Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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 So yeah, I'll get a new Apple TV 4K and move the "outdated/obsolete" (everyone's favorite word on here) to another room.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.

And lets not forget that apple is generally late to the game with universal features (NFC, 4K recording on phones, etc). We literally just started seeing 4K streaming devices from Roku and Amazon in the last 2 months. There was a zero perfect chance the new ATV was going to have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grayskyz
Well they need to fix the software first. Big issue is the skipping, pausing and stalling of many/most of my home share movies. I do not want to run the movies via itunes and my internet service all the time that is not the solution. It is not all on the cloud and internet, I have a large old Mac Pro serving my videos and having them stored locally. I am sure this is premature but tvOS needs major overall. Many are reporting this issue see the forum on apple TV and look for buffering issues.
Have you looked at Infuse?
 
Well they need to fix the software first. Big issue is the skipping, pausing and stalling of many/most of my home share movies. I do not want to run the movies via itunes and my internet service all the time that is not the solution. It is not all on the cloud and internet, I have a large old Mac Pro serving my videos and having them stored locally. I am sure this is premature but tvOS needs major overall. Many are reporting this issue see the forum on apple TV and look for buffering issues.
Download a free App called PLEX... on both your Mac and Apple TV... all concerns you laid out are fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
I don't understand this 4k obession. I mean, sure if you are running very large screen there's some benefit to it, but how many really do it?

On a 40-65" screen, it's not enough of an improvement. Heck, I'm running a movie filter on my 1080p movies in my 55" TV to add grain since it looks "too good" otherwise.

You may need glasses or look at a different brand. Even 1080 content is noticeably better on a 4k TV. Just looks clearer.
 
Set up Plex....that is what I have with new aTV. No buffering issues at all.

I have no idea what that is. I have just dowloaded movies and TV shows from itunes and homeshared them in format they come in. I am too far to also hardwire. Computer, and such in room in edge of house and TV not in place to have the APTV hard wired either. my APTV 1-3's all worked fine this way why all of a sudden do I have to add more to my setup, or modify my movies (which I also do not know how to do or have software to do that). It worked fine for all previous generations my point was that for them it worked and I feel it should for this also. If not then back to APTV3, and if it does not work in future then I am done with apple itunes movies and will go back to disks on my blue ray! I do not need this extra work and hassle in a setup that worked just fine for me.
 
I've got a 4 (and had 2 and 3 before) and will be happy if Apple do release a 5 in 2016. Whatever it's faults, the 4 is a big step forward and a 5 so shortly afterward might actually mean Apple are going to take this seriously and not just as a hobby!
 
  • Like
Reactions: grayskyz
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.
A new ATV may not come out in 2016, but customers being pissed would not be among the reasons for it. If they saw a benefit to releasing an ATV in January they would do it; feelings be damned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmlninja
I don't understand this 4k obession. I mean, sure if you are running very large screen there's some benefit to it, but how many really do it?

On a 40-65" screen, it's not enough of an improvement. Heck, I'm running a movie filter on my 1080p movies in my 55" TV to add grain since it looks "too good" otherwise.

To everyone commenting that 4k doesn't matter, think again. You're right that for most people the increase in pixels won't make a difference. Why 4k TVs matter is because TV manufacturers are only putting new technologies that actually do affect picture quality into their 4k models. That means that 4k TVs already do look better than their 1080p counterparts, even if it isn't because of the number of pixels.

For your reference, this CNET editor called 4k dumb for a number of years, but has now jumped on the bandwagon: http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-arent-stupid-anymore/
 
Have you looked at Infuse?
No I did not have to add other features or sofware or hardware. My old 2009 Mac Pro has been serving via homeshare all my movie collection fine. I do not want to have to spend more money, time, setup to acheive what was working before and assumed the 4 would do the same.. I also for wired solutions am too far to connect the way my house is. It has to be via WIFI and Airport Extreme.

Most of these solutions like what you mention I frankly know nothing about. It simply worked fine with homeshare and I did not need that with previous generations. My preference would be that it still did but I guess those of us in this situation are in minority then maybe I am done with apple tv. Run my APTV 3 and serve and use it until it does not work with iTunes and then go back to just getting blue ray and DVD disks... This just starts to make my setup too much work and disks are way more simple for the way my TV/Stereo/Blueray system is set in house where it is not possible to do wired connections to it. I need to do via WIFI only.
 
Download a free App called PLEX... on both your Mac and Apple TV... all concerns you laid out are fixed.

Ok I looked at it seems like even with the free version it is $5 a month why the hell do I have to have more expense on my Apple TV that simply worked?

How does it get my videos from itunes where they are all stored??? Says I need a Plex Server and such it seems like more complications and setup to even do this to me -- yeah I have not read all the details just poked around on web site. I do not have other video services, I only have internet and no Cable TV, I use roof anttena and by shows from itunes (and movies). So I do not have all kinds of video and TV services just that simple arrangment. Sounds to me like this assumes i have subscriptions to cable, TV services, movie channel services and such and if I am just doing itunes my videos would need to be out somehow to allow the plex server to serve my videos. I am not prepared to have to alter, modify them in anyway does it just grab itunes library media (not obvious on quick inspection of plex website) I just wonder for my simple setup with no cable and such if plex would be worth it even at $5 a month minimal subscription

Ok I dug further besides haveing to setup things on apple TV, iOS, and Mac I see that itunes files (movies and such) are not served via this:
-------------------
Why don't videos from iTunes, Amazon, etc. play?


Videos purchased from iTunes (and most other similar online stores such as Amazon) have Digital Rights Management (DRM) to implement restrictions on usage. Unfortunately, that means that third-party applications such as Plex are not legally allowed to play that content. This is a limitation implemented by Apple and the content creators and is not something that Plex has control over.

It should be noted that music from iTunes no longer uses DRM, which is why it is able to be played by Plex
--------------------

This obviously means I would have to convert all my itunes movie and TV files no way do I have time, or software to do this nor want to get into this kind of work. My apple TV and itunes have always been a mostly seamless and simple operation (yes obviously not perfect) and this seems like way too much hassle. I am used to things mostly just simply working from my itunes downloads adding plex seems like way too much work. Thanks for suggestion but no thanks.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not jumping on 4K, until OLED TV's start becoming more common and fall under $1500. Probably still a few years away, but I'm okay with that. It's not like my 1080P Panasonic plasma suddenly sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
This:

Could be a "pro" or "Plus" version geared toward the A/V Home theater geeks - All the latest Dolby/DTS surround capabilities (or just pass bitstream), HDMI 2.x, 4k.....the market is split in a sense that many folks have some sort of surround sound movie/game "home theater" setup with a dedicated A/V receiver and speakers while many others are content with plugging the device directly into their nice LCD TV and using the speakers the came with it or upgrading to a sound bar. Dorm rooms and apartments don't have the same need as homes with media rooms or basement "home theater" A/V setups.

iPad has mini, air, pro
iPhone has performance variety

why not ATV?
 
Roku is better.
Amazon Fire Stick is better.
Google Chromecast is better.
No 4K, no buy.

Apple TV sucks. Learn to innovate, Apple.

There we go, all further comments are conveniently summed up right here.

I don't understand the no 4K, no Buy comments.

There is hardly any content available to make use of a 4k TV, they haven't even maximised the potential of 1080P.

From what I can see they only have 18 titles available with 4k.

You'd just be an early adopter paying crazy prices for little reward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
Same type of people who brag about their Android phones with 5" 4K screens... Those phones should ship with magnifying glasses so customers can actually see the resolution.

Yeah I'll remember what you said while I'm using the gear vr with my Note 5. Way to think outside the box.
 
Thanks for all the suggestions but I have a simple itunes only video library, unaltered or changed in anyway. Obviously with Apple DRM and all so most of the solutions seem to require me to alter, modify my library not something I am into, or have much background in doing -- left along any software experience. So whatever I do needs to work with Mac, itunes, WIFI, apple TV. Plex and other seem to require I need to be like some of you who modify your videos for personal use, I do not do that nor really want to start down that road.
 
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


I agree with everything you stated except bullet 1 and 3. 4k doesn't "require" any size because of what you stated after - depends on the viewing distance. Your choice of "80+" was arbitrary but I get your point.

Find any reputable calculation and you'll find that 4k is "worth it" vs. 1080p on a 60" screen at 8 feet. (google rtings science behind TV size to distance)

The streaming bandwidth and content is spot on. I chuckle at people telling me they watch netflix in 4k....yeah, it may leave the netflix server at 4k....
 
That's right. Because all people are stupid, no need to advance any technology. I think Apple should just buy cheap Android smart phones and put an Apple sticker on the back. That can be the iPhone 7 and later. People are stupid so they'll never figure it out.

I think Apple should also buy dirt cheap Windows computer clones and put an Apple sticker over the no-name clone manufacturer label and call them OS 11 Macs. People are stupid so they'll never know.

And so on.

Are there stupid people out there? Yes. But not all people are stupid. If everybody can only be smart by waiting for everyone else to first embrace any new technology, ALL technology halts HERE... and we would all be stupid if we let such thinking make us all do that.

I don't think all people are stupid, but I do blame the HDTV industry for this problem, specifically, for not educating the consumer, making tech more usable, and for purposely obfuscating what their HDTVs can really do with meaningless metrics (10,000,000:1 contrast ratio!). It used to be that you had two choices: black and white or color. Choices abound in this modern era, but you also have to be an electrical engineer to understand any of it. Your average buyer doesn't know the difference between 720p or 1080i (or even know that most cable TV content is still broadcast in 720p), LED or LCD or OLED or UHD or 4k or 5k, nor do they care to. Yes, you have to have technological advancement, but I think HDTV tech is now so far ahead of average consumer knowledge (and your average consumer is still at the mercy of their local cable provider) that it's all kinda abstract and moot.
 
I don't understand the no 4K, no Buy comments.

There is hardly any content available to make use of a 4k TV, they haven't even maximised the potential of 1080P.

From what I can see they only have 18 titles available with 4k.

You'd just be an early adopter paying crazy prices for little reward.

What happened to the "I don't skate where the puck is I skate to where it's going to be ". 4K content is coming. What's wrong with being ready for it?
 
I remember it well. I also remember "There's no point having 1080p on anything smaller than 32 inches", and now we have 4K on smartphones :cool:

A person typically holds a smart phone 6-15 inches from their face. That is a LOT closer than say 10 feet from a 32" TV, relative to screen size? 4K on a 27" monitor is plenty visible at an average sitting distance at a desk of 1-2 feet. Now move back to 20 feet and tell me you can even read the damn text on a web page on that monitor. THAT is what is meant by distance vs. resolution. The farther away you get from something, the harder it is to resolve small details. Get far enough away and you can't even see the object. I'm sure the sales people LOVE it when people THINK they can tell the difference. It's a good way to make sales on a $2000 set vs. the same sized set at $500. Now if you want to sit 4 feet from a 50" set, 4K is absolutely worth it. Sit 15 feet away and you might as well get a 720P set.

I have a 55 inch 4K and can tell the difference. Small details are much more noticeable from a distance vs 1080P.

That reminds me of the golden ear audiophiles who claimed to hear a difference when they coated the outer edge of a CD with a green marker pen that cost $20. It was exactly the same as a marker that cost 50 cents, of course and there is no scientific theory why coating the edge of a CD would affect anything in the middle of it, but hey, it was advertised in Stereophile magazine so it MUST be true! Ah, the placebo effect. It turns sugar pills into cancer cures! ;)

Try a Google search of snake oil and audio some time. It's eye opening how many results pop up. 4K video isn't snake oil, but they are selling something that isn't delivering at typical viewing distances. Now I'm not saying things like color can't be improved and noticed at a distance, but it's a waste of money throwing thousands at 4K where 1080P would do just as well in a given room.

I only bought a 720P Plasma for my living room as the seating location didn't justify 1080P, but plasma offered real benefits over LCD for motion and what not. Well done 480P looks pretty sharp at 12 feet on a 48" set. 720P is noticeably improved, but it looks about as sharp as I could expect (and according to the charts, it IS as sharp as I could possibly see for that screen size and distance). Going to my 93" screen with my original 720P project, it looked pretty awesome for sheer size, but it's clearly nowhere near as sharp looking at 12 feet as the 48" Plasma. Bump it to 1080P and it's nearly as sharp over the same area of vision relative to the distance, but takes a lot more peripheral vision. Go to 4K and it looks just as sharp (and the screen size could go larger still before it started to look blurrier again since that distance is not even in the middle of the 4K curve). Now if you have 20/10 vision instead of 20/20, you could see more detail a bit further out. The charts are made for 20/20 vision. This is why some can read further down on the Snell eye vision charts at the eye doctor office.

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

OMG! BuffaloTF? THE BuffaloTF!??!? OMG, I'm SO sorry! I didn't know it was you, the creator of all things and master of the Universe! I'll shut up now! :confused:

So yes. There is a difference. And there is no scientific fact, there's a scaling change in noticeable differences. Reading something on a chart without actually understanding the chart or the text put with it, doesn't make something fact. It means you didn't read it and understand the critical message it conveyed.

Yeah, I don't understand a damn thing as you've so obviously proven by quoting...yourself. :rolleyes:

Some articles for others that aren't BuffaloTF (since he already knows it all) to check out to learn more:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.874&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Limits of Human Vision PDF)

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing (4K Viewing)

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ (4K Viewing)

http://pocketnow.com/2012/12/12/how-important-are-ppi (smart phone HD related)

Demonstration of details you can try at home: http://stokes.byu.edu/teaching_resources/resolve.html


On the other hand, the more people that buy small 4K sets and demand 4K content, the sooner and better off those of us who want really big screen 4K to come down in price and take off, etc. will be.....Hmmmm. Hey, forget what I said above and go buy lots and lots and LOTS of those 50" 4k sets and the new Blu-Rays when they come out! DEMAND 4K content!
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
Ok I looked at it seems like even with the free version it is $5 a month why the hell do I have to have more expense on my Apple TV that simply worked?

How many times? The Plex Media Server is FREE, a Plex account is FREE, and a number of the clients are FREE or a one off purchase of a few £'s or $'s. A PlexPass subscription is a reasonably large one-off or small monthly payment, and for most use cases completely unnecessary. I bought a lifetime subscription to support the developer as I love the system, but use very little PlexPass features.
 
To everyone commenting that 4k doesn't matter, think again. You're right that for most people the increase in pixels won't make a difference. Why 4k TVs matter is because TV manufacturers are only putting new technologies that actually do affect picture quality into their 4k models. That means that 4k TVs already do look better than their 1080p counterparts, even if it isn't because of the number of pixels.

For your reference, this CNET editor called 4k dumb for a number of years, but has now jumped on the bandwagon: http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-arent-stupid-anymore/

this is the only argument for a 4k tv that makes any sense. obviously there is a limitation in both quantity of and the ability to stream 4k content making it seem irrelevant. so at the end of the day a 4k tv makes more sense than a 4k apple tv.
 
I don't think all people are stupid, but I do blame the HDTV industry for this problem, specifically, for not educating the consumer, making tech more usable, and for purposely obfuscating what their HDTVs can really do with meaningless metrics (10,000,000:1 contrast ratio!). It used to be that you had two choices: black and white or color. Choices abound in this modern era, but you also have to be an electrical engineer to understand any of it. Your average buyer doesn't know the difference between 720p or 1080i (or even know that most cable TV content is still broadcast in 720p), LED or LCD or OLED or UHD or 4k or 5k, nor do they care to. Yes, you have to have technological advancement, but I think HDTV tech is now so far ahead of average consumer knowledge (and your average consumer is still at the mercy of their local cable provider) that it's all kinda abstract and moot.

It is funny how many people ask me...4K or OLED. While that question technically makes sense, they think 4K means LCD or they use it in that fashion.
 
What happened to the "I don't skate where the puck is I skate to where it's going to be ". 4K content is coming. What's wrong with being ready for it?

I get that but I don't see the big issue whilst there is hardly any content.. Especially how people moan on these forums about it.. if there is hardly any content whats the point. But you could also argue if they making 5k iMacs they could of done 4k Apple TV.

I'm personally not that bothered purely because of the lack content.. They never perfected HD most channels still only have standard def programming..

Thats my main gripe.. get 1080p more widespread!
 
Behold, misinterpreted science!

Fixed your post. Once again, meanings of words are escaping people on the things they post and blindly want to follow. "See I have a chart right here" is what they say.

FULL benefits at the viewing distance. That word has a meaning. It's there for a purpose. It wasn't put there on accident. If at 5.5 feet the "full" benefits are present, then at 5.6 feet the benefits are still present - they don't disappear - they just begin to scale back those same benefits ever so slightly, scaling more and more the further you move away.

You'd have to be at an incredible distance before they disappear entirely... At which point you'd need a bigger tv. But that's not the case. You can't endlessly get further away from your tv. Your bound by the walls in your living room, and someone that had a 55" 1080p tv in that same room will see a change in quality regardless on if they're 5 feet away, or 15. They just won't see the FULL change unless they move closer, and closer than that the quality degrades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peterdevries
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.