or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014

post #1 of 189
Thread Starter 
The latest rumor regarding Apple's much speculated entry into the living room says the company is developing a TV with a screen resolution that meets the 4K UHD standard, otherwise known as Ultra HD, and could debut the television set by the end of 2013.

Apple TV


Citing supply chain sources, DigiTimes reports the device, supposedly to be called the "iTV," will sport a 3,840-by-2,160 pixel display, voice and motion controls and internet connectivity. While the publication's insiders have a spotty record in predicting Apple's hardware releases, its display industry sources are somewhat more reliable.

If true, the iTV would fall under the guidelines of the 4K UHD standard of 2160p, which boasts four times the pixel count of a 1080p HDTV. The most recent Consumer Electronics Show and other expos worldwide have seen TV manufacturers like LG and Samsung showing off the cutting edge tech, though the 4K panels carry prices well out of reach for the average consumer.

According to the sources, Apple and manufacturing partner Foxconn have been discussing the mass production of UHDTVs for "quite some time," but the Cupertino company is said to be looking for a reliable panel supplier. The publication noted that most firms capable of building the high-resolution displays will already be at near full capacity in 2013 to satiate demand from Chinese vendors.

While Apple's own display suppliers are capable of producing panels for a standalone television, they are reportedly focused on making components for the iPhone, iPad and iPad mini. LG Display will likely be able to mass produce the necessary panel sizes by the second half of 2013. This means a 4K iTV could launch by year's end, the sources say, but is more likely to happen in early 2014.
post #2 of 189
I've been saying "No! No!" on this rumour for a long time but with 4K prices coming down, Apple already packing over 505 of the pixels into a 15" display for a reasonably priced notebook, and H.265 being readied by the time this is set to launch and offering a 50% reduction in file sizes for the same quality, I think this is a perfect match with the iTS video and a way for Apple to secure a profitable, high-end foothold and strengthen their ecosystem even more.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/26/13 at 10:10pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 189

...And while they're at it, a 4K UHD projector :)

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #4 of 189
Let's recap DigiTimes "track record" for Apple supply-chain rumors:

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/14/digitimes-apple-rumors/

Their occasional correct guesses are probably just that: guesses. Or fictions, either by them or by false "sources."

Most of us on this forum could make an educated Apple guess, claim a phony source, and turn out right more often than DigiTimes.

DigiTimes' only talent is self-promotion, apparently.
post #5 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Let's recap DigiTimes "track record" for Apple supply-chain rumors:

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/14/digitimes-apple-rumors/

Their occasional correct guesses are probably just that: guesses. Or fictions, either by them or by false "sources."

Most of us on this forum could make an educated Apple guess, claim a phony source, and turn out right more often than DigiTimes.

DigiTimes' only talent is self-promotion, apparently.

I don't even acknowledge them as a source of news. I see them as a "What if" query generator.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 189
Man...I think your right... Now it all makes sense... A better compression codec fits earlier info about a certain American cable company testing an " unbranded " product with a focus on content delivery realities... Of course Apple would kick off UHD....

I think this is the real deal... the display, the codec, then the content...could equal "revolutionary"....???!
post #7 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've been saying "No! No!" on this rumour for a long time but with 4K prices coming down, Apple already packing over 505 of the pixels into a 15" display for a reasonably priced notebook, and H.265 being readied by the time this is set to launch and offering a 50% reduction in file sizes for the same quality, I think this is a perfect match with the iTS video and a way for Apple to secure a profitable, high-end foothold and strengthen their ecosystem even more.

DigiTimes. Hook. Line. Sinker.
Let's talk again if and when Phil Schiller pulls the sheet off one at Moscone Center.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 189

Retina HD

In the Apple world, 2160p would be known as Retina HD.

post #9 of 189
Who cares about Digitimes... Cook himself admitted "it's an area of INTENSE interest.... 2+2=.... The "digitimes" track record exposés have been beaten to death... The carcass is getting old.... Can we move beyond their "track record"... Speaking of which 99% of analysts, pundits and posters thought the iPad mini was the "stupidest" move Apple could do.... Apparently Cook and team had the CORRECT hindsight a year or so earlier to move that product to market....doh!
post #10 of 189

This makes the most sense to me. Everyone and their dog has a 1080P TV. Apple would have nothing to really stand out from all the other TV's except for design, which isn't enough in such a crowded market.

 

4K TV's are expensive and niche right now. An ideal market for Apple to enter and be one of the first to market with an affordable (relatively speaking) 4K TV. It goes along with their push to "Retina" displays.

 

And then there's those two new data centres Apple is building to serve data up for something....

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #11 of 189

What would be the point of this? Most "HD" channels are just highly compressed 720p feeds as it is. Is there anyone out there that looks at a high quality bluray on their 50+ inch name brand TV and yawns?

Sorry, but no dice.

post #12 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

And then there's those two new data centres Apple is building to serve data up for something....

There is another side of this coin I failed to mention in my earlier post. At a 50% reduction in file we're talking about about 2x the size of their 1080p, and probably somewhat less with other factors considered, but what professional content can be had at 4K. Apparently professional movies and TV shows already filmed in 4-5K resolutions.

Would they really agree to allow Apple to get in at the ground floor by giving them 4K/H.265 encoded content so early on after they've seen the way Apple can dominate an industry so thoroughly? I don't think they are hurting for people to watch 1080p content. The are still a lot of people watching SD content, even on HDTVs.

This actually sounds like the display tech is the driver over any other aspect in the chain so they might have to work with a partner that has a foot in both the display and content camps. That could be Sony, but I can't see Sony giving Apple this golden ticket. Doesn't this just leave Disney as a strong connection to Apple to start the dominos falling like with the original Apple TV? If that's the case I hope it's more effective than with the original Apple TV that was first demoed in late 2009.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #13 of 189
Sounds stunning. But why? It wouldn't be in Apple's MO to simply a produce a higher res TV; more dots on the screen - wow! - wet-your-pants Nerd Heaven! LG and/or Samesong &c could do that for themselves.

There was a patent a while back for glasses-free 3D-TV. %u2026 Ah yes, actually 2010's 3D-projector patent

"Apple's patent describes using a special reflective screen with a rippled texture to create an autostereoscopic projection system, meaning one in which different images are projected to each eye without the need for special glasses."

That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.
post #14 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

What would be the point of this? Most "HD" channels are just highly compressed 720p feeds as it is. Is there anyone out there that looks at a high quality bluray on their 50+ inch name brand TV and yawns?
Sorry, but no dice.

AirPlay becomes more compelling if you can stream retina games and content from your iPad, Mac to the TV. I'm still skeptical, but AirPlay gets you other content to use on the display beyond streaming movies.
post #15 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos View Post

Sounds stunning. But why? It wouldn't be in Apple's MO to simply a produce a higher res TV; more dots on the screen - wow! - wet-your-pants Nerd Heaven! LG and/or Samesong &c could do that for themselves.

There was a patent a while back for glasses-free 3D-TV. %u2026 Ah yes, actually 2010's 3D-projector patent

"Apple's patent describes using a special reflective screen with a rippled texture to create an autostereoscopic projection system, meaning one in which different images are projected to each eye without the need for special glasses."

That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.

Have you ever heard of the Nintendo 3DS?

I'm not going to look it up, but I thought we already had glasses free 3D TVs…

 

P.S. I hate 3D. It's an expensive gimmick that has fatal flaws because of the eye's physiology, and it should be ignored.

post #16 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

AirPlay becomes more compelling if you can stream retina games and content from your iPad, Mac to the TV. I'm still skeptical, but AirPlay gets you other content to use on the display beyond streaming movies.

Good point. iPad is already more than 50% more pixels than a 1080p TV. If we get an Apple TV App Store a Retina display will be even more important, something 1080p TVs typically aren't set these day, especially not the 50+ inch models for a normal viewing distance. Perhaps we need to stop looking at this from the perspective of the cable TV we get sent to us right now and look at those other reasons why 4K could be a huge improvement.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 189
A 4k TV coming from Apple means that the product will sport a price tag more than what an average consumer will be able to pay, which means than only people with a lot of money will only be able to afford it.
post #18 of 189
I would buy it! 1biggrin.gif
post #19 of 189

Regular 1080 TV's are already boring and the prices for them are cheaper than ever now. Why would Apple want to enter that market which is already heavily saturated? Unless Apple brings something totally new to the table, and somehow releases a game changing TV, I don't see what there is to get excited about. If the TV is just a 1080 TV with an Apple TV built into it, then I don't see what's so great about that.

 

4K is where things are heading, and it would make sense for Apple to skate to where the puck is going to be, and not skate to where the puck is currently located, like almost everybody else does.

 

If this rumor were true, then that Apple 4K TV would obviously not be cheap, but so what? Apple's goal is not to make products for poor people. Poor people and people who whine about the price of an iPad Mini do not push technology forward. People and early adopters who would shell out the money for a 4K Apple TV are the driving forces behind new tech, not whiners.

 

Watching a 4K theatre movie on a 4K TV at home in your living room sounds like the ultimate in home cinema, at least until 8K or 16K TVs gets released in a decade or whenever.lol.gif When 4K TVs begin to catch on, the content will probably quickly follow.

post #20 of 189

I also read recently that Netflix says to expect 4k Streaming in about 2 years time. 

post #21 of 189
Looking forward to it. Not the TV. For the analysts, DigiTimes, and the blog-o-verse to shut up about it.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #22 of 189

I'm not sure how any of this can work unless Apple also runs the pipe as well as delivering the content.

post #23 of 189

Oh, good. A whole bunch of pixels to get blurry web video on. 

post #24 of 189

On a related note: Apple is planning a mission to Mars by 2015 (you know, the "mothership" they are building). The spacecraft will be driven by a new and revolutionary computer named Wall-E. The secret project is codenamed Unicorn. 1rolleyes.gif


Edited by jay-t - 3/27/13 at 5:48am
post #25 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporlo View Post

P.S. I hate 3D. It's an expensive gimmick that has fatal flaws because of the eye's physiology, and it should be ignored.

Whose eye's physiology? Mine works just fine.

Directors who don't think 3D is a gimmick so far: Martin Scorcese, Ang Lee, Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog.

I don't see how any company could offer a 4K television today that wasn't 3D capable. The glasses-free part is questionable, though.

If you have trouble watching 3D movies, there are two possibilities: 1) you are going to bad movies, and there are plenty out there, or 2) you have some imbalance in the vision of your two eyes, a fairly common condition.

There are optometrists who specialize in stereo vision problems. You can search the COVD list to see if any are around you:

https://covdwp.memberpoint.com/WebPortal/BuyersGuide/ProfessionalSearch.aspx
Edited by Flaneur - 3/27/13 at 2:41am
post #26 of 189

I just don't see the content for these TVs.

Screen tech is allready so far ahead of content that most 1080p TVs don't show content made for it.

With 4K TVs this is just increasing so much that it isn't funny any more.
 

post #27 of 189

for me to want to buy a new apple branded TV, its going to need some fancy pants new features, in the typical, 'i didnt know i needed this feature, now i cant live without it' like apple does with most new product launches, i have a pretty new, super kickass smart tv, so its going to have to be good. 

post #28 of 189

Why 4k for the home? You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch, 4k is complete overkill.

 

Also most content is shot in HD, not 4k, even when using hi-end camera's like the Alexa. The file management / data size of shooting and editing in 4k is still a massive burden to post houses as well. Sure this will quickly change as the industry shifts yet again, but worth noting.

 

It seems 4k is a convenient way for manufacturers to push the next big thing and keep the consumer wheel ticking along. 3D wasn't the holy grail they were after, and ended up being a cheap "extra feature" that all TV's have these days. Funny thing is, on forums and posts like this, it seems everyone is excited by 4k televisions... before the marketing machine has even started. Amazing.

post #29 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Why 4k for the home? You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch, 4k is complete overkill.

 

Also most content is shot in HD, not 4k, even when using hi-end camera's like the Alexa. The file management / data size of shooting and editing in 4k is still a massive burden to post houses as well. Sure this will quickly change as the industry shifts yet again, but worth noting.

 

It seems 4k is a convenient way for manufacturers to push the next big thing and keep the consumer wheel ticking along. 3D wasn't the holy grail they were after, and ended up being a cheap "extra feature" that all TV's have these days. Funny thing is, on forums and posts like this, it seems everyone is excited by 4k televisions... before the marketing machine has even started. Amazing.

 

 

I bet you've never seen a 4k TV have you...

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #30 of 189

They could have trouble with iTV in the UK - http://www.itv.com 1hmm.gif

post #31 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post

They could have trouble with iTV in the UK - http://www.itv.com 1hmm.gif

Yep, don't know why articles about this rumoured device say its likely to be called the iTV.  Not only is the trademark in the UK already taken, but also in the US, Japan and many other countries.  The chances of this device being called iTV are practically zero.

post #32 of 189

(sigh)

post #33 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Whose eye's physiology? Mine works just fine.

Directors who don't think 3D is a gimmick so far: Martin Scorcese, Ang Lee, Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog.

I don't see how any company could offer a 4K television today that wasn't 3D capable. The glasses-free part is questionable, though.

If you have trouble watching 3D movies, there are two possibilities: 1) you are going to bad movies, and there are plenty out there, or 2) you have some imbalance in the vision of your two eyes, a fairly common condition.

There are optometrists who specialize in stereo vision problems. You can search the COVD list to see if any are around you:

https://covdwp.memberpoint.com/WebPortal/BuyersGuide/ProfessionalSearch.aspx


By "physiology" I think he's alluding to the fact that while we can simulate three dimensions by delivering a different image to each eye, what we can't "fix" is the fact that the eye handles depth by focusing and refocusing.  Regardless of how good the illusion is, it is still being shown on a flat surface, which means the eye will always be in some manner of conflict with the image ("conflict" might be too strong a word...just couldn't think of something more appropriate...maybe "slight tussle"?).  When my eye perceives something in the foreground and then shifts focus to the foreground, the shape of my lens changes to bring that into focus.  On a TV, no matter how good the technology is, you're still tricking the eye...the eye wants to change the shape of the lens but then discovers it doesn't need to.  Yet this happens constantly.  As long as "3D" technology isn't a hologram with real depth, there will always be this issue that causes some manner of eye strain. 

 

I owned a Samnsung 3D TV for about a week and never completely got used to it.  I thought playing 3D games was really cool...but I'd come away from it after an hour or so feeling worn...not relaxed. 

 

I agree with him in the sense that I "think" 3D is a gimmick and will never be fully embraced, but I could very well be wrong.  There is a second reason I think this, though...it's food for thought, and not necessarily "right," but when I combine it with my experience with 3D thus far, it's compelling enough to swing me to that opinion....

 

The purpose of 3D is to enhance the physiological experience of "being there."  There's a problem with this, in terms of telling a story...or perhaps the types of stories we're used to telling.  If I tell somebody about my day, I can summarize the conceptual details for maximum dramatic content.  I can even show you a movie I made of my day, edited to show you the VITAL information (the relevant dramatic conflict in a movie that makes each scene relevant).  But if I start distracting you with frivolous details, your attention is drawn AWAY from the story and towards those frivolous details.  It's similar to watching an extremely high definition movie after you've seen the same movie in in standard or just a 720p TV - the video is so clear that your brain becomes distracted by visual detail...and you can't focus as much on the story.  An extreme example would be if I said, "and then he shook her...like THIS!"...and then I shook the hell out of you.  Are you immersed in the story, or did I just rattle the hell out of you?  The example is extreme to make the point more obvious...for many people (a majority, I'd argue), 3D does exactly this.  If I'm "there," I'm focused less on the story and more on the physiological experience of the movie.  It's the same reason why it's easier to get a handle on what happened during a busy day once we're at the end of it and looking at it in retrospect.  While 3d might be great for making us "feel we're there," the goal of a movie is to "tell a story."  It's one thing if the story you want to tell is, "what it's actually like in this one spot," but you run into the same story telling problems using 3D as you'd run into if you're trying to tell somebody about your favorite vacation at an amusement park WHILE they're standing next to an incredibly loud roller coaster ride.  They can't focus on what you're saying because "oh, I smell cotton candy! oh! what's that? oh! that guy almost ran into me!"  Are these valid experiences to have?  Of course.  But the story you want to tell will be drowned out by it. 

 

I think 3D is fantastic when the story IS the experience of being there...Wildlife shows, video games (I'd love an fully immersive fallout sequel), but I don't think a 2 hour story can be efficiently told when the senses are being bombarded.  I think this is similar to why reading a thirty page short story in less than an hour will deliver more story, and a better one, than attempting to tell the same story on location in the same amount of time.  There's too much information that is not pertinent to the story.  For me, the most quick and dirty summation is this: when I watch Hulk smash Loki, I don't care about "being there," but rather "THAT" he smashed him and I saw what that looked like.  A story is about dramatic conflict.  In 3D, just as in real life, "being there" does more to obscure the story than it does illuminate it.  I think "being there" is more conducive to analysis of particulars in science or when you actually want to simulate a specific experience. 

 

I know that was a mouthful.  I think that is generally why many people have a hard time with 3D.  I'll fully admit that there might be developments that overcome these perceived limitations, but to the best of my knowledge and ability, I still DO perceive these limitations.  I love 3D...but I don't think Scoresese's "Hugo" is an example of a story that was told "better" because it had 3D.  In fact, I think it would have benefitted from more dramatic conflict and less swirling camera chases.  The same is true of Avatar.  Well told stories make me feel more "there" than 3D.  The 3D simply reminds me that I'm watching a movie and NOT actually there.  It's the conceptual content, the dramatic conflict, that occupies the brain and allows you to forget where you "are". 

 

Story is dramatic conflict...not arbitrary physiological details.  Should we make movies like Schindlers List into 3D?  Why is it that many people feel that would cheapen the story?  Because the story is already told...showing us 3D images doesn't increase empathy or understanding of the conflict involved.  It IS just a gimmick unless the point of the effect IS the effect.  I'd love to see nature shows in 3D, or play video games...but neither of these is about telling a story.  What makes me feel the story is the emotional content...ask yourself this: does a person with one eye experience a Scorsese movie, or Schindler's List, or Batman Begins, an an *emotionally* different way?  Is he immersed...less?  I don't need physiological experiences to understand a story.  In fact, they distract.  I already know what being punched feels like, what being passed by a car very closely feels like, what falling feels like...I don't need it simulated with 3D....what I need are good writers and good actors.

 

I want to see where the tech goes, but I have yet to see anyone objectively explain to me how a story was better told by using 3D.

 

Edit: Also, I wouldn't assume that greater directors have the final word on whether 3D is a good medium...Directors are craftsmen...they don't necessarily have degrees in Psychology, Biology, or anything that would make them an expert on how the human brain conceptually deals with stories.  I'm not saying they don't know anything...but I'm not going to assume that just because I can't direct a movie and Scorsese can, that means he knows more than me about the philosophy and psychology of why story telling works and how it does. 


Edited by Sol77 - 3/27/13 at 5:06am
post #34 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

A 4k TV coming from Apple means that the product will sport a price tag more than what an average consumer will be able to pay, which means than only people with a lot of money will only be able to afford it.

just like with phones, computers, tablets and mp3 players.

 

that's a nice market.

post #35 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've been saying "No! No!" on this rumour for a long time but with 4K prices coming down, Apple already packing over 505 of the pixels into a 15" display for a reasonably priced notebook, and H.265 being readied by the time this is set to launch and offering a 50% reduction in file sizes for the same quality, I think this is a perfect match with the iTS video and a way for Apple to secure a profitable, high-end foothold and strengthen their ecosystem even more.

Still, I'd expect 4k to require double the bitrate of 1080p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoeinla View Post

Who cares about Digitimes... Cook himself admitted "it's an area of INTENSE interest.... 2+2=.... The "digitimes" track record exposés have been beaten to death... The carcass is getting old.... Can we move beyond their "track record"…

Move beyond… to what? Frankly, I'd like AI to move beyond posting anything Digitimes writes about, they're not worth the bits used to communicate their stories. I think it shows a credibility problem when reporting on a source that's right about as often as a broken analog clock. If people don't respond, the impression will be Digitimes is a credible source.

Quote:
Speaking of which 99% of analysts, pundits and posters thought the iPad mini was the "stupidest" move Apple could do....

Simply false. Analysts & pundits in general were clamoring for a smaller iPad, and it seemed like an even mix of posters saying it's a good idea, bad idea.
post #36 of 189
Saturated market. Everybody and his dog owns one. Low profits. Too many players. Bottom feeding. Apple's offering would be too expensive. No control over distribution/pipes/content.

It all sounds like a vaguely familiar set of nay-saying. And it is completely wrong, as it was before.
post #37 of 189

Dear Apple Insider,

we've been seeing and reading rumors of an Apple Television set for a long time now (years even).

I think this is the very first post where you haven't posted a photo of this rumored device as a larger iMac or Thunderbolt display.

Thank you for not doing it this time.  Really...thanks.

post #38 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The latest rumor regarding Apple's much speculated entry into the living room comes from Digitimes and is therefore probably wrong like 99.7% of the other predictions Digitimes has made.

There. I fixed that for you.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #39 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

I just don't see the content for these TVs.
Screen tech is allready so far ahead of content that most 1080p TVs don't show content made for it.
With 4K TVs this is just increasing so much that it isn't funny any more.

 

Fully agree. The world hasn't even 'moved to' HDTV, never mind even higher resolution. Nice for the next generation, but not something that will 'suddenly evolve and be a global thing in a year or two'. With Apple being known for creating end-to-end solutions, they might be selling just those programs that were recorded on 4k, but then we need fiber as DSL won't suffice. Maybe the US has 'fiber everywhere', but that certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world has it too. Check my small country:
http://www.eindelijkglasvezel.nl/waar-ligt-al-glasvezel.html

YouTube '4k video' gives me 635k results. 'HDTV video': 2.2M. 'Video' 1.2B ...whatever this pathetic research of mine may mean ¡
post #40 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The latest rumor regarding Apple's much speculated entry into the living room comes from Digitimes and is therefore probably wrong like 99.7% of the other predictions Digitimes has made.

There. I fixed that for you.

82.5% of statistics are made-up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014