People are either wholly ignorant of Apple, their history and how they manage content such as videos, as it relates to 4K, or they're just here to spew a bunch of negative comments like drunken high school kids thinking it's funny to throw a flaming bag of turds on someone's front porch.
Let's set aside compression and codecs, let's set aside bandwidth limitations, let's set aside storage requirements for the moment.
The big issue with 4K is that there isn't an adequate amount of content in which to populate the iTunes store, and Apple doesn't turn on support for these things until they can provide an adequate experience by offering content that is available in their store. The stores are there to ensure the experience of their devices is maximised, and when they turn on 4K support, they'll first populate their online store with 4K content.
The number of 4K sets out there, that's important (and right numbers are insignificant), the number of homes that have bandwidth connections that prevent or severely restrict streaming and downloading (hugely significant), these are also important, but most important is that there just isn't a "mainstream amount" of content out there for Apple to jump on board yet. This is Apple, it's how they always do things. This is how they managed the jump to 1080p, this is how 4K will be managed, if you're surprised about this you are either ignorant of Apple, the 4K market or you're just here to smear your bags of flaming shit across these threads. My money is on the last, so STFU and GTFO.
The big issue with 4K is that there isn't an adequate amount of content in which to populate the iTunes store, and Apple doesn't turn on support for these things until they can provide an adequate experience by offering content that is available in their store. The stores are there to ensure the experience of their devices is maximised, and when they turn on 4K support, they'll first populate their online store with 4K content
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
You're dreaming. Even on this forum I can just about hear everyone yawning. This was a pathetic update.
Bullcrap. This is going to be a fantastic streamer. I am really looking forward to this. If you're one of those dorks that buys all the expensive consoles, controllers, games, then no this isn't for you. If you're like most people, who loves the sort of games you can get for free or a couple bucks on an iPhone or iPad, this thing will freaking rock. If the games are like Wii games, that's good to me. I like the Wii and this will replace one.
My ISP provides me 100 Mbps (360 000 Mbp hour), which is 45 GB per hour. I'd say I can do it.
I have no data cap, though I understand you yanks tend to have to deal with that problem, which complicates things for sure.
You yanks? Here in London I get 152Mbps (well, "up to"), and yet last I read only 10 - 15% of the households in the UK (meaning the rest of the UK) had adequate bandwidth which could handle 4K streaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
Recently I read an article where someone quantified the total content as less than 500 hours. Yes, there are a few people who think that one show, two shows, even a channel that devotes a programme or ten, is enough, but that isn't mainstream enough, that's simply not enough content, 4K is still just too niche for Apple.
You think Apple wouldn't like to rent or sell you new content? When it becomes available I'm sure they'll be very happy to do so, assuming everyone can download or stream it, store it and play it on 4K sets. Until then, it's not hit the magic tipping point.
Why is this such a surprise?
Perhaps Apple did this just to be mean, or perhaps they did this to provide fodder for people who love nothing more than earning cool points by posting negative (mostly one line) comments on the internets.
It's quite simple, Apple will have looked at the number of households out there with 4K sets, and of that number, how many will have bandwidth capable of streaming 4K content, and of that number, how many would choose one or more titles of the existing library of 4K content ==> call this "the opportunity." I've no idea what Apple's magic number is, but I'd bet "the opportunity" is so small it makes no sense to even guess what Apple's is, because "the opportunity" is so small that it's nowhere near where Apple would want it to be before they would even think about supporting 4K in this device.
Again, why is this such a surprise?
What I think is that people aren't ignorant or stupid, they know Apple, they know the market and either they demand Apple develop for their niche position (and criticise them for not), or they don't care about any of that and they're just here to bitch about Apple, because, well, it's what the cool kids do.
Recently I read an article where someone quantified the total content as less than 500 hours. Yes, there are a few people who think that one show, two shows, even a channel that devotes a programme or ten, is enough, but that isn't mainstream enough, that's simply not enough content, 4K is still just too niche for Apple.
You think Apple wouldn't like to rent or sell you new content? When it becomes available I'm sure they'll be very happy to do so, assuming everyone can download or stream it, store it and play it on 4K sets. Until then, it's not hit the magic tipping point.
Why is this such a surprise?
Perhaps Apple did this just to be mean, or perhaps they did this to provide fodder for people who love nothing more than earning cool points by posting negative (mostly one line) comments on the internets.
It's quite simple, Apple will have looked at the number of households out there with 4K sets, and of that number, how many will have bandwidth capable of streaming 4K content, and of that number, how many would choose one or more titles of the existing library of 4K content ==> call this "the opportunity." I've no idea what Apple's magic number is, but I'd bet "the opportunity" is so small it makes no sense to even guess what Apple's is, because "the opportunity" is so small that it's nowhere near where Apple would want it to be before they would even think about supporting 4K in this device.
Again, why is this such a surprise?
What I think is that people aren't ignorant or stupid, they know Apple, they know the market and either they demand Apple develop for their niche position (and criticise them for not), or they don't care about any of that and they're just here to bitch about Apple, because, well, it's what the cool kids do.
Do we know for certain that Apple TV cannot support 4K?
Yep.
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz
Wouldn't it have made more sense to start on the A9X, so game authors would have the absolute latest to work with?
Yep. But Apple can’t even meet demand for the A9 in the iPhone, so they deferred to the better-selling product and gave the Apple TV what was left. Same will go for the iPad Pro, I imagine.
Why no A8X, then, is a matter of the time-honored tradition of Apple not just throwing the best hardware available into any given product.
Maybe 1 out of 100 people know the difference between DD+ and Dolby HD.
And probabily only 1 out of 200 can HEAR the difference.
And only 1 in 1000 have equipment that can actually take advantage of true uncompressed audio.
And your comparison of a bluray player that does 1 thing compared to an AppleTV that will do hundreds of things is silly. Of course the specialized device will have the advantage even at a cheaper price.
Dude. You are an Audio/Videophile. Thats not a dig. I am too. I have a dedicated projector room with a 115 inch screen and a 7.1 speaker system. Hell my walls in the room are smoke black. But I understand what Apple is doing. They are not going to focus on guys like us. They are focused on the mass market.
Now you made some senses there. Some dudes just can't stop complaining why ATV didn't have all the bells and whistles. Apple never did that. Bells and Whistles only come when the time is right and they benefit the mass, not a few people.
I wish Apple didn't discontinue the optical port, but I don't complain. My old receiver needs to be replaced anyway. I have 135" projector in my living room connected to ATV3 with HDMI while an optical cable is connected from ATV to my receiver. Now, I need to get a new hi end receiver with bunch of HDMI and a few optical ports (nice to have), Airplay, Wifi, 4K+pass through, HD sound like new Integra or Marantz receivers and keep it for the next 20 years. Over time we need to get rid of old devices with obsolete technology unless it's a McIntosh or such.
Yep. But Apple can’t even meet demand for the A9 in the iPhone, so they deferred to the better-selling product and gave the Apple TV what was left. Same will go for the iPad Pro, I imagine.
Why no A8X, then, is a matter of the time-honored tradition of Apple not just throwing the best hardware available into any given product.
I would bet that it's because of cost to keep the price at $149 with the new kick ass remote. Also, since ATV is no longer a hobby device, Apple will update it more often like 2 years or so. That means we will see more capable ATV with time in the next few years. I would bet that the next 4K capable ATV will be released some time in 2017 when 4K is widely adopted.
Apple will update it more often like 2 years or so.
I sort of hope every year. At least if they do it next year we can get an A9 and 4K support, EARLY, before the competitors sell the statistic to everyone else.
Apple will update it more often like 2 years or so.
I sort of hope every year. At least if they do it next year we can get an A9 and 4K support, EARLY, before the competitors sell the statistic to everyone else.
4K streaming boxes are already on the market.
Nvidia, Sony, and Samsung all have have 4K streaming boxes you can buy right now.
Whether or not they are worth the money or are what the consumer wants to buy is another question. But they are here now.
Comments
LOLLOOLOLOLLOLOLLLOOOLOLOLLOLLOOLOL!
go have fun with your Samsung TV.
Thank you, I do have fun with my Samsung TV. ?7072 posts, do you do this for a living?
People are either wholly ignorant of Apple, their history and how they manage content such as videos, as it relates to 4K, or they're just here to spew a bunch of negative comments like drunken high school kids thinking it's funny to throw a flaming bag of turds on someone's front porch.
Let's set aside compression and codecs, let's set aside bandwidth limitations, let's set aside storage requirements for the moment.
The big issue with 4K is that there isn't an adequate amount of content in which to populate the iTunes store, and Apple doesn't turn on support for these things until they can provide an adequate experience by offering content that is available in their store. The stores are there to ensure the experience of their devices is maximised, and when they turn on 4K support, they'll first populate their online store with 4K content.
The number of 4K sets out there, that's important (and right numbers are insignificant), the number of homes that have bandwidth connections that prevent or severely restrict streaming and downloading (hugely significant), these are also important, but most important is that there just isn't a "mainstream amount" of content out there for Apple to jump on board yet. This is Apple, it's how they always do things. This is how they managed the jump to 1080p, this is how 4K will be managed, if you're surprised about this you are either ignorant of Apple, the 4K market or you're just here to smear your bags of flaming shit across these threads. My money is on the last, so STFU and GTFO.
Does not matter.
How the hell are you going to deliver the content?
A true 4k movie is over 100 GB. Does that sound reasonable to stream a file that size?
I mean seriously. Even the $400 Xbox and Playstation does not support 4k. And you expect a $149 AppleTV to support it?
Hell the PS4 can BARELY get buy displaying 1080p graphics at decent frame rates.
My ISP provides me 100 Mbps (360 000 Mbp hour), which is 45 GB per hour. I'd say I can do it.
I have no data cap, though I understand you yanks tend to have to deal with that problem, which complicates things for sure.
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
The PS4 has no issue displaying 1080p graphics are decent frame rates, can explain what you are meaning?
You're dreaming. Even on this forum I can just about hear everyone yawning. This was a pathetic update.
Bullcrap. This is going to be a fantastic streamer. I am really looking forward to this. If you're one of those dorks that buys all the expensive consoles, controllers, games, then no this isn't for you. If you're like most people, who loves the sort of games you can get for free or a couple bucks on an iPhone or iPad, this thing will freaking rock. If the games are like Wii games, that's good to me. I like the Wii and this will replace one.
Massive fail....I can't believe they missed this....
Oh yeah real big fail...the 8 people with 4K TV's and all that 4K content out there will have to continue to not use it. What a shame.
Check in another 2 years or so when 4K has actually made a dent in the world, and maybe that AppleTV will support it. Maybe.
My ISP provides me 100 Mbps (360 000 Mbp hour), which is 45 GB per hour. I'd say I can do it.
I have no data cap, though I understand you yanks tend to have to deal with that problem, which complicates things for sure.
You yanks? Here in London I get 152Mbps (well, "up to"), and yet last I read only 10 - 15% of the households in the UK (meaning the rest of the UK) had adequate bandwidth which could handle 4K streaming.
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
Recently I read an article where someone quantified the total content as less than 500 hours. Yes, there are a few people who think that one show, two shows, even a channel that devotes a programme or ten, is enough, but that isn't mainstream enough, that's simply not enough content, 4K is still just too niche for Apple.
You think Apple wouldn't like to rent or sell you new content? When it becomes available I'm sure they'll be very happy to do so, assuming everyone can download or stream it, store it and play it on 4K sets. Until then, it's not hit the magic tipping point.
Why is this such a surprise?
Perhaps Apple did this just to be mean, or perhaps they did this to provide fodder for people who love nothing more than earning cool points by posting negative (mostly one line) comments on the internets.
It's quite simple, Apple will have looked at the number of households out there with 4K sets, and of that number, how many will have bandwidth capable of streaming 4K content, and of that number, how many would choose one or more titles of the existing library of 4K content ==> call this "the opportunity." I've no idea what Apple's magic number is, but I'd bet "the opportunity" is so small it makes no sense to even guess what Apple's is, because "the opportunity" is so small that it's nowhere near where Apple would want it to be before they would even think about supporting 4K in this device.
Again, why is this such a surprise?
What I think is that people aren't ignorant or stupid, they know Apple, they know the market and either they demand Apple develop for their niche position (and criticise them for not), or they don't care about any of that and they're just here to bitch about Apple, because, well, it's what the cool kids do.
Thank you, I do have fun with my Samsung TV. ?
You and other 7 people that purchased that overpriced junk that has zero content.
Can you please explain why you don't think there is adequate 4K content available?
Because it doesn't fucking exist at all anywhere?
Well except for the thousands of movie recorded on film, that is at a higher resolution that 4k
Cool story bro
This anti-4K argument is almost word for word the same as when 1080p was a nascent technology.
Today we have many phones capable of shooting 4K video, now including the iPhone.
Today we have many displays capable of displaying 4K content including the iMac, many different televisions, and even Sony's new flagship phone.
4K is the future. It's just getting started.
Fast forward 10 years and it will be 8K and the same exact arguments will happen all over again.
Did I miss it or is there no optical? I don't think I can use this with my surround sound receiver
Update your surround sound receiver with HDMI 1.4 or later. Problem solved.
Dumb that we cannot see the full resolution of our new 4K iPhones on our new ATV. FAIL Apple!
Dumb that some cannot distinguish that ATV has nothing to do with 4K display since it's just a head unit, not a screen.
Yep.
Yep. But Apple can’t even meet demand for the A9 in the iPhone, so they deferred to the better-selling product and gave the Apple TV what was left. Same will go for the iPad Pro, I imagine.
Why no A8X, then, is a matter of the time-honored tradition of Apple not just throwing the best hardware available into any given product.
Maybe 1 out of 100 people know the difference between DD+ and Dolby HD.
And probabily only 1 out of 200 can HEAR the difference.
And only 1 in 1000 have equipment that can actually take advantage of true uncompressed audio.
And your comparison of a bluray player that does 1 thing compared to an AppleTV that will do hundreds of things is silly. Of course the specialized device will have the advantage even at a cheaper price.
Dude. You are an Audio/Videophile. Thats not a dig. I am too. I have a dedicated projector room with a 115 inch screen and a 7.1 speaker system. Hell my walls in the room are smoke black. But I understand what Apple is doing. They are not going to focus on guys like us. They are focused on the mass market.
Now you made some senses there. Some dudes just can't stop complaining why ATV didn't have all the bells and whistles. Apple never did that. Bells and Whistles only come when the time is right and they benefit the mass, not a few people.
I wish Apple didn't discontinue the optical port, but I don't complain. My old receiver needs to be replaced anyway. I have 135" projector in my living room connected to ATV3 with HDMI while an optical cable is connected from ATV to my receiver. Now, I need to get a new hi end receiver with bunch of HDMI and a few optical ports (nice to have), Airplay, Wifi, 4K+pass through, HD sound like new Integra or Marantz receivers and keep it for the next 20 years. Over time we need to get rid of old devices with obsolete technology unless it's a McIntosh or such.
Yep.
Yep. But Apple can’t even meet demand for the A9 in the iPhone, so they deferred to the better-selling product and gave the Apple TV what was left. Same will go for the iPad Pro, I imagine.
Why no A8X, then, is a matter of the time-honored tradition of Apple not just throwing the best hardware available into any given product.
I would bet that it's because of cost to keep the price at $149 with the new kick ass remote. Also, since ATV is no longer a hobby device, Apple will update it more often like 2 years or so. That means we will see more capable ATV with time in the next few years. I would bet that the next 4K capable ATV will be released some time in 2017 when 4K is widely adopted.
I sort of hope every year. At least if they do it next year we can get an A9 and 4K support, EARLY, before the competitors sell the statistic to everyone else.
I sort of hope every year. At least if they do it next year we can get an A9 and 4K support, EARLY, before the competitors sell the statistic to everyone else.
4K streaming boxes are already on the market.
Nvidia, Sony, and Samsung all have have 4K streaming boxes you can buy right now.
Whether or not they are worth the money or are what the consumer wants to buy is another question. But they are here now.