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.
tvOS 14 Not Supporting 4K YouTube Videos Yet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2019 16 inch MBP with the i9, so maybe. In earlier betas it was working on a late 2013, but I don’t have that anymore.
It's a bit weird as I had ATV 4k YouTube as of this morning. The 4k content was correctly flagged and selecting got me 4k.
Roll on a few hours and 4k content remains flagged on YouTube but selecting it actually gives me a 1080P@60Hz image on Codec AVC1.64002a with lots of dropped frames. Sometimes native 4k content plays at 1920x960@30Hz, probably down to source content though?
The other thing I notice is that YouTube takes bigger but less frequent bites at the bandwidth, with bigger pauses on the buffer. The buffer is healthy though with plenty bandwidth to spare.
Not a great start.
Roll on a few hours and 4k content remains flagged on YouTube but selecting it actually gives me a 1080P@60Hz image on Codec AVC1.64002a with lots of dropped frames. Sometimes native 4k content plays at 1920x960@30Hz, probably down to source content though?
The other thing I notice is that YouTube takes bigger but less frequent bites at the bandwidth, with bigger pauses on the buffer. The buffer is healthy though with plenty bandwidth to spare.
Not a great start.
Last edited:
I really hadn't thought about 4K Youtube on Apple TV, to be honest. I've pretty much settled on Roku as my main go to player as they are neutral and really don't have the licensing and other conflicts that direct competitors have. With this said: I have both an Apple TV HD, and Apple TV 4k, for specific apple related things. However, from a tv and movie only prospective, since Apple TV is now on Roku, the only reason to have a physical Apple TV box these days is for the apps, and Apple Music, and Homekit, if you use your Apple TV for that.
As I said though, I have multiple platforms, because I find it's the best solution in the end. Even in 2020 no one device can do everything, or does everything perfectly.
As I said though, I have multiple platforms, because I find it's the best solution in the end. Even in 2020 no one device can do everything, or does everything perfectly.
seriously guys, there are some who think 4k has no clear advantage on any ipad should have ur eyes examined. Even on iphone i immediately see difference just from 1080 to 2k. Point is, current upper limit of 1080p on ipad pro looks disgusting, its super annoying knowing what ipad is capable of and the fact so much content is uploaded in 4k. And if u use ipad solely to browse web, youtube and communicate id say its a Huge drawback that u have paid so much for a tech that is unable to work at its best cuz Reasons. Its embarassing. Every1 should bombard both apple and utube to fix this nonsense cuz nothings magical about crappy video quality.
No, I’m not saying that. Thanks for making assumptions. But your assertion that you can only see a difference in 4K and HD with 70’ and up is ludicrous and just plain false.
this is a huge misunderstanding of how compression works. HD used H264 and 4K uses H265. It’s doesn’t need to be 4x the bandwidth for 4x the detail. That’s like saying all MP3s sound rubbish because their 3mb and WAV files are 400MB so MP3s are garbage. They are different codecs so not directly comparable.
as mentioned above. watching 4K HDR on a good / great TV can be totally breathtaking. It’s a night and day difference.
Last edited:
There's no rule that 4K has to be done with H265 and 1080p has to be done with H264. That happens to be what YouTube does. Netflix supposedly does H265 1080p. Hard to get info because it varies by player and by source video.
Last edited:
theres also widespread praise for Netflix 4K.Sure, you can do it with bandwidth overkill or clever compression. And sure, there is the occasional underwhelming 4k transfer of a movie. But the majority of 4K content a lot of Netflix’s especially is stunning on a good/ great TV.
Not sure why there would be "widespread" praise (I'd love for you point to where this is) for a Netflix feature that cost $3 USD more per month to use over their top tier pricing structure. This is especially ridiculous seeing as there still isn't a great deal of 4K choice of popular movies on Netflix.
Widespread was a counter point to your original comment before you edited it. But sure, just look at any AV site review of a Netflix show. Almost all of Netflix's own TV and movies has been 4K for years and is remarkable quality. I'd go so far to say it probably has the most 4K TV created shows.
But back to the original point.. Which is 4K can look spectacular. You just need the hardware to see it. On a £200 4K tv from Asda it's not going to make a difference. Anything above £2000 from Richer Sounds it will make your jaw drop.
But back to the original point.. Which is 4K can look spectacular. You just need the hardware to see it. On a £200 4K tv from Asda it's not going to make a difference. Anything above £2000 from Richer Sounds it will make your jaw drop.
I'm treading lightly here in asking this question because it's been a while since I've kept up with codecs.
1. Isn't the new AV1 codec supposed to replace VP9 also increasing the compatibility ?
2. Wasn't the main reason Apple hasn't supported VP9 because of the lack of hardware support in the GPUs they use?
I mentioned in my above post about having multiple streaming solutions because I felt that even here in 2020 there isn't one perfect device that I could confidently say does everything.
For streaming video I have:
2 Roku Ultra units, a 2017, and 2018 model
Apple TV 4th generation (32 GB), and Apple TV 4K (64 GB)
2016 Sony TV that runs Android TV that supports HDR10, and HLG.
LG TV that's non smart and standard 1080p.
2 Sony 4k blu-ray players.
the Rokus support 4k on Youtube, as does the Sony BD players
I think my best experiences for YouTube 4k/ HDR would have to be either one of the Roku Units, or my Chromecast Ultra before I gave that away.
One more thing, if the creators of the 4k/HDR nature content ever decided to sell their content on 4K Blu-ray I would certainly buy it, much of it is that good, that I would pray for a copy to watch offline that has superior quality to streaming, at least in many cases. (Streaming has gotten quite good these days though)
1. Isn't the new AV1 codec supposed to replace VP9 also increasing the compatibility ?
2. Wasn't the main reason Apple hasn't supported VP9 because of the lack of hardware support in the GPUs they use?
I mentioned in my above post about having multiple streaming solutions because I felt that even here in 2020 there isn't one perfect device that I could confidently say does everything.
For streaming video I have:
2 Roku Ultra units, a 2017, and 2018 model
Apple TV 4th generation (32 GB), and Apple TV 4K (64 GB)
2016 Sony TV that runs Android TV that supports HDR10, and HLG.
LG TV that's non smart and standard 1080p.
2 Sony 4k blu-ray players.
the Rokus support 4k on Youtube, as does the Sony BD players
I think my best experiences for YouTube 4k/ HDR would have to be either one of the Roku Units, or my Chromecast Ultra before I gave that away.
One more thing, if the creators of the 4k/HDR nature content ever decided to sell their content on 4K Blu-ray I would certainly buy it, much of it is that good, that I would pray for a copy to watch offline that has superior quality to streaming, at least in many cases. (Streaming has gotten quite good these days though)
My comment? Which comment? I was responding to a post that you replied someone else on. I'm not disputing the quality of 4K. I was asking you to show where Netflix 4K is getting "widespread" praise as you stated? It's more costly to view it and yes while Netflix has it's own shows I said there aren't a ton of popular shows on Netflix in 4K. For the extra monthly cost I don't see how it's worth it. Paying $15.99USD a month is insane, plus you have to raise your plan on your ISP to at least 1Gbps to fully enjoy 100% non-buffering 4K streaming on a big screen say about 70".
You are partly right, but you are comparing apples and oranges, IIRC Netflix uses h.264 for 1080p *widest possible hw support), but they use H.265 for 4K (about 4x more efficient for the same measured picture snr) so the numbers can not be scaled linearly with resolution. I do however agree that Netflix needs to up their game when it comes to 4K quality and as a result up the bitrate. Edit: never mind after reading the next page of comments I was completely wrong. oh well
At least 1Gbps, what is the next plan down? Personally I'm on 300Mbps and 4k Netflix works flawlessly, no buffering at all (but maybe those with problems are on overloaded Docsis deployments or their ISP is overselling the bandwidth to a ludicrous degree)then again I'm lucky enugh to have FTTH and ethernet running all the way to the ATV so no chance of over congested wifi interfering with stuff. And finnaly I know that I'm in a lucky position when it comes to my internet connection esp compared to many in the US and i allso realise quite a few people have no oportunety to run ethernet to their atv (rented develling elc) my description of my setup was not meant as a boast, neither toi say that anything else is bad, it was just to provide contextt es to why I might not see the same problems others report
No, you need a minimum of 15Mbps for a reasonable* 4k stream, with 25Mbps being a pretty good bandwidth for the full 4k experience.
Running 3 x 4k streams plus multiple other background items was no problem for me when I was on a 75Mbps link, albeit with QoS keeping things on track with small and large packets playing nicely together.
Your 1000Mbps example could get you around 40 to 60 4k streams.
* generally accepted figure, but not particularly acceptable to me. YMMV.
Except 1. YouTube is free and 2. I get my 4K content from Apple and it gets auto updated to 4K when available at no cost and the cost to buy is same as it was for HD
A Mac or Windows PC will play anything without compromise. That's what I settled on. I'm done with these games.
Last edited:
It was mine. I edited it to be more objective and talk less about things I have little experience with. Didn't think a reply would already be drafted.
Originally I said something like "people widely complain about Netflix 4K quality."
I would prefer to connect a windows PC to my Tv rather than a box that may get discontinued or not updated but it is hard to replace the remote controls that come with the boxes, there is no equivalent for a PC that I am aware of. I use a mouse when siting at my desk by sitting or laying on my couch a mouse is not feasible really
4k text (hi dpi fonts) is very noticeable at small screen sizes. Like 32", no need to jump to 70"+ to see it
Netfix might be head and shoulders above other streaming services (or they may not be) when it comes to 4k but they still can't beat or in many cases even come close to UHD-BD, I would love to be proven wrong. Ok a quick google turned up this. Apparently UHD-BD uses H.265 with a minimum bitrate of 72 Mbps the article is a bit unclear about whether that is net (video+ audio) or including fec etc. But assuming Netflix uses the same codec for 4K, I think it would be safe to say thsat Netflix stil has some way to go to reach that level of quality. I totally agree with your ASDA tv comment if you feed a good signal to a bad display it will look crap
Edit: wrong nesting sorry
Last edited: