LACK OF STORAGE: A single 2-hour 4K movie would need 300 GB of STORAGE. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to give each AppleTV a 500 GB Solid State Drive to house the operating system and ONE 4K movie since this would add $200 to the cost of the AppleTV.
LACK OF INTERNET CAPACITY: Streaming a single 2-hour 4K movie would also quickly bring consumers past their 250GB Monthly Cable Data Caps. This would add an additional $30 to $50 a month to their monthly internet bills for simply watching a single 4K movie. Most consumers also don't even have the internet capacity to stream a single 250GB movie into their homes.
LACK OF COMPUTER STORAGE: And if Apple added the capacity to DOWNLOAD a 4K movie, consumers will quickly ran out of storage space. Three movies, and your 1 TB hard drive is FULL. Twelve movies and your 4 TB external hard drive is FULL. And what if consumers have to back up their hard drive? That would be at least another 4 TB external hard drive for their miserable 12-movie iTunes collection. Two 4-GB hard drives to house 12 4K movies in iTunes would cost the consumer another $300.
NEED 4K TV AND 4K COMPUTER: What about the 4K Television the consumer has to buy? 4K won't play on a standard 1080p computer screen, so a consumer will also have to spend another $1000 for a new computer monitor. Actually, they might as well spring for a whole new computer to handle the data.
COST: So the costs keeps going up for consumers wanting 4K video on AppleTV. It adds $200 to the cost of AppleTV. It would cost consumers at least $30-$50 a month more on their internet bill to watch 2 or more 4K videos a month. It would require them to spend another $300 for storage of only 12 4K movies. It would require them to purchase a new 4K TV and a 4K Computer - at least a $3000+ expenditure. Then how much would each 4K movie cost? $50 per movie is very realistic.
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME: 4K Video is NOT ready for prime time for the vast majority of consumers. So do not expect 4K Video on the AppleTV. Apple will let others lead the way and make fools of themselves first.
I few others already point this out, your numbers are way off, due to compression and other technique 4k is not that big of a data hog. It is less then 4x of your standard HD content today. There are other issue besides this storage and such which does not make it practiable to use. Right not 4K is purely a marketing gimmick and nothing more thus apple reason not to play. It adds cost and with not measurable return for the consumer.
With that said the media industry is looking at other methods to provide a better viewing experience without the need to go to 4K. For 4K to have any value to the end user there are many factors which have to be right and most people will never spend the time or money to make it happen.
The phrase "will not support" is an open can of worms. Apple would be stupid to ship the next generation hardware and not include the ability for the hardware to support 4K. Now, if they determine to not make use of it in software yet for various reasons, I would understand that. But to specifically limit the hardware (which is non-upgradeable, as opposed to a software update later down the road) would be plain ignorant.
great great post---give me content ---this talk of 4k reminds about how we were convinced 3-d was what we needed, no content and 30-40% of people couldn't see "the 3-D "
this tech salivation spec-gasm must stop(but won't) i love my 720 atv 2 because it GIVES ME ACCESS
its all about access, content and choice--so lets have it
also can i get an answer about compression i read somewhere that the 1080 from ? doesn't use much more data than 720--is that true??
you know as cable becomes simply a pipe they will recoup losses by charging more or setting data caps we must be efficient
? needs to get into the content production end create more stuff bypass the cable mess
3D was misunderstood. People expected it to be like color or HD where all content would benefit. That was never the point. 3D was about being able to watch a movie like Avatar in 3D as was intended. Watching Avatar in 2D is like watching the wizard of OZ in black and white. Unlike color or even HD, though, it was never expected that all content would eventually be in 3D. Studios when through a phase where they forced 3D, including converting movies previously released on 2D into 3D. Now it's going through the reverse phase where content that was designs for and released as 3D isn't being released in 3D for home. Hopefully the right balance will eventually found.
For Ultra HD, there clearly is benefit from higher resolution. That's why Apple makes retina displays and why people pay extra to see movies in iMax theaters. Ultra HD had the potential to bring iMax quality to the home. Not on the same size screen you use now, but on larger screens (and rear projectors) that bring the immersive movie theater experience home. Sporting events will also benefit from higher resolution and larger screens. The goal should be to have a game look as clear from home as it would if you were there in the prime seats.
The bandwidth concerns have also been overblown. According to this
The average bandwidth in the US is 34.6 Mbps with some states averaging over 40 Mbps. Netflix 4K streaming requires 15-20 Mbps. The average american has enough bandwidth to stream a 4K show.
Content is limited but is only going to increase as more and more movies are now being mastered for 4K. And games would also benefit from 4K.
Finally, since when has Apple been a follower and not a leader in embracing new technology? Has Apple ever looked at what the installed base for a technology is today vs what the installed base of that technology will look like in a few years?
The article itself doesn't make any sense. What does "won't support initially" even mean? Either is it has the capacity to output 4K or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then a new model would have to be released to support 4K. It it does, then it would make no sense at all for it to have a version of the Netflix app that doesn't stream their 4K movies.
Taking into account this is just speculation, it would be rather disappointing if a 2015 ATV did not have 4K support. Nvidia's $199 SHIELD console uses their high end Tegra X1 chip, which offers support for 4K 60FPS (VP9, H.265, H.264). Performance for applications or games should also be very high.
It would be interesting to see if Apple would try to take on gaming in the living room considering the 2015 ATV will offer app support, but with PowerVR 7XT coming later this year, it would seem more likely in a 2016 version.
For Ultra HD, there clearly is benefit from higher resolution. That's why Apple makes retina displays and why people pay extra to see movies in iMax theaters. Ultra HD had the potential to bring iMax quality to the home. Not on the same size screen you use now, but on larger screens (and rear projectors) that bring the immersive movie theater experience home. Sporting events will also benefit from higher resolution and larger screens. The goal should be to have a game look as clear from home as it would if you were there in the prime seats.
Lol... Apple wouldn't give the shi.t about iMax for home because it's unrealistic...oh yeah 8ft-ceiling houses in America? Lol April Fool just passed.
It's all about the content. Cook and Co are pretty clearly interested in a great user experience first and foremost. Herky-jerky downloads will really destroy that, and Apple won't roll out a technology that does that. The bandwidth issues are significant.
The AppleTV UI really does need some work. I'm guessing one of the new compatible controllers will be apple watch.
It is also possible (although less liely) we will see a line of Apple TV form factors. A stick version and a puck shape, for example.
It is also possible (although less likely) we will see a line of Apple TV form factors. A stick version and a puck shape, for example.
That would be interesting. There are a number of different form factors that Apple could explore for a more entry level based ATV.
One of them, which to no one's surprise already looks like an Apple product, is the Xiaomi Mi Box mini ($30).
I'll give them credit, the form factor and simplicity in the design is rather nice, but when it comes to the way they market the device... I mean really?
?TV are not very expensive so when 4k content arrives, if it is not supported, you just buy another ?TV. Almost every thread about ?TV someone posts that they have three or more of them in their home. Personally, I'm going to wait until the networks start broadcasting in 4k before I'm investing in a new 4k TV.
The only thing that can enhance 3D and enhance resolution after 4K is holographic presentations.
I imagine a holographic Projector being like a mini stage performance.
To increase realism (if that is the goal), then the thing that matters is a decent resolution (2K Is acceptable), but more important is the frame rate. When you hit 60 FPS that seems to be a sweet spot, according to Doug Trumbell.
The average bandwidth in the US is 34.6 Mbps with some states averaging over 40 Mbps. Netflix 4K streaming requires 15-20 Mbps. The average american has enough bandwidth to stream a 4K show.
I looked at your source, and it isn't clear it is referring to "average" in US. Given majority of my career is in telecom, I know those numbers don't jive at all with reality. Here is a link based on the Akamai report of average broadband speeds in many countries.
Report is from Oct. 2014, and the average broadband speed in the US was 11.4Mbps. It is growing slowly. Don't forget that maximum broadband based on what is advertised, and the average that a household can get at any one time (especially during peak times) are different as ALL broadband lines are over subscribed regardless of technology (they are just over subscribed at different points in the network).
Anyways, the broadband speeds are extremely relevant in ability to offer a 4K streaming service today. With H.265/HEVC it can be reality, but you are still looking at about 2x bandwidth required per stream compared to what current HD is with H.264/AVC today. And I think many people would argue that current HD content (either streamed or from cable/Telco/Satellite) is very compressed & so picture quality is suffering. Also to note that "live TV" streaming has different bandwidth requirements than on-demand content which can be better compressed off-line. And film content (24 fps) is more easily compressed that TV content (30 fps).
I agree that, as a consumer, I think Apple would be well served by having the technology in the next-gen Apple TV that can be activated to support 4K when it hits the sweet spot in the future. But right now, 4K would only be very niche.
What is the point in compressing the sh*t out of 4K resolution content to make it viable for streaming? That is going to be a worse visual experience than using H.265 with 1080P video for a less-compressed, better quality picture.
Lol... Apple wouldn't give the shi.t about iMax for home because it's unrealistic...oh yeah 8ft-ceiling houses in America? Lol April Fool just passed.
screen size, distance to screen and resolution are what it takes to get iMax quality. Plenty of people today have movie theater quality at home with the same immersive movie theater experience, only it's built for 4 to 15 people instead of 200-1000 people.
4k - ha! As overcompressed as HD on cable is (just pull a raw uncompressed over the air HD signal to get an idea of what you are missing) I can only imagine 4k would be so overcompressed that HD would look far better in comparison.
People pushing for 4k are no better than the idiots pining for 30 megapixel cameras in smartphones - not understanding how pixel size has a huge impact on image quality, esp with low light. I wonder if Neil Young is a big 4k proponent too...
There is some confusion out there regarding compression, off-air channels, etc. The content that is delivered over-the-air (part of the ATSC specification in the US) is compressed, but it is generally compressed less than cable/Telco/sat & streaming like Netflix. The bandwidth available in a channel using ATSC is about 19Mbps (although not all broadcasters use that amount - may share it with an SD version), but it is also MPEG-2 codec. But most of the Pay-TV providers compress the signal more, as there are so many bloody channels to send today. So even though all content is HD (1080 or 720 resolution specs), quality varies, and many will agree it can look quite poor on bigger screens.
Uncompressed HD video (1080p with 10-bit colour depth) has a bandwidth of ~1.2Gbps (yes, that is "gigabits"). To fit within the available b/w of ATSC, cable, broadband etc, all content is heavily compressed (as you can see, on the order of about 100:1).
The best use IMO of the new H.265/HEVC codec is to enable better quality HD 1080p content with a reduced bandwidth. That would give everyone with an HD TV a better quality picture service. Also to note, almost all "live TV" services like cable/sat/IPTV don't stream 1080p - it is 1080i or 720p. A 1080p H.265 service by Apple could become the best picture quality available.
That said, the rumour last week that Apple is trying to get the TV channels to do all of the streaming would mean that likely doesn't happen...:( Hopefully that rumour is incorrect.
Especially in this era of an Apple that pushes Retina everything.
Doesn't matter how many content providers offer content up to 4k.
What matters is that you are not locked out of that content as a PENALTY for buying Apple TV.
Ridiculous not to offer the capability.
people said the same about lack of LTE on the iphone. then NFC. apple -- somehow -- managed to survive until those things had matured and actually added value to their devices, rather than checking off boxes.
So you are going to view 4k on the same crappy LCD technology that's prevelent today? Crappy tech that couldn't show a high contrast black scene if it's life depended on it? People put up with grey goo (and movies with dark scenes look like crap) and the manufacturers are agitating about 4k?!?!?!
Ugh. I hope my plasma lasts long enough to get me to OLED or something better. Something without a !@?$#*^ backlight for crying out loud.
ditto. my plasma offers a better picture than LCD and i cant stand the blue-black-gray of backlit illumination. ill wait until theres a suitable replacement for it.
That said, if it costs Apple nothing to allow 4k streaming on the next AppleTV from third party sources then they should include it. I don't think they should support 4k on iTunes or with their new streaming TV service but if people have the bandwidth to watch Netflix4k then they should be able to.
I do think the "report" is merely someones speculation though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Deezy
The phrase "will not support" is an open can of worms. Apple would be stupid to ship the next generation hardware and not include the ability for the hardware to support 4K. Now, if they determine to not make use of it in software yet for various reasons, I would understand that. But to specifically limit the hardware (which is non-upgradeable, as opposed to a software update later down the road) would be plain ignorant.
The hardware to support 4k would certainly have some incremental cost over supporting 1080p. It's not just the decoder chip that would need upgrading. You'd likely want more flash to buffer the stream, RAM for processing, output hardware, etc. It probably would be a small increase, but look at how stingy Apple has been historically wtih things like iPad RAM. Apple seldom over provisions their hardware. They'd rather you come back in 2 years and buy new hardware from them. Non-upgradable hardware turns into more profit for Apple when it comes time to upgrade.
And why in the world would Apple allow a 3rd party provider like Netflix offer 4k on AppleTV if iTunes does not yet offer 4k content? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
I don't think I saw it mentioned here, but just what % of homes even have 4k TVs? Even if there were no incremental hardware cost to implement and if content and bandwidth were readily available, how many people would it really benefit? In a few more years, sure there will be more people with 4k TVs (althrough still not perhaps a critical mass), but that will also be when Apple wants you to buy another AppleTV, not be able to just keep using the one you bought 2 years earlier.
Finally, I can't help but think back to the days when there were higher resolution audio formats that the industry tried to push but people never really bought into. They went past the "good enough" standard for the vast majority of people so the formats essentially were DOA. I'm not saying 4k is DOA, but considering that most of the content people are currently watching (cable/satellite) isn't even 1080p, you have to wonder. People want something better than today's 720p/1080i, which is usually highly compressed. But what if you took just half the bandwidth 4k would require, and use it instead to stream a high-quality 1080p. What that be "good enough" for the vast majority? I think it would. And nearly all of today's hardware (TVs and set-top boxes) would already support it and the bandwidth requirements would be a bit more reasonable.
Of course that won't happed because so much of the industry's profit is probably driven by convincing people that they need to upgrade to the lastest and greatest technology. Electronics are essentially considered disposable these days. (Which obligates me to mention that my 50-year old floor-standing, console stereo/phonograph still works thank-you-very-much...gotta love tube technology!)
Even now, if I copy a Blu-ray uncompressed to my hard drive, it is 30-40 GB, but the same movie on iTunes would be about 4-5 GB for the same 1080p definition.
You do realise there is a massive difference between the movie you get from iTunes, and from a Blu-ray? You can't directly compare them
Yes, I have to agree that compression was ignored in the arguments put forth by @jameskatt2.
Even now, if I copy a Blu-ray uncompressed to my hard drive, it is 30-40 GB, but the same movie on iTunes would be about 4-5 GB for the same 1080p definition.
The content on a Blu-ray disk is compressed - just not as much as iTunes or other services. An uncompressed HD 1080p video file (e.g. 2 hours worth of content) could be over 1TB.
screen size, distance to screen and resolution are what it takes to get iMax quality. Plenty of people today have movie theater quality at home with the same immersive movie theater experience, only it's built for 4 to 15 people instead of 200-1000 people.
When you say many....meaning 1 out of 1 million/10 millions? Beside, iMax is different technology where 2 cameras are required in the theater to give you that kind of experience. At home with 8 ft ceiling for most people, it's a joke. You know it right?
I don't have many 4K movies for my TV nor do I think I will have many more in the near future but I would have liked 4K for the UI. I was looking forward to the new Apple TV but I'm going to skip this iteration for the new Nvidia Shield Set Box, X1 CPU, 4K out, 3GB RAM, awesome port collection, etc. I mean this thing is just incredible, super fast if not the fastest and will be the most feature rich TV gadget on the market, for only 200 it's a must have. Will be a perfect addition to multimedia setup. I don't buy my media online as I rip purchased blurays so this is a no brainer. I'm actually going to buy two to start and install Linux on one, hopefully I can make a rendering node and other Linux based projects as the GPU and CPU is just incredible.
I don't have many 4K movies for my TV nor do I think I will have many more in the near future but I would have liked 4K for the UI. I was looking forward to the new Apple TV but I'm going to skip it for the new Nvidia Shield Set Box, X1 CPU, 4K out, 3GB RAM, etc. Makes it the fastest and the most feature rich TV gadget on the market, for only 200 it's a must have. Will be a perfect addition to my multimedia setup, I have a ChromeBox and Minix(love this thing). I don't buy much media online as I rip purchased blurays so this is a no brainer. I'm actually going to buy two to start and install Linux on one, hopefully I can make a rendering mode out of it as the GPU is just incredible. [IMG]http://tech4u.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nvidia_shield_evi_04_03_2015.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--EiAlrfHD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/vjgp6mmpenxmqegnnifb.jpg[/IMG]
Comments
I few others already point this out, your numbers are way off, due to compression and other technique 4k is not that big of a data hog. It is less then 4x of your standard HD content today. There are other issue besides this storage and such which does not make it practiable to use. Right not 4K is purely a marketing gimmick and nothing more thus apple reason not to play. It adds cost and with not measurable return for the consumer.
With that said the media industry is looking at other methods to provide a better viewing experience without the need to go to 4K. For 4K to have any value to the end user there are many factors which have to be right and most people will never spend the time or money to make it happen.
The phrase "will not support" is an open can of worms. Apple would be stupid to ship the next generation hardware and not include the ability for the hardware to support 4K. Now, if they determine to not make use of it in software yet for various reasons, I would understand that. But to specifically limit the hardware (which is non-upgradeable, as opposed to a software update later down the road) would be plain ignorant.
great great post---give me content ---this talk of 4k reminds about how we were convinced 3-d was what we needed, no content and 30-40% of people couldn't see "the 3-D "
this tech salivation spec-gasm must stop(but won't) i love my 720 atv 2 because it GIVES ME ACCESS
its all about access, content and choice--so lets have it
also can i get an answer about compression i read somewhere that the 1080 from ? doesn't use much more data than 720--is that true??
you know as cable becomes simply a pipe they will recoup losses by charging more or setting data caps we must be efficient
? needs to get into the content production end create more stuff bypass the cable mess
3D was misunderstood. People expected it to be like color or HD where all content would benefit. That was never the point. 3D was about being able to watch a movie like Avatar in 3D as was intended. Watching Avatar in 2D is like watching the wizard of OZ in black and white. Unlike color or even HD, though, it was never expected that all content would eventually be in 3D. Studios when through a phase where they forced 3D, including converting movies previously released on 2D into 3D. Now it's going through the reverse phase where content that was designs for and released as 3D isn't being released in 3D for home. Hopefully the right balance will eventually found.
For Ultra HD, there clearly is benefit from higher resolution. That's why Apple makes retina displays and why people pay extra to see movies in iMax theaters. Ultra HD had the potential to bring iMax quality to the home. Not on the same size screen you use now, but on larger screens (and rear projectors) that bring the immersive movie theater experience home. Sporting events will also benefit from higher resolution and larger screens. The goal should be to have a game look as clear from home as it would if you were there in the prime seats.
The bandwidth concerns have also been overblown. According to this
http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/
The average bandwidth in the US is 34.6 Mbps with some states averaging over 40 Mbps. Netflix 4K streaming requires 15-20 Mbps. The average american has enough bandwidth to stream a 4K show.
Content is limited but is only going to increase as more and more movies are now being mastered for 4K. And games would also benefit from 4K.
Finally, since when has Apple been a follower and not a leader in embracing new technology? Has Apple ever looked at what the installed base for a technology is today vs what the installed base of that technology will look like in a few years?
The article itself doesn't make any sense. What does "won't support initially" even mean? Either is it has the capacity to output 4K or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then a new model would have to be released to support 4K. It it does, then it would make no sense at all for it to have a version of the Netflix app that doesn't stream their 4K movies.
It would be interesting to see if Apple would try to take on gaming in the living room considering the 2015 ATV will offer app support, but with PowerVR 7XT coming later this year, it would seem more likely in a 2016 version.
It's all about the content. Cook and Co are pretty clearly interested in a great user experience first and foremost. Herky-jerky downloads will really destroy that, and Apple won't roll out a technology that does that. The bandwidth issues are significant.
The AppleTV UI really does need some work. I'm guessing one of the new compatible controllers will be apple watch.
It is also possible (although less liely) we will see a line of Apple TV form factors. A stick version and a puck shape, for example.
It is also possible (although less likely) we will see a line of Apple TV form factors. A stick version and a puck shape, for example.
That would be interesting. There are a number of different form factors that Apple could explore for a more entry level based ATV.
One of them, which to no one's surprise already looks like an Apple product, is the Xiaomi Mi Box mini ($30).
I'll give them credit, the form factor and simplicity in the design is rather nice, but when it comes to the way they market the device... I mean really?
?TV are not very expensive so when 4k content arrives, if it is not supported, you just buy another ?TV. Almost every thread about ?TV someone posts that they have three or more of them in their home. Personally, I'm going to wait until the networks start broadcasting in 4k before I'm investing in a new 4k TV.
To increase realism (if that is the goal), then the thing that matters is a decent resolution (2K Is acceptable), but more important is the frame rate. When you hit 60 FPS that seems to be a sweet spot, according to Doug Trumbell.
The bandwidth concerns have also been overblown. According to this
http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/
The average bandwidth in the US is 34.6 Mbps with some states averaging over 40 Mbps. Netflix 4K streaming requires 15-20 Mbps. The average american has enough bandwidth to stream a 4K show.
I looked at your source, and it isn't clear it is referring to "average" in US. Given majority of my career is in telecom, I know those numbers don't jive at all with reality. Here is a link based on the Akamai report of average broadband speeds in many countries.
http://readwrite.com/2014/10/08/us-broadband-speed-global-rank-akamai-report
Report is from Oct. 2014, and the average broadband speed in the US was 11.4Mbps. It is growing slowly. Don't forget that maximum broadband based on what is advertised, and the average that a household can get at any one time (especially during peak times) are different as ALL broadband lines are over subscribed regardless of technology (they are just over subscribed at different points in the network).
Anyways, the broadband speeds are extremely relevant in ability to offer a 4K streaming service today. With H.265/HEVC it can be reality, but you are still looking at about 2x bandwidth required per stream compared to what current HD is with H.264/AVC today. And I think many people would argue that current HD content (either streamed or from cable/Telco/Satellite) is very compressed & so picture quality is suffering. Also to note that "live TV" streaming has different bandwidth requirements than on-demand content which can be better compressed off-line. And film content (24 fps) is more easily compressed that TV content (30 fps).
I agree that, as a consumer, I think Apple would be well served by having the technology in the next-gen Apple TV that can be activated to support 4K when it hits the sweet spot in the future. But right now, 4K would only be very niche.
What is the point in compressing the sh*t out of 4K resolution content to make it viable for streaming? That is going to be a worse visual experience than using H.265 with 1080P video for a less-compressed, better quality picture.
Lol... Apple wouldn't give the shi.t about iMax for home because it's unrealistic...oh yeah 8ft-ceiling houses in America? Lol April Fool just passed.
screen size, distance to screen and resolution are what it takes to get iMax quality. Plenty of people today have movie theater quality at home with the same immersive movie theater experience, only it's built for 4 to 15 people instead of 200-1000 people.
4k - ha! As overcompressed as HD on cable is (just pull a raw uncompressed over the air HD signal to get an idea of what you are missing) I can only imagine 4k would be so overcompressed that HD would look far better in comparison.
People pushing for 4k are no better than the idiots pining for 30 megapixel cameras in smartphones - not understanding how pixel size has a huge impact on image quality, esp with low light. I wonder if Neil Young is a big 4k proponent too...
There is some confusion out there regarding compression, off-air channels, etc. The content that is delivered over-the-air (part of the ATSC specification in the US) is compressed, but it is generally compressed less than cable/Telco/sat & streaming like Netflix. The bandwidth available in a channel using ATSC is about 19Mbps (although not all broadcasters use that amount - may share it with an SD version), but it is also MPEG-2 codec. But most of the Pay-TV providers compress the signal more, as there are so many bloody channels to send today. So even though all content is HD (1080 or 720 resolution specs), quality varies, and many will agree it can look quite poor on bigger screens.
Uncompressed HD video (1080p with 10-bit colour depth) has a bandwidth of ~1.2Gbps (yes, that is "gigabits"). To fit within the available b/w of ATSC, cable, broadband etc, all content is heavily compressed (as you can see, on the order of about 100:1).
The best use IMO of the new H.265/HEVC codec is to enable better quality HD 1080p content with a reduced bandwidth. That would give everyone with an HD TV a better quality picture service. Also to note, almost all "live TV" services like cable/sat/IPTV don't stream 1080p - it is 1080i or 720p. A 1080p H.265 service by Apple could become the best picture quality available.
That said, the rumour last week that Apple is trying to get the TV channels to do all of the streaming would mean that likely doesn't happen...:( Hopefully that rumour is incorrect.
No 4k is a mistake.
Especially in this era of an Apple that pushes Retina everything.
Doesn't matter how many content providers offer content up to 4k.
What matters is that you are not locked out of that content as a PENALTY for buying Apple TV.
Ridiculous not to offer the capability.
people said the same about lack of LTE on the iphone. then NFC. apple -- somehow -- managed to survive until those things had matured and actually added value to their devices, rather than checking off boxes.
So you are going to view 4k on the same crappy LCD technology that's prevelent today? Crappy tech that couldn't show a high contrast black scene if it's life depended on it? People put up with grey goo (and movies with dark scenes look like crap) and the manufacturers are agitating about 4k?!?!?!
Ugh. I hope my plasma lasts long enough to get me to OLED or something better. Something without a !@?$#*^ backlight for crying out loud.
ditto. my plasma offers a better picture than LCD and i cant stand the blue-black-gray of backlit illumination. ill wait until theres a suitable replacement for it.
That said, if it costs Apple nothing to allow 4k streaming on the next AppleTV from third party sources then they should include it. I don't think they should support 4k on iTunes or with their new streaming TV service but if people have the bandwidth to watch Netflix4k then they should be able to.
I do think the "report" is merely someones speculation though.
The phrase "will not support" is an open can of worms. Apple would be stupid to ship the next generation hardware and not include the ability for the hardware to support 4K. Now, if they determine to not make use of it in software yet for various reasons, I would understand that. But to specifically limit the hardware (which is non-upgradeable, as opposed to a software update later down the road) would be plain ignorant.
The hardware to support 4k would certainly have some incremental cost over supporting 1080p. It's not just the decoder chip that would need upgrading. You'd likely want more flash to buffer the stream, RAM for processing, output hardware, etc. It probably would be a small increase, but look at how stingy Apple has been historically wtih things like iPad RAM. Apple seldom over provisions their hardware. They'd rather you come back in 2 years and buy new hardware from them. Non-upgradable hardware turns into more profit for Apple when it comes time to upgrade.
And why in the world would Apple allow a 3rd party provider like Netflix offer 4k on AppleTV if iTunes does not yet offer 4k content? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
I don't think I saw it mentioned here, but just what % of homes even have 4k TVs? Even if there were no incremental hardware cost to implement and if content and bandwidth were readily available, how many people would it really benefit? In a few more years, sure there will be more people with 4k TVs (althrough still not perhaps a critical mass), but that will also be when Apple wants you to buy another AppleTV, not be able to just keep using the one you bought 2 years earlier.
Finally, I can't help but think back to the days when there were higher resolution audio formats that the industry tried to push but people never really bought into. They went past the "good enough" standard for the vast majority of people so the formats essentially were DOA. I'm not saying 4k is DOA, but considering that most of the content people are currently watching (cable/satellite) isn't even 1080p, you have to wonder. People want something better than today's 720p/1080i, which is usually highly compressed. But what if you took just half the bandwidth 4k would require, and use it instead to stream a high-quality 1080p. What that be "good enough" for the vast majority? I think it would. And nearly all of today's hardware (TVs and set-top boxes) would already support it and the bandwidth requirements would be a bit more reasonable.
Of course that won't happed because so much of the industry's profit is probably driven by convincing people that they need to upgrade to the lastest and greatest technology. Electronics are essentially considered disposable these days. (Which obligates me to mention that my 50-year old floor-standing, console stereo/phonograph still works thank-you-very-much...gotta love tube technology!)
You do realise there is a massive difference between the movie you get from iTunes, and from a Blu-ray? You can't directly compare them
Yes, I have to agree that compression was ignored in the arguments put forth by @jameskatt2.
Even now, if I copy a Blu-ray uncompressed to my hard drive, it is 30-40 GB, but the same movie on iTunes would be about 4-5 GB for the same 1080p definition.
The content on a Blu-ray disk is compressed - just not as much as iTunes or other services. An uncompressed HD 1080p video file (e.g. 2 hours worth of content) could be over 1TB.
screen size, distance to screen and resolution are what it takes to get iMax quality. Plenty of people today have movie theater quality at home with the same immersive movie theater experience, only it's built for 4 to 15 people instead of 200-1000 people.
When you say many....meaning 1 out of 1 million/10 millions? Beside, iMax is different technology where 2 cameras are required in the theater to give you that kind of experience. At home with 8 ft ceiling for most people, it's a joke. You know it right?
[IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--EiAlrfHD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/vjgp6mmpenxmqegnnifb.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://tech4u.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nvidia_shield_evi_04_03_2015.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://tech4u.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nvidia_shield_evi_04_03_2015.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--EiAlrfHD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/vjgp6mmpenxmqegnnifb.jpg[/IMG]