The issue isn't that the TVs aren't available in smaller sizes, but that human visual acuity is limited. Reference the chart that another user posted.
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.
Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue isn't that the TVs aren't available in smaller sizes, but that human visual acuity is limited. Reference the chart that another user posted.
That's probably the whole point of this bs story, to freeze ATV4 sales. Fall for it if you want.
I sure hope it is a rumor. Bigger, better, faster in just 3 mos? Here I thought I was getting the latest and greatest and now in 3 months it will be an older model, of course after the return period. UGH!
Apple will begin trial production of a fifth-generation Apple TV in December 2015, with supplier Quanta Computer ramping up volume production in the first quarter of 2016, according to Taiwanese website DigiTimes.
The report, citing "sources from Taiwan-based supply chain makers," claims the next-generation Apple TV will feature a new CPU that will "dramatically improve the device's hardware performance."
Apple will also reportedly adopt a "heat-dissipation solution" in the streaming box to handle the faster CPU, but it remains unclear how that would differentiate from the large heat sink in the fourth-generation Apple TV. The report adds the next Apple TV will also gain unspecified "new functions."
The report does not provide a release timeframe for the fifth-generation Apple TV, but it is unlikely to be soon given that Apple just released the fourth-generation Apple TV in late October. Apple beginning volume production in early 2016 would seemingly make a mid- to late-2016 launch possible.
DigiTimes has a mixed track record at reporting on Apple's upcoming product plans, so this rumor should be treated with caution until or unless other reports substantiate these claims in the weeks and months ahead.
Article Link: Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016
This has, in fact, happened before. iPad3 was superceded by the "new iPad" in less than 12 months.
You seem to conveniently forget that most of Apple's market is not in th US. Many countries do not have data caps for TV content. In addition most of the major TV producers do not treat 4K as a flagship function. 4K TVs are available at very low prices and competitive to general HD TVs. Like with HD, the TVs will arrive before the content and the drive is stronger this time.
Your points about 4K at 80" is nonsense. I own a 48" 4K TV and at 3,5 meters the difference to HD is easily seen.
Did you see my other post where I included a chart illustrating the screen sizes and viewing distances required to appreciate 4K video resolution? To fully appreciate 4K video on a 60" screen, you need to view it from less than 4 feet away. Your 27" monitor is fine, since you presumably view it from a couple feet away.
Apple may be a global company, but its primary customer base remains the US and now China, neither of which have sufficient penetration of fast enough internet to sustainably support widespread 4k video streaming without terrible compression. My post also contained a link and a quote detailing the bandwidth issues that prevent 4K from reaching widespread support for at least a few years.
Your particular bandwidth is irrelevant.
I don't know about this guy with his 40" TV, but with my 93" screen at 10 feet, I'm clearly in the "noticeable difference" territory here if I move to 4K once a reasonable priced 4K projector is released in the next year or so (let alone when I get my new 2:35 screen that is the same height, but a few feet longer on either end for ultra-widescreen movies which are let's face it, MOST action movies these days) and my Internet bandwidth is 32Mbps (i.e. well capable of 4K streaming) and I can get 50Mbps for only $10 more a month (that should nearly handle two streams at once) with 100 and 150Mbps options available for a bit more per month. The fact of the matter is that 4K for SERIOUS HOME THEATERS is fast becoming reality and if Apple wants to follow the pack, it can keep waiting, but I'm guessing this rumor proves someone at Apple realized their mistake.
1080P = Really Big Screen TV (50"-80" set for viewing maybe 10-18' or so before it's irrelevant)
4K = Movie Theater Capable sized screens relative to seating distance (100" - 200" for 13'-20'+)
8K = Approaching something close to IMAX screen sizes relative to distance at home for filling peripheral vision. (250" at 10'+ or 400" at 18'+, etc.)
From what distance do you view your 40" 4K Samsung TV?
Adoption Of 4K Streaming Will Be Stalled By Bandwidth, Not Hardware & Devices http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/01/4k-streaming-bandwidth-problem.html
"With all the talk of 4K that took place at CES, some within the industry are making statements and assumptions about 4K streaming bitrates that simply aren’t accurate. Many are under the impression that 4K streaming will soon be delivered at around 10-12Mbps using HEVC and are also quoting data from Akamai incorrectly. If you look at the HEVC testing that guys like Jan Ozer and Alex Zambelli have done, and look at the data Netflix has presented around their 4K encoding (Netflix’s current bitrate for 4K is 15.6Mbps), the bitrates won’t get down to 10-12Mbps anytime soon.
The reality is that true 4K streaming can’t take place at even 12-15Mbps unless there is a 40% efficiency in encoding going from H.264 to HEVC and the content is 24/30 fps, not 60 fps. Netflix has stated they expect HEVC to provide a 20-30% encoding efficiency vs H.264, within two years. That’s a long way away from the 40% required to get bitrates down to 12-15Mbps. While 4K can in theory be compressed at 10-12Mbps, this is typically achieved by reducing the frame rate or sacrificing quality. As Encoding.com points out, to date, “most of the HEVC we’ve seen in the market is heavily noise-reduced with high frequency details blurred out to fake the 40% efficiency”. The optimal bandwidth for high quality 4K is higher than 20Mbps.
With Netflix already encoding 4K content at 15.6Mbps today, and with the expertise they have in encoding and the money they spend on bandwidth, they will get the bitrate lower over time. Some observers think it might go down to 10-12Mbps, but that would only be possible down the road and at 24/30 fps, not 60 fps. If you want 60 fps, it’s going to be even higher. But even if we use the 10-12Mbps number, no ISP can sustain it, at scale. So while everyone wants to talk about compression rates, and bitrates, no one is talking about what the last mile can support or how content owners are going to pay to deliver all the additional bits. The bottom line is that for the next few years at least, 4K streaming will be near impossible to deliver at scale, even at 10-12Mbps, via the cloud with guaranteed QoS."
People keep looking this up and posting it. But I watch 4K TV over a 25 Mbps connection (without cap) and can clearly see the difference at 3,5 - 4 meters on a 48" TV.
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.
"Many countries do not have data caps for TV content" is not a meaningful argument. The US and China are Apple's primary markets and neither country has the bandwidth to sustainably support dreaming of 4M content en masse.
The price of 4K TVs is also irrelevant. Even if everyone owned a 4K TV it wouldn't change the equation. the real question when it comes to TVs is how many people have large enough screens and/or view them from short enough distances to appreciate 4K resolution.
I think I'll trust scientific data over your personal, subjective opinion.
Unlikely it will go into production but not be released until mid to late 2016. The current Apple TV didn't do into production until just a month before its release. There's no reason to produce them that far in advance and just warhouse them for months.
"DigiTimes has a mixed track record at reporting on Apple's upcoming product plans, so this rumor should be treated with caution until or unless other reports substantiate these claims in the weeks and months ahead."
How would this be any different to a rumor ?
I doubt its true..
no report would come out this early shortly after an actual release with little detail, usually heeds as false.
How would this be any different to a rumor ?
I doubt its true..
no report would come out this early shortly after an actual release with little detail, usually heeds as false.
I have a small new Mac Pro serving videos from an 8TB TB raid5 and there is no skipping, pausing, stalling. Access over ethernet.
Why would they add functionality to the current one when they can sell a new one and make larger profits? Honest question. When has Apple giving significant hardware upgrades for free?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
From what distance do you view your 40" 4K Samsung TV?
Ahhh, the "chart". It always comes out in arguments against the next resolution not currently able to be played by an Apple TV. Note the copyright date range. If you do a search and hop back to the
TV threads before the "3", you'll find the very same chart, very same colors, etc minus the references to 4K. Back then, it was used just as often... and just as passionately... by those arguing why nobody needs a 1080p TV while Apple still clung to a 720p MAX.Then, Apple rolled out the third generation "now with 1080p" and all the people who had slung around "the chart" didn't sling it around to bash Apple for being so stupid to embrace 1080p. Instead it was mostly "shut up and take my money".
Flash forward to the emergence of 4K in just about about everything else Apple offers and the very same chart is updated adding in 4K... and the very same arguments of why we don't need a 4K
TV is being argued while Apple is selling an TV model that can't play 4K.When Apple rolls out a 4K
TV as implied by this rumor (and don't we all know it's coming whether this rumor has any merit or not?), will "the chart" be used to bash Apple for being stupid to embrace 4K in an TV5 or will history repeat? I'd bet heavily on "shut up and take my money" again.For some reason, some of us will passionately argue against whatever Apple doesn't have for sale right now but then love it as soon as Apple does embrace it. Right now those people have to have split minds because Apple has already embraced 4K in just about everything else. You don't find them bashing 4K in all of the other Apple products, nor do you see much reference to "the chart" bashing against the uselessness of a 4K camera in the iPhone or 4K editing & rendering in iMovie of FCPX, even on iPad Pro. It's just stupid here... in this ONE Apple product line... and only until Apple does roll out a fifth generation "now with 4K" when all this anti-4K, "you can't see a difference", "until the whole internet is upgraded", "until every thing in the iTunes store", "the storage", etc evaporates... overnight... replaced by many of these same people in the "shut up and take my money" line to buy one.
Your statement doesn't prove anything in regards to 4K though. There are plenty of 40" 1080p screens that also blow other 40" 1080p screens out of the water. More resolution is better but it's far from the only thing driving picture quality.
I see no reason to wait on a $150 device that improves my entertainment "life"- I'll have enjoyed it for several months, and then can just sell it for $99 or put it on a secondary TV. It's not like it's a car we're buying.
Europe taken together is easily Apple's third or probably second largest market and bandwidths here are plenty high and not capped.
Your second statement makes no sense. You were talking about the content provided to watch 4K TVs. In that respect the amount of 4K TVs sold will push the development of that content. The distance at which people at home look at the pixels is unknown and irrelevant to the content providers.
When looked at your graph, I watch TV right on the purple line and should be able to see the difference, and I do. I have a small TV (48") compared to the Dutch average and live in a standard home. Most people here in Europe have the TV size AND distance to their TV to appreciate 4K.
You are completely correct. You are the optimal customer for 4K content.
But how many people in the US have 93" TVs?
What 4K streaming content is available in the US that doesn't obliterate the quality by limiting it to 30fps and using excessive compression and noise reduction?
For all intents and purposes, 4K is still a niche market. if I were buying a new TV today it would probably be 4K only because the prices are so cheap. But I would be under no delusion that 4K content would be widely available overnight, because internet bandwidth and compression technology are not yet up to the task.
Last edited:
If Europe is such a priority for Apple then why are they excluded from so many features and content that Apple offers in the US? Apple will not focus on product features that make no sense in the US.
No, it can't be a software update. Not if their quoted specs are correct. To do 4K you need an HDMI 2.0 port and the current one only has HDMI 1.4.
Way to divert the discussion. You know the reason: diversity of languages and laws.