a hobby.

I think you missed the /s l

It's not a hobby as several key people from Apple have said.

It was introduced like a new product, like Apple were laying down their cards 'this is how you fix tv'.

 

[ohio.emt]

Dispelling the hype swirling around high dynamic range tv
www.techhive.com/article/2920188/dispelling-the-hype-swirling-around-high-dynamic-range-tv.html

Currently there’s no standard for HDR, so it’s a bit of a free-for-all with each manufacturer offering their own take on the technology.

Samsung labels its HDR implementation “Peak Illuminator Ultimate,” while LG calls its “Ultra Luminance” and Panasonic offers “Dynamic Range Remaster.” Sony offers two flavors of HDR—“X-tended Dynamic Range” and “X-tended Dynamic Range Pro.” And Vizio, Sharp, and TCL are throwing their hats in with Dolby’s HDR tech, “Dolby Vision.”

If that doesn’t lay the groundwork for enough consumer confusion, the lack of a standard leaves the door wide open for a manufacturer to slap “HDR” on its TVs just because they’re bright, whether or not they can truly handle HDR content.

Buying into a new technology is always dicey, and HDR is no exception. Upgrading your TV when HDR models hit the shelves won’t be cheap—for reference, Sony’s 65-inch X930C, which seems to be the first out of the gate, retails for $4500—though there are no known connectivity or other compatibility issues that would require you to overhaul the rest of your home theater.

As with 4K before it, the decision on when to upgrade comes down to content. Sure, there looks to be enough coming down the pipe to make it enticing, but until a major studio either starts producing multiple HDR titles a year or offers a decent portion of its library to be remastered in HDR, it will be tough to justify the expense.​

Nice outdated article.

 

[freediverx]

You're a luddite.

That's amusing considering most people consider me an early adopter.

Thankfully no matter how much you complain 4k will still come.

Of course it will. But not today or probably even next year on the Apple TV.

 

[loekf]

I call ********. When have Apple ever superseded a brand new product inside of 12 months? Click-bait trash.

Remember iPad 3 ? Release March 2012. In November 2012 we got iPad 4 with the same display, but much lighter housing and better CPU (first in-house Swift vs. dual Cortex A9)

 

[flux73]

I'm going to be pretty irritated if this happens in 2016. I just bought two for my home, and am about to buy a third for my sister and her family.

 

[SlipperySlop]

I've just bought this!! It's brand new. At least I only payed 111 dollars at target for it. Let's hope for 4K!

Let's all start panicking now and screaming at apple and bashing apple and on and on. After all, we are all sure the report is accurate.

heat dissipation? Like a fan maybe? That would seem odd.

You will get an Amazon gift certificate to purchase an external fan to blow on the apple tv5.

I guess I'll hold off for a while to see if this is true.

Yup. Just keep on waiting. It's just around the corner.

No, but I liked the UI of the 3 better.

The UI on the 4 version is sooooo much better than the 3.

 

[rjjacobson]

Odd. I'm not seeing any of those issues. I have a wired gigabit network using consumer grade gear from tplink. I stream off a Synology DS212j NAS with the iTunes server package enabled. Works fine. No buffering or stuttering. I found this appletv app called one video that will play just about any format, and is very NAS friendly. I've been able to dump just about every video I can find in all kinds of formats onto a shared folder on my NAS and play it with one video on the atv. Flawless streaming. Very very happy with it.

Well on the threads about this alot of us having problems who are just using homeshare via WIFI to the device. And some hardwired ones also. People have tried resetting routers, APTV4 and such and still not fixed and looking at buffering a number have said it does not buffer far ahead like the old 1-3 APTV's did.

For a $99 device I am not going to have fancy server, wired setups added when my trusty old 2009 Mac Pro has been serving fine over WIFI til this device. They broke my setup even if for ones like yours no problem and the APTV is too far and not in place to hard wire it anyway.

 

[rjjacobson]

While I sympathize with your issues, tvOS does not need a major overhaul. I would argue that you, and the 'many' in the forums are still a very small percentage of ATV users. Most people do not set up home networks and self deliver their content. And I'd go so far as to bet that this is even less likely with Apple users than Windows/Android folks. Apple works toward plug and play solutions. The ATV/iTunes combo is that solution for media content.

Well for me that breaks my setup I do not want to do it all from the internet and iTunes when Comcast is down I still can play movies from my Mac Pro and Airport Extreme So yes maybe they are going to the cloud and internet but that is not how I roll. If this is where they are goign then my APTV 3 goes back up and the heck with APTV 4. I want local control that is how I prefer to roll I might be a minority and those are ones most vocal but this is not acceptable to me!

 

[mattopotamus]

The UI on the 4 version is sooooo much better than the 3.

The UI is very nice, and the touch pad makes rewind/fastforward with the preview perfect. It is easily the best "looking" interface of any streaming device on the market.

 

[grayskyz]

I see a lot of fuss about this 4K sitch, here's my take... I don't have a 4K set yet but, I'll get one in the next 12 months most likely.

I own the current 4 gen Apple TV. I love this box even with it's faults (looking at you remote app, ****** keyboard)
If a new 4K ATV comes out, I'll just move the non 4K ATV to a different room.
I'm not replacing every one of my tv's to 4K at the same time. That doesn't make sense to me. And if I'm getting a new 4K tv for the living room, I'll get a new sound system or at least a sound bar and sonos system so a $149 dollar box isn't my biggest money concern at that point. So yeah, I'll get a new Apple TV 4K and move the "outdated/obsolete" (everyone's favorite word on here) to another room. Every one of my tv's has an apple tv attached to it but, the newest/best one is in the living room where i get most of my entertainment viewing done. YMMV.

 

[rjjacobson]

For the record, I have a substantial library of movies and TV shows that I stream to my Apple TV using the Plex app. I do not have any of the skipping issues mentioned here, which suggests that they are caused by something other than the Apple TV. My guess would be a) slow computer, b) non-optimized video formats, and/or c) wifi issues.

Well same setup on APTV 3 I have works fine, no optimization of videos needed (many from itunes), same WIFi -- latest Airport Extreme, same 2009 Mac Pro serving movies via WIF and Homeshare. It is the APTV 4 and how it handles video somehow is different from previous APTV's (1-3).