Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
Also, 4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
Really? Vinyl sales are at an all time high, and people are switching back to analog formats for the richness of sound vs compressed digital formats. 24/192 uncompressed audio isn't that "niche" anymore. Pono, HDtracks.. ect. It's on the rise. Apple should be ready for it.
Umm, yeah ... no.
Vinyl sales were higher than they have been in the last 30 years, since tracking started. If you think that ~325,000 LPs sold is an "all-time high" then, well, you're high too.
Oh, and just to put this in some kind of perspective for you, 2014's best selling vinyl record was Jack White's "Lazaretto" which sold 87,000 copies.
Now, contrast and compare:
Taylor Swift's "1989" sold approximately 4.5M copies in the 19 weeks it's been out. In its first week -- first WEEK -- it sold approximately 1.3M copies. T-Swizzle has sold, to date, 27M+ copies.
Your "all-time" high leader last year, Jack White, sold a total of 87k. Now, if we figure that Taylor sold 1.3M in one week, that means that "1989" sold 15x as many copies as White's album did in total -- PER DAY.
If that doesn't make this stuff niche, than what does?
Surprised nobody has mentioned DVR capability. If Apple is going to increase the local storage, then why not include DVR capability (at least four channels at same time). This would put them in direct competition with Comcast's X1, which costs $11/mo to rent. Make the new AppleTV cost $130 or so (comparable to one year's X1 rent) and I think they'd have a winner.
It would need to have at least 1TB of DVR storage to attack much interest from those wanting a DVR and certainly wouldn't be the same price as an Airport Extreme ($199). This will come in at about $299, maybe with a 1TB HDD and upgradable to an SSD.
nice pile of BS. Go to a store and look at it yourself... I can see the difference at 6 feet on a 50" screen without any problem. The guy say's he start noticing the difference on screen bigger than 70", to me its more like 40". This guy obviously have some problems noticing details.
Really? Vinyl sales are at an all time high, and people are switching back to analog formats for the richness of sound vs compressed digital formats. 24/192 uncompressed audio isn't that "niche" anymore. Pono, HDtracks.. ect. It's on the rise. Apple should be ready for it.
Vinyl sales are not at an "all time high". They are higher now than the '90s and '00s, but not nearly as high as the '60s and '70s.
nice pile of BS. Go to a store and look at it yourself... I can see the difference at 6 feet on a 50" screen without any problem. The guy say's he start noticing the difference on screen bigger than 70", to me its more like 40".
Yeah, a 4K screen is easily seen as providing a more detailed image than the typical HDTV.
nice pile of BS. Go to a store and look at it yourself... I can see the difference at 6 feet on a 50" screen without any problem. The guy say's he start noticing the difference on screen bigger than 70", to me its more like 40". This guy obviously have some problems noticing details.
The question isn't about whether or not the technology is better. It's about whether anyone (other than technophiles) will care.
Also, the supporting tech just isn't here yet. Bandwidth is terrible in the US, so that makes streaming difficult in most places. And as for storage ... when you regularly see 10TB, 20TB, 50TB SSD drives out there, then you'll be ready. Until then, no.
I think Apple waited until the FCC's net neutrality to pass to update Apple TV. Now Comcast can't block or slowdown streams from Apple.
My first thought exactly! The hardware and subscription services have def been waiting in the wings until net neutrality was in the bag. Why proceed without that and risk usage failure?
I'd buy a 5K iMac ... and then I have a computer too!
Do you really think that people are going to spend that sort of money so they can look at photos? I mean, if you're a professional, or even a prosumer photographer, sure. But again, we're back to it being niche.
To MOST people, the difference won't be enough to justify expenditures.
I think Apple waited until the FCC's net neutrality to pass to update Apple TV. Now Comcast can't block or slowdown streams from Apple.
My first thought exactly! The hardware and subscription services have def been waiting in the wings until net neutrality was in the bag. Why proceed without that and risk usage failure?
Net neutrality likely has little or nothing to do with it. The proposed rules will be challenged in court by ATT, Comcast etc., and it'll be a while before we know what the actual law or regulation is.
Net neutrality likely has little or nothing to do with it. The proposed rules will be challenged in court by ATT, Comcast etc., and it'll be a while before we know what the actual law or regulation is.
As far as the court challenges go, you're correct in theory. However, by the time they happen Apple will already have rolled it out.
with homekit, game controller standardisation and always on siri they've been slowly building towards this. I always thought getting an ipad hooked up to a big screen so that people can enjoy mirroring and also gaming would give them another revenue route. One of the major issues with ios gaming is that you cna't share the experience in your immediate vicinity easily - you can't huddle on a sofa to play a footy game or watch your friends get killed by zombies like you would on consoles. Think an ios game focused apple tv would give the nintendo wii a run for its money
As far as the court challenges go, you're correct in theory. However, by the time they happen Apple will already have rolled it out.
Of course it will have been rolled out (assuming the rumor pans out). So what? That has nothing do with whether someone's pronouncement of net neutrality rules was what gave it the go-ahead for Apple. Especially if the status quo is preserved during the time it's litigated.
An A9 would be nicer, better future proofing and its coming in the Fall anyway. Also it can run hotter because the Apple TV is a plug-in mains device that sits near your TV with no battery-life requirements...anyway quite excited by this rumour and hope its true this time.
I think 4K will always be a niche product, just like 3D. Look at how long it took networks to make the switch to HD. This was fairly recent so I doubt anyone would want to spend money to upgrade all their equipment so they can broadcast in 4K.
why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
I'm thinking they're constrained because of competition; my guess would be in the ballpark of $139 or less. I guess it depends how much storage and other resources the device has. Really looking forward to the new Apple TV, the new app store and writing apps for it.
I believe at a regular TV viewing distance you need to go above 86" before you can tell any resolution difference from 4K over 1080p. In a store you stand two feet from the display, but that's not how anyone watches TV — ever. 4K is all hype and marketing and nothing to do with the world we live in. Don't get me wrong, higher resolution will come to all TVs eventually (it's unavoidable), but as of right now there's no need for it. The benefits are minimal and the costs are nonsensical — bandwidth-wise, broadband-wise, hardware-wise and $-wise.
Comments
Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
Also, 4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
http://www.cnet.com/news/is-now-the-time-to-buy-a-4k-tv/
Read that article. 4k isn't worth it.
Guess what that Apple Watch will be able to do? Yup, control that new Apple TV.
Only with the Apple Watch Edition.
All @Watch models -- Sport, ' ', and Edition -- will control the existing @TV (and I assume, the new one -- if that were in the cards).
Hmm...could this new ?TV remote include force touch/haptic feedback?
You'll just use your iPhone, iPad or Apple watch....I'd be surprised if they sell or bundle a single-purpose haptic remote with Apple TV.
Really? Vinyl sales are at an all time high, and people are switching back to analog formats for the richness of sound vs compressed digital formats. 24/192 uncompressed audio isn't that "niche" anymore. Pono, HDtracks.. ect. It's on the rise. Apple should be ready for it.
Umm, yeah ... no.
Vinyl sales were higher than they have been in the last 30 years, since tracking started. If you think that ~325,000 LPs sold is an "all-time high" then, well, you're high too.
Oh, and just to put this in some kind of perspective for you, 2014's best selling vinyl record was Jack White's "Lazaretto" which sold 87,000 copies.
Now, contrast and compare:
Taylor Swift's "1989" sold approximately 4.5M copies in the 19 weeks it's been out. In its first week -- first WEEK -- it sold approximately 1.3M copies. T-Swizzle has sold, to date, 27M+ copies.
Your "all-time" high leader last year, Jack White, sold a total of 87k. Now, if we figure that Taylor sold 1.3M in one week, that means that "1989" sold 15x as many copies as White's album did in total -- PER DAY.
If that doesn't make this stuff niche, than what does?
Surprised nobody has mentioned DVR capability. If Apple is going to increase the local storage, then why not include DVR capability (at least four channels at same time). This would put them in direct competition with Comcast's X1, which costs $11/mo to rent. Make the new AppleTV cost $130 or so (comparable to one year's X1 rent) and I think they'd have a winner.
It would need to have at least 1TB of DVR storage to attack much interest from those wanting a DVR and certainly wouldn't be the same price as an Airport Extreme ($199). This will come in at about $299, maybe with a 1TB HDD and upgradable to an SSD.
http://www.cnet.com/news/is-now-the-time-to-buy-a-4k-tv/
Read that article. 4k isn't worth it.
nice pile of BS. Go to a store and look at it yourself... I can see the difference at 6 feet on a 50" screen without any problem. The guy say's he start noticing the difference on screen bigger than 70", to me its more like 40". This guy obviously have some problems noticing details.
Really? Vinyl sales are at an all time high, and people are switching back to analog formats for the richness of sound vs compressed digital formats. 24/192 uncompressed audio isn't that "niche" anymore. Pono, HDtracks.. ect. It's on the rise. Apple should be ready for it.
Vinyl sales are not at an "all time high". They are higher now than the '90s and '00s, but not nearly as high as the '60s and '70s.
Yeah, a 4K screen is easily seen as providing a more detailed image than the typical HDTV.
nice pile of BS. Go to a store and look at it yourself... I can see the difference at 6 feet on a 50" screen without any problem. The guy say's he start noticing the difference on screen bigger than 70", to me its more like 40". This guy obviously have some problems noticing details.
The question isn't about whether or not the technology is better. It's about whether anyone (other than technophiles) will care.
Also, the supporting tech just isn't here yet. Bandwidth is terrible in the US, so that makes streaming difficult in most places. And as for storage ... when you regularly see 10TB, 20TB, 50TB SSD drives out there, then you'll be ready. Until then, no.
My first thought exactly! The hardware and subscription services have def been waiting in the wings until net neutrality was in the bag. Why proceed without that and risk usage failure?
It would be worth it just for photo's
OK, why?
I'd buy a 5K iMac ... and then I have a computer too!
Do you really think that people are going to spend that sort of money so they can look at photos? I mean, if you're a professional, or even a prosumer photographer, sure. But again, we're back to it being niche.
To MOST people, the difference won't be enough to justify expenditures.
I think Apple waited until the FCC's net neutrality to pass to update Apple TV. Now Comcast can't block or slowdown streams from Apple.
My first thought exactly! The hardware and subscription services have def been waiting in the wings until net neutrality was in the bag. Why proceed without that and risk usage failure?
Net neutrality likely has little or nothing to do with it. The proposed rules will be challenged in court by ATT, Comcast etc., and it'll be a while before we know what the actual law or regulation is.
Net neutrality likely has little or nothing to do with it. The proposed rules will be challenged in court by ATT, Comcast etc., and it'll be a while before we know what the actual law or regulation is.
As far as the court challenges go, you're correct in theory. However, by the time they happen Apple will already have rolled it out.
As far as the court challenges go, you're correct in theory. However, by the time they happen Apple will already have rolled it out.
Of course it will have been rolled out (assuming the rumor pans out). So what? That has nothing do with whether someone's pronouncement of net neutrality rules was what gave it the go-ahead for Apple. Especially if the status quo is preserved during the time it's litigated.
An A9 would be nicer, better future proofing and its coming in the Fall anyway. Also it can run hotter because the Apple TV is a plug-in mains device that sits near your TV with no battery-life requirements...anyway quite excited by this rumour and hope its true this time.
I think 4K will always be a niche product, just like 3D. Look at how long it took networks to make the switch to HD. This was fairly recent so I doubt anyone would want to spend money to upgrade all their equipment so they can broadcast in 4K.
why does broadcast TV even matter when talking about Apple TV? Apple TV is a streaming device, not a broadcast device. 4K is already happening. Netflix streams 4k, Amazon streams 4K, Sony has a 4K service, the stores are full of 4K TVs (which are coming down in price), 4K Blu Ray is coming this fall, etc. Sure, content is limited now, but the amount of content will only grow over time.
Can't wait to play game on the AppleTV.
I wonder how much?
$199?
$299?
I'm thinking they're constrained because of competition; my guess would be in the ballpark of $139 or less. I guess it depends how much storage and other resources the device has. Really looking forward to the new Apple TV, the new app store and writing apps for it.
I believe at a regular TV viewing distance you need to go above 86" before you can tell any resolution difference from 4K over 1080p. In a store you stand two feet from the display, but that's not how anyone watches TV — ever. 4K is all hype and marketing and nothing to do with the world we live in. Don't get me wrong, higher resolution will come to all TVs eventually (it's unavoidable), but as of right now there's no need for it. The benefits are minimal and the costs are nonsensical — bandwidth-wise, broadband-wise, hardware-wise and $-wise.