Momentum? They're already licensed for it, lots of things use it, might as well keep using it.
"It's always been done that way" is a **** reason to keep doing something, but it sure is a common one.
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.
Safari in macOS Big Sur Works With 4K HDR and Dolby Vision Content From Netflix on Newer Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Momentum? They're already licensed for it, lots of things use it, might as well keep using it.
"It's always been done that way" is a **** reason to keep doing something, but it sure is a common one.
Well, Apple built its ecosystem around HEVC, and are patent holders as well. Plus AV1 wasn't out yet, and even when it came out, it kinda sucked. Remember, Apple had implemented HEVC in shipping product way back in 2016. The AV1 standard wasn't even finalized until 2018 and was inferior at launch in several ways compared to HEVC.
Live Photos are HEVC (or rather, HEIF). iTunes movies are HEVC. FaceTime is HEVC. Final Cut and iMovie use HEVC. Hell, even Sidecar is HEVC.
Last edited:
Safari 14, introduced in the iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur betas, introduces HDR video support and allows Netflix users to watch content in 4K HDR and Dolby Vision for the first time.
As pointed out by 9to5Mac, Netflix has long offered 4K content that can be viewed on other platforms like the 4K Apple TV, but it has not been available to Mac users due to hardware limitations.
Safari in macOS Catalina and earlier has limited Netflix content to 1080p resolution, but with macOS Big Sur, Netflix works in 4K and supports Dolby Vision and HDR10 for more vivid colors.
Watching 4K HDR content on Mac requires a Mac introduced in 2018 or later, so older Macs will continue to be limited to 1080p resolution on Netflix with macOS Big Sur.
As we covered last week, tvOS 14 and iOS 14 are now compatible with YouTube's VP9 codec, allowing 4K YouTube content to be watched on those platforms, but the codec is not yet supported in Safari 14 in macOS Big Sur.
Article Link: Safari in macOS Big Sur Works With 4K HDR and Dolby Vision Content From Netflix on Newer Macs
“keys on keyboard sold separately”
Already checked. The support article explicitly says some Macs are limited to 1080p, i.e. the 13” models, but NOT the iMac Pro.
And the Catalina guidelines have been superseded by that specific support article, which I believe was originally updated when 10.15.4 came out.
EDIT: The official Catalina guidelines were updated explicitly in reference to 4K:
- 4K and 4K HDR content is available on certain Mac models. For more information, see this support article.
Last edited:
iMac Pro 2017 is supported for 4K HDR iTunes. That 2018 or later requirement does not encompass the iMac Pro.
Last edited:
That’s good to know, would it come to Catalina? I would have found weird (again) of tying these upgrades to a full OS X release cycle, I really disdain that... it happens with most apps now: Music, Notes, Reminders, etc... updating them on the phone renders them not usable on the Mac if the whole OS X version is not up to a certain “name of some mountain” version.
With some of the codecs earlier in the same(?) series, I recall Apple’s position being that while the codecs were being offered as “royalty free”, Apple believed that they may actually be infringing on some patents. And Apple has large piles of cash laying around and they’re quite risk adverse, and likely didn’t want someone coming after them. I don’t know how that contributes to their current position.
Or you can just download them through various BT sources and play it on any device any time you want.
Yay, now we can watch 4K content on MacBook Pros!
... Oh wait, they still don't have 4K screens in 2020
... Oh wait, they still don't have 4K screens in 2020
Call me pedantic, however the article is slightly inaccurate. It says that it requires a Mac released in 2018 or later, however the iMac Pro can display HDR content and that's a 2017 machine. I appreciate the it was released on 14 December 2017 so it's only 2 and a half weeks before 2018 started, however as someone who's birthday is on 14 December those 2 and a half weeks make all the difference (as my wife delights in telling me every year).
In Windows, you need a 7th Gen Intel chip to support 4K Netflix (as it supports HDCP 2.2). So 2017 Macs should technically support this (and probably would if you boot into Windows).
Although I just hope they fix the HDCP bug which means I can no longer watch netflix etc on an external monitor. It used to work fine and at the moment I have to boot into Windows 10 to watch Netflix/Disney Plus/Amazon, which is a bit annoying.
Although I just hope they fix the HDCP bug which means I can no longer watch netflix etc on an external monitor. It used to work fine and at the moment I have to boot into Windows 10 to watch Netflix/Disney Plus/Amazon, which is a bit annoying.
THANK YOU!
Best quote I've read in a very long time. Along that line, Comcast used to have some Cable TV boxes with IEEE 1394 ports on them, but then they realized that Apple Macs had Firewire ports and could import DRM video directly escaping the DRM. So what happened to those cable boxes? You were required to turn them back in even if you needed them to watch TV or on your computer! The DRMC law was and is still a running disaster on so many levels.
The only reason I use Chrome on Mac is because Safari is limited to 1080p for Youtube. Will this change in Big Sur?
I bought an adapter to watch Amazon Prime video from my iPhone that I'm paying for on TVs when I travel, but guess what?
None of them work! Apple sells one for $50 and it still doesn't work with that content and probably not Netflix either, although I don't have Netflix, so I don't know for sure. But I know Amazon Prime doesn't work from iPhone to TV.
[automerge]1593509027[/automerge]
I personally think only the technical limitations of your machine should limit you to a resolution, not the smallness of some CEO's brain or a bean counter's desire to count more beans.
I'm not convinced. Why put measures in to prevent 4K piracy if you're not doing the same for 1080? Of course people will prefer 4K given the option, but if people are out to watch a pirated film/TV series, then I don't see them only finding it in 1080 so deciding not to bother and instead signing up to Netflix UHD. If someone's going to watch a screen recorder version, that I think they'd settle for 1080 if that was all that was available. So protecting just the 4K stream doesn't reduce piracy, it just limits it to 1080 which I don't see having any impact on Netflix etc.
[automerge]1593513422[/automerge]
It's not just about the resolution, often what's more noticeable is the increased range of colours associated with 4K which reduces colour banding. So when you get a shot of a graduated blue sky it doesn't look like distinct stripes of different blues, or when you get very dark scenes you don't get clear areas of different "shades of black" as if it's a paint-by-numbers. However, if the video is over-compressed to reduce the increased bandwidth required for the 4K stream, things like this can actually be made worse.
Last edited:
Netflix are literally using Apple's Fairplay DRM implementation, so it is something Apple controls.
But the likelihood is that earlier implementations of the T2 chip didn't support it in hardware and newer ones do, so nothing about it is going to change.
[automerge]1593513727[/automerge]
Screen recording content in 1080p is already blocked by Netflix - only browsers that block screen recording get resolutions above 720p.
So why is my $1000 iPhone still not allowed to output video to an HDTV even at 720p or any resolution?
I'm seriously fed up with paying ridiculous prices for crappy results. The DRMC thing as a whole is total crap!
Dunno. But it's not really anything to do with browsers.
My iPad does seem to support outputting video to a TV from Netflix. Not downloads though, just streaming. Netflix blocks downloads from being played back on external displays on Android too though, so I think it's deliberate.
Can you share more info on this, first I was aware of it. Wouldn't Google be an attractive company to go after in this case as well, considering their deep pockets if that was the case?