Would be willing to buy an Apple TV4 with 4K video output?

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Solver, Sep 27, 2015.

?

Which of the options below would you buy?

  1. Option #1. I don't need 4K video right away.

    19 vote(s)
    38.8%
  2. Option #2. I may need 4K video later.

    13 vote(s)
    26.5%
  3. Option #2. I need 4K video.

    11 vote(s)
    22.4%
  4. I'm not buying an Apple TV4.

    6 vote(s)
    12.2%
  1. Solver, Sep 27, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2015

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cupertino, CA
    #1
    ...if Apple offered only these choices,

    Option #1. Apple TV4, 32GB, 1K video output. $149
    Option #2. Apple TV4, 32GB, 4K video output. $199
     
  2. cynics macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #2
    For 50 more dollars I'd probably get the 4K version even though I don't currently need it.
     
  3. foobarbazqux macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    #3
    While lack of 4k support is one of the reasons I most likely won't get an AppleTV 4, I don't see the point in spending $200 for a version that does support it when I will soon be able to get a device for half the cost that does everything I want.
     
  4. HobeSoundDarryl, Sep 28, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2015

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #4
    Com'on poll creators: think about your options. Nobody "needs" anything.

    Option #1: :apple:TV4 "as is"
    Option #2: :apple:TV4 "as is" with 4K playback

    As is, anyone can click any option in this poll and it's valid: I don't need it but I may want it later and/or I do want it now if right now I want to easily show some 4K I shot on the new iPhone on a 4K TV.

    If you want to imply the 4K version would require a higher price- which is not necessarily true- then add pricing to the 2 options. However, note what 4K streaming boxes cost from competitors before we pretend that it would require a higher price in this streaming box.

    In my opinion, given the pace at which Apple updates the little box and given that just about everything else in the Apple lineup is already embracing 4K- especially the golden child product (iPhone) being able to shoot 4K- Apple should have made this final link of the Record 4K (iPhone) -> Edit 4K (iMovie or FCPX) -> Render 4K (Quicktime m4v) Store 4K (iTunes) -> Play 4K (Apple TV) -> Display 4K (a 4K TV Set) chain 4K-capable. If Apple waits about the same amount of time as has been "normal" per historical updates, they'll once again be about LAST to this particular party.

    Personally, I don't care about "the chart" or "until everything in the iTunes store is available in 4K" or "until the whole Internet is upgraded" or file sizes or "I can't see the difference (so you can't either)" or "99% of people won't be able to..." etc... all of which was slung around when Apple clung to 720p while some of us coveted a 1080p :apple:TV too. And before we repeat the "1080p is good enough" and "1080p is all anyone needs" wars, let me remind everyone that a 4K-capable :apple:TV doesn't force anyone to buy a new 4K set or download any 4K files: the 1080p or 720p or SD that works for you now would play to their max on hardware capable of a little more. It just doesn't work the other way for those of us that do desire 4K.

    (My) bottom line: if one can shoot 4K, edit 4K, render 4K, store 4K- all on Apple hardware & software- and they happen to have a 4K TV now, it would be nice if they could easily display that 4K they shoot on that new iPhone on their 4K set without having to buy one of the competitor's little boxes to do so. Downscaling it to 1080p then letting the TV upscale it back to 4K is missing the point.

    If nothing else, how about a Jack/Joker quote that seems relevant:


    See if you can guess the key line (or maybe even two lines) applicable to this question. Then, cue the 2 models from the same movie: "Love that Joker!"
     
  5. rhett7660, Sep 28, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2015

    rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #5
    I look at 4K like I did with 3D. Everyone was talking about, there was limited content. Now I am not saying 4K will not be used in the future as 1080p is now, but it is still aways off in my book. I have seen it now for two straight years at CES and there is still very little content. Yes netflix had/has a series or two in 4K. Blu-Ray players are starting to come out with the ability to up convert 1080p to 4K. But true 4K content is still really small.

    For me I will be waiting for 4K to gain penetration before I invest it. Lack of 4K for me is not an issue. Will it be here? I don't know. Will it take off? I don't know. Heck even OTA tv is only doing 720p 1080i. Unless you have a HD channel that you are paying for, that is promoting 1080p content, there is still little to no 1080p OTA.

    Heck Sony was demoing 8K for the last two years also.
     
  6. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #6
    4K will have faster penetration as there is no format war and much of the material was digitally remastered to the best level of detail it will ever see. It's simply a matter of burning new versions to a more capable format that is able to unlock the detail and color palet in the remaster that was limited by 1080p.

    8K is a gimmick. It's for theaters. There is zero benefit to it in the home.
     
  7. Supermallet macrumors 65816

    Supermallet

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #7
    To me, the bigger issue isn't 4K, as I won't be buying a 4K TV for a while, but HEVC/h.265 support. HEVC is more efficient even for 1080p/720p content and I'm miffed that the ATV isn't supporting it. Amazon has already said they're going to use HEVC for their shows and I think all content providers should be pushing for it.
     
  8. TurboPGT! macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    #8
    I just have to laugh at the people that think this is of any concern or interest right now. There is no 4K content. Do you have a 4K TV? I'm sorry you spent all that money long before 4K is even a thing...but that doesn't mean the AppleTV is any worse for acknowledging reality and holding off 4K for another year or two.
     
  9. foobarbazqux, Sep 30, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2015

    foobarbazqux macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    #9
    I bet you were one of those who also said 720p is fine, right? It's ok if y

    In case you haven't been in an electronics store at all this year, 4K TVs aren't expensive anymore. If you're in the market for a TV, you're going to walk to walk out with a 4K TV unless you're intentionally going for something really cheap and don't care about the extra non-4k related picture quality features (i.e. the best features go into the 4k sets, not the 1080p sets). and yes, there is 4k content.
     
  10. TurboPGT! macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    #10
    How many times can one be wrong in one paragraph? 1080p sets are far cheaper than 4K sets, and they are all anyone needs.

    Features? What features? Please. Don't be so susceptible to marketing. TV needs to turn on and look nice. All other "features" come from boxes over HDMI.

    And no, there is no 4K content. No 4K cable. No 4k iTunes. No 4k Netflix (that anyone would notice). No 4K Hulu. No 4K HBO. There is no 4K content.
     
  11. AtheistP3ace macrumors 6502a

    AtheistP3ace

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Location:
    Philly
    #11
    Yea, I don't need 4K but at some point I will as it starts to have more supported media and streaming. I think thats a long way off though.
     
  12. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #12
    I think some folks are thinking the same thing about 4K... it is a gimmick to get me to buy the same content I already have ala vhs-->dvd-->blu-ray-->blu-ray 4k--blu-ray 8k..... and so on.
     
  13. cynics macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #13
    I don't disagree with anything you have to say however it begs the question...Are you new to Apple products? If not then are you seriously surprised by the lack of 4k support with the new ATV?

    Honestly I would have fallen out of my chair if they said there was 4k support coming to the ATV during the keynotes.
     
  14. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    What is 1K video output?

    1080p is 1920x1080.
    4k is 4096 x 2160.

    If we're trying to make a "k" analogy here, 1080p is more like 2K. Or we can just refer to it properly, and say 1080p.
     
  15. HobeSoundDarryl, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #15
    I'm not new. I been around long before "we" argued that "720p is good enough" and some of us desiring a 1080p :apple:TV were getting pounded by always "rah rah" apologists with the same rationale applied against 1080p back then ("gimmick", "nobody needs", "nobody can see", "until the whole internet is upgraded", file sizes, "until everything in the iTunes store", even the very same "the chart" with different numbers to scientifically support:rolleyes: arguments about how nobody could see 1080p, etc).

    As to falling out of a chair, in the very same session Apple rolled out the golden child product that can shoot 4K (up to 13 million people soon after the end of launch weekend were probably shooting something in 4K and tens of millions more will be doing so soon), iMovie (and FCPX) that can edit it and render it to Quicktime so that a 4K file could be stored within iTunes. That leaves only one weak link in the chain from Apple everything to a 4K TV set for those that have one.

    Given that Apple is not exactly poor, nor lacking human resources to be able to throw at such projects, I don't think it is asking a lot for some of us to have expected the brand new video player hardware rolled out after about 3+ years of no updates to go ahead and fill that gap between iPhone->iMovie/FCPX->Quicktime->iTunes->Apple TV->4K TV for those that desired that particular thing. It's not like it would have forced anything on anyone: anybody happy with 1080p or 720p or SD could keep right on downloading and playing their favorite format on hardware capable of a bit more, just like a 1080p :apple:TV didn't force anyone to buy a new 1080p TV or download only 1080p video back with the third generation launch.

    We have high expectations of Apple around here. They've pumped those expectations of them up themselves. So when they let us down, some of us will grunt about it... even if we can recognize the profitable opportunity for AAPL in selling a "4" now and a "5", "now with 4K" in another year or two. In the meantime a company seen as a bookseller or virtual Walmart has rolled out a cheaper streaming box with 4K playback. So it's hard to believe Apple just couldn't do it if they wanted to do so. If Amazon could, I'm certain Apple could too.

    That said though, for those that care more about AAPL than Apple consumer segments, it's a great move to stick with 1080p AGAIN than to sell us one now that might be "good enough" for the next 3-5 years. Selling us 2 over the same time certainly chips in on AAPL profit numbers.
     
  16. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #16
    Well, I've yet to buy my first blu-ray player. :)

    I'm trying to avoid the whole TV-upgrade-treadmill. I'd rather have a good acting and a good script than super-hi-def.
     
  17. Q-Dog macrumors 6502

    Q-Dog

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    #17
    I'll get a 4K TV when the local stations broadcast in 4K.
     
  18. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #18
    Oh boy-- time to buy a new set top box... I wonder how harsh the digital transition will be this time.
     
  19. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #19
    I would say there is no transition (as HD was "mandated" way back in 1986) but there is some real experimentation to broadcast 4K actually being done: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...s-of-emerging-atsc-30-standard-300111554.html Now given, testing is FAR from getting everyone to adopt it and roll it out (especially without a mandate) but it's something anyway.

    Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath for over-the-air 4K for a very long time. But streaming services, discs, etc will deliver it or are already delivering it more and more. I wish Apple had chosen to lead this charge as their push would have got things moving along. Instead, they embraced it on just about everything else except this ONE thing. Too bad... but we can look forward to :apple:TV 5 "now with 4K" soon after iPads get the iPhones new camera.

    And then it won't be a "gimmick", "nobody can see", etc thing anymore.
     
  20. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #20
    interesting. I sort of gave up on broadcast TV some years back--couldn't deal with the dropouts. Most of what I really want to see is streamed, anyway
     
  21. Elastic Love macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    #21
    Everyone complaining about 4K. Who here has a compatible 4K TV? Ok great...if you do where's the content?
     
  22. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #22
    Well again, don't take that as meaning it's coming to everyone over-the-air soon. I just found it interesting that there is some actual testing underway. To go from SD to HD, it required a GOV mandate way back in 1986. And I don't know about you but I don't think it felt like we were getting there until about 2002 or so... and even now, it feels like we're still waiting on some channels.

    No GOV mandate for 4K (or even 1080p), h.265 or anything along those lines. Thus, I suspect streaming and discs will be the way for 4K for many years and I'm skeptical if over-the-air would go 4K even in the next decade.
     
  23. Snoopy4, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015

    Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #23
    http://www.directv.com/technology/4k

    http://4k.com/movies/

    4K BD rolls at a Christmas. As I mentioned above, the transition is much simpler because the remastering was done for BD production. Most films conversions/restorations are the equivalent of 2K so on that end the benefit is the color spectrum available through 4K compared with 1080p. New films done in 4K will have a full specrum to work with.
     
  24. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #24
    Lots of us have 4K TVs (or even 5K iMacs). And we've either been shooting 4K on 4K camcorders and (the other guys) smart phones for the last few years or we've started shooting lots of 4Ks on our new iPhones (millions and millions of us apparently bought a 4K-capable (new) iPhone in the very first weekend it was available). As such 4K content will explode on sites like youtube. iMovie & FCPX will edit our 4K home movies shot with our new iPhones and we'll wish we had a "just works", easy way to display that 4K on the 4K TVs we have or will buy soon (I don't know where you are but where I am it seems there are more 4K sets in the stores than 1080p, and prices are much more interesting than typically implied around here).

    Besides, Apple goes 4K and that lead will drive followers to roll out 4K content. Apple goes A9 and loads of followers code apps for A9. Apple goes smart touch and loads of followers code for smart touch. Apple goes Apple Pay and lots of partners pile on in support of Apple Pay. Apple goes retina and loads of followers develop for retina. Apple goes TouchID and developers embrace TouchID. See the pattern?

    On the other hand, no partners lined up in support of Apple Pay BEFORE Apple chose to develop it. No partners coded for A9 before Apple chose to develop it. No partners supported smart touch before Apple chose to develop it. Nobody coded for retina before Apple chose to go retina. Nobody supported TouchID until Apple chose to embrace that. Again, see the pattern?

    If Apple had embraced 4K here (like they did in just about everything else they sell), the Studios would have wanted to roll out 4K content in the iTunes store. It makes zero sense for the Studios to roll out 4K :apple:TV content in the iTunes store until there are 4K :apple:TVs that can play it. Apple should lead the way there (again, they've already embraced 4K in just about everything else). Some of us are grumpy about this because A) we believe Apple SHOULD lead the way and B) after 3 years since the prior :apple:TV rolled out 1080p, we expected Apple to go ahead and make the jump instead of another round of 1080p. Plus some of us with 4K sets are hungry for more 4K content and would rather buy/rent it from Apple than Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and the new 4K Blu Ray discs.
     
  25. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #25
    The gooberment blew this. They could have sped the transition by going with 480p to begin with then expand the resolution capability over time as the technology allowed. Multichannel providers waste a silly amount of bandwidth on legacy channel duplication. This would have pushed everyone to widescreen almost immediately, then it's an issue of compression methods and format growth over time. Products would have been available with higher resolution capability for those who wanted to make the investment. Instead it took 15 years to transition because the cost of getting to HD at the time was prohibitive.
     

Share This Page