If there were only one 4K video in existence, and only one television set in the world capable of viewing it, who would have been harmed by including 4K capability in the ATV4? On the contrary, everyone of us who purchased the new ATV, will probably be required to buy another once yourself and Apple think it is finally "commonplace."
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.
Why 4K mattered on ATV4...
- Thread starter Snoopy4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If there were only one 4K video in existence, and only one television set in the world capable of viewing it, who would have been harmed by including 4K capability in the ATV4? On the contrary, everyone of us who purchased the new ATV, will probably be required to buy another once yourself and Apple think it is finally "commonplace."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Almost all TV channels aren't broadcasting in 1080p yet either (and won't)... but that doesn't stop us from having 1080p
TVs and 1080p HDTVs... for years now.And no channels I know of broadcast 1080p60fps Apple just adopted in this new "4". I don't believe there is ANY content for sale at all that is 1080p60fps. Yet Apple adopted that non-standard anyway.
Most third party apps can't work with whatever "new" Apple rolls out in iOS or OS X until Apple embraces that "new" and then rolls it out to those third party developers. That's how it always works. Hardware comes BEFORE software. It makes no sense (or cents) to make everything in the iTunes store available in 4K for
TV tonight... until there is 4K TV (hardware) in homes to play it (and pay for those videos). Hardware must come first. And Apple has no third party limitations on the hardware it can build, so there's nothing to stop Apple from stepping ahead on hardware and leaving it to their partners to "catch up"... just as they do with everything else they make.As to there hardly being any 4K content to watch, every video shot on every iPhone could be shot in 4K. Apple has already sold tens of millions of 4K-capable iPhones. Even if just a fraction of those people shoot a fraction of their video in 4K, that still yields a TON of 4K content that matters to those who might want to EVER watch those videos at 4K.
You guys are just amazing in how hard you will work (for free) to spin what Apple has for sale right now as the one-and-only, perfectly-right solution for all... and how wrong your fellow Apple product-buying consumers are for wishing that this ONE Apple product not already supporting 4K had included this one feature that would NOT affect any of the anti-4K crowd in any negative way whatsoever. All it does is EXCLUDES a segment of people from getting what they want too from an Apple product. For what? Nothing. Nothing at all.
What happened to Apple's call to "think different"? Or does that only apply when it aligns with what Apple is choosing to sell right now? Are Apple product consumers not supposed to think different? Where's the running girl with the hammer...
I always thought that was aimed at corporate-minded lemmings. Threads like this make me think the woman is the villain for daring to rebel against what the corporate heads are handing down. I guess she's wrong for "thinking different." Hopefully, they quickly arrested her. How dare she NOT simply fall in line!
But keep up the good work. The most valuable corporation in the world with >$200B in the bank desperately needs it's forces working hard to justify what it has chosen to sell right now to every single person.
Last edited:
TV's are still £400 (just shy of $600) for a starting point, which is still far too pricey for the general public. TV broadcasters in the UK aren't looking to broadcast in it until end of this year, although that's not definitive and has already been delayed. Sky don't have the hardware ready yet and just say it's coming this year.
As for your comment about iPhones having 4K, I can bet the majority of the people with those phones haven't even shot in 4K as its not the default for shooting and the option is hidden in a menu.
I'm not saying Apple shouldn't put it in and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, people can want it if they want. I've also seen people complaining there is not VR support and Apple should have included that in the Apple TV. I'm just saying there's no real reason for it, as there's not enough content there for it. 4K, at the moment, is for the people that like to show off to their friends. People like you just prove my point.
The Apple TV does the job, considering the content that's available. I have a friend who is a video geek, he has a 4K telly and says that it's not worth it yet, he hardly finds any content on Netflix or Amazon Prime.
Also, your poor attempt at veiled insults just weakens your post.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The Apple TV could do the EXACT SAME JOB that makes you happy with the "as is" even if it ALSO had the capability to play 4K too.
The iPhone having the ability to record 4K doesn't affect anyone's use of the iPhone. Those happy shooting video at <4K can. But those that might want to shoot something at 4K can do that too. It's an EXTRA benefit for those that want that extra benefit.
Otherwise, that's just another big pile of excuses. The "wait until everybody else is fully embracing it" excuse is the worst of them, but it's also the most used one (in a wide variety of forms). The "4KTVs are too expensive" one is almost as bad because it implies that a 4KTV would require everyone to immediately buy an "expensive" 4K set; it wouldn't, that TV would play 1080p or 720p or SD just as it does now.
As to "veiled insults", I'm not sure what you are seeing as those. I'm insulting no one. I'm simply communicating the counterpoint to towing the company line on this issue. That makes no sense to me given that it's Apple themselves that spin "think different." Can we Apple consumers think different? Or are we to only think different when "different" is aligned with what Apple has chosen to sell right now?
I've owned every Apple TV- including this new 4. They're all GREAT!!! But this "4" would have been even better if it had this extra feature, just like the iPhone has this extra feature. Whether we all would use this one extra feature doesn't matter. Those that would could get what they want too. And this is a feature that would fill the one remaining gap in the all 4K chain: iPhone shoots 4K -> FCPX/iMovie edits 4K -> iPad Pro/iMac has the editing hardware -> Quicktime packages the 4K video file -> iTunes stores/databases the 4K file -> Apple TV -> 4K TV
You have a friend who says it's not worth it yet. I have a friend hungry for anything he can get in 4K from any source. So they cancel each other out. I desire it too and you apparently don't. So we cancel each other out. Your poll of 2 people implies nobody wants 4K yet. My poll of 2 implies that everybody wants 4K now. What did we learn?
Again, include 4K playback capabilities and those who think as you do are completely unaffected. Better hardware can play lessor software to its max. What it would do is also give those who DO want some 4K capabilities what they want too within Apple hardware. That friend who doesn't think it's worth it yet could enjoy the value of 1080p to it's max. However, should some opportunity arise to push some 4K to his 4K telly, he could do that with Apple hardware, already capable in that very same box. Instead, it's impossible for your friend to enjoy that extra utility in this box. But, I'm sure it's better that way, even for a friend who already owns a 4K TV set.
The iPhone having the ability to record 4K doesn't affect anyone's use of the iPhone. Those happy shooting video at <4K can. But those that might want to shoot something at 4K can do that too. It's an EXTRA benefit for those that want that extra benefit.
Otherwise, that's just another big pile of excuses. The "wait until everybody else is fully embracing it" excuse is the worst of them, but it's also the most used one (in a wide variety of forms). The "4KTVs are too expensive" one is almost as bad because it implies that a 4K
TV would require everyone to immediately buy an "expensive" 4K set; it wouldn't, that TV would play 1080p or 720p or SD just as it does now.As to "veiled insults", I'm not sure what you are seeing as those. I'm insulting no one. I'm simply communicating the counterpoint to towing the company line on this issue. That makes no sense to me given that it's Apple themselves that spin "think different." Can we Apple consumers think different? Or are we to only think different when "different" is aligned with what Apple has chosen to sell right now?
I've owned every Apple TV- including this new 4. They're all GREAT!!! But this "4" would have been even better if it had this extra feature, just like the iPhone has this extra feature. Whether we all would use this one extra feature doesn't matter. Those that would could get what they want too. And this is a feature that would fill the one remaining gap in the all 4K chain: iPhone shoots 4K -> FCPX/iMovie edits 4K -> iPad Pro/iMac has the editing hardware -> Quicktime packages the 4K video file -> iTunes stores/databases the 4K file -> Apple TV -> 4K TV
You have a friend who says it's not worth it yet. I have a friend hungry for anything he can get in 4K from any source. So they cancel each other out. I desire it too and you apparently don't. So we cancel each other out. Your poll of 2 people implies nobody wants 4K yet. My poll of 2 implies that everybody wants 4K now. What did we learn?
Again, include 4K playback capabilities and those who think as you do are completely unaffected. Better hardware can play lessor software to its max. What it would do is also give those who DO want some 4K capabilities what they want too within Apple hardware. That friend who doesn't think it's worth it yet could enjoy the value of 1080p to it's max. However, should some opportunity arise to push some 4K to his 4K telly, he could do that with Apple hardware, already capable in that very same box. Instead, it's impossible for your friend to enjoy that extra utility in this box. But, I'm sure it's better that way, even for a friend who already owns a 4K TV set.
Last edited:
I think you are looking at old data.
There are plenty of reasons to have a 4k tv.
They are already doing 4K broadcasts in canada. The US will follow soon.
CBS is shooting the super bowl in 4k.
10 days ago, the NBA broadcast their first live 4k game.
DirecTV and dish will be transmitting 4K this year
Sony's media player offers 200 movies in UHD
Ultraflix has over 600 hours of 4k movies available
4K TV sales beat expectations in 2015 AND 4K sales are expected to double this year.
It isn't boasting. It just is. Apple is late to the party. AFAIC, I'll have to wait until the next version of appleTV to jump back in. For now, the Fire TV is workable. It's UI is a mess, but, I like the speaking search function. I'm sure I would love the aTV version, too. Hopefully apple releases a version this year with current technology.
The HD to 4K HDR transition will be much faster than the SD to HD transition was. That being said as much as I wanted the TV to have 4K it would also need HDR which wasn't ready when the TV came out and still isn't ready.
Studios are betting that streaming 4K HDR movies will be the next big thing. Hopefully Apple will be ready for this. Until then I will enjoy my TV ( a gift because I would not buy one ) until a new 4K HDR unit comes out.
With 4K channels already available here in Canada, UHD movies, players and streaming coming shortly 4K adoption is going to be rapid this year.
Studios are betting that streaming 4K HDR movies will be the next big thing. Hopefully Apple will be ready for this. Until then I will enjoy my TV ( a gift because I would not buy one ) until a new 4K HDR unit comes out.
With 4K channels already available here in Canada, UHD movies, players and streaming coming shortly 4K adoption is going to be rapid this year.
Prices on 4K TVs have dropped much faster than expected and into a range affordable by the general public. 50" TVs at the $600 mark and 60" at $1000. It's not a hard sell the latest technology at those prices.
DirecTV is there. We had a Genie failure and they replaced it with 4K hardware throughout the house.
I could not agree more. 4K as a pure resolution bump is nothing to beg for, but 4K with HDR support does make a big difference. Even the new roku does not support HDR.
That in itself is probably the reason why. Why put in 4K for the sake of it when it was going to be inferior before the content was fully ready.
So, it's ok to have to upgrade for 4K HDR, only if the Apple TV already had 4K, but it's not ok to upgrade from the Apple TV we got, to the one which has a more useful version of the technology at a time when said technology actually will be approaching more mainstream?
Fine.
Most 4K tvs aren't HDR capable. Why not put current technology in and upgrade as the tech improves? The millions of 4K tv's sold in 2015 would be capable of using an Apple TV with 4K. Those that don't have a 4k tv wouldn't notice.
So basically, it's never enough.
I was looking at Blu Ray UHD discs and there's not many films there, mostly just 4 hour 'fireplace' and 'aquariums'. Netflix and Amazon Prime only has a handful. Some sports games are using it. That's it. That will increase over the next 9 months, but until then, it's still a niche market. Obviously the general public buying the Apple TV didn't care about 4K enough to hurt sales and the hardcore '4K' fans are either skipping this version or buying it and the inevitable upgraded one with 4K.
Anyone that expected 4K off the bat is just daft. Look at the previous Apple TV versions and the step up to full HD. Apple maintains the Apple TV is still just a hobby project, which means they won't push too much new tech into it. If/when it starts becoming more mainstream, that's when you'll see them stepping it up.
What are the chances apple adds 4K with a software update in the future? The device is powerful enough, no?
For full 4K and HDR support you need HDMI 2.0a (the little a is important as well) plugs and cables. Spec details:
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/hdmi_2_0a_faq.aspx
Apple doesn't include that hardware in the ATV. The latest ATV still features HDMI 1.4:
http://www.apple.com/tv/specs/
It's possible the hardware is sufficient to support an update. Apple typically uses better than average internals so it is possible the HDMI interface is physically ready. Many Sony 1.4 products are 2.0a ready in terms of the hardware and can do an upgrade with software. It remains to be seen if ATV can. They only tell us what the current specs are so there's no way of knowing what it's actually capable of.
In the meantime, I want to see some 7.1 audio damnit!
It's possible the hardware is sufficient to support an update. Apple typically uses better than average internals so it is possible the HDMI interface is physically ready. Many Sony 1.4 products are 2.0a ready in terms of the hardware and can do an upgrade with software. It remains to be seen if ATV can. They only tell us what the current specs are so there's no way of knowing what it's actually capable of.
In the meantime, I want to see some 7.1 audio damnit!
I don't believe this is true at all. HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 means different hardware. Look at all the 4K TVs out there that have multiple HDMI inputs but only have one or two of them that are HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 capable. It it was just a software change then why wouldn't all of them be compatible? Not to mention all of the 4K TVs that have been sold that don't have any HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 ports at all, and will never be able to display 4K material from a Roku/Apple TV/ UHD Blu-Ray player/etc.
I think the question is 4K or "FULL" 4K. The current Apple TV will support 4K but not "FULL" 4K. I believe it can support the same as the Amazon Fire TV 4k BOX. I.E. 4K at 30fps. But not 4K at 60fps. Also, not sure any of them support HDR. I have a fairly new Vizio 70" 4K (P Series) that only has 1 HDMI 2.0/2.2 Port (I believe only 1). And it does not support HDR that I am aware of. My point is Apple could match Amazon Fire TV 4K with a software update. However, I think they will not. I think they will include 4K only when they support "FULL" 4K.
That is probably lacking on anything that is HDMI 1.4, even with an update. 2.2 HDCP is a physical hardware change. A perfect example of this was Sony's XBR900A (first 4k set). All of the inputs had HDMI 2.0, but only one had HDCP 2.2 and many people had to have Sony come to their house to add the hardware.
Movie/TV studios are requiring HDCP 2.2 (which is only available on HDMI 2.0) to transmit their properties, so the Apple TV4 would have to have HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 in order for Apple to offer 4K movies/TV shows. HDR, colorspace, higher frame rates, etc are a totally separate issue.
I believe the Amazon Fire, and Roku boxes that support 4K do have HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible outputs, so that is why they are able to offer 4K programming. But, you are right they are limited on the other features like HDR/frame rates/etc and I believe they will probably be replaced by newer hardware later this year that adds those features. Just like I think we will see a new Apple TV5 this fall that adds them.
I believe the Amazon Fire, and Roku boxes that support 4K do have HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible outputs, so that is why they are able to offer 4K programming. But, you are right they are limited on the other features like HDR/frame rates/etc and I believe they will probably be replaced by newer hardware later this year that adds those features. Just like I think we will see a new Apple TV5 this fall that adds them.
Not according to the website. It says your TV has to have HDCP 2.2 compatible inputs (which requires HDMI 2.0). It does appear that they are limited to 4K at 30 fps like you said, but that is not because of HDMI 1.4, it must be the processors or some other components they are using.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201859000
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.