The 5k iMac came out before any iPhone could shoot 4k video. So your argument that Apple gives all its products the same capability at the same time is false.
Just because a ton of 4k TV's are being advertised does not mean its main stream. Don't you remember all those 3D and smartTV's that were advertised a few years back?
False. The 5k iMac came out before the iPhone could record 4k.
The iPhone could take pictures that were higher resolution than the highest resolution iMac screen for many years.
So what? They are just trying gauge you out of more money. The fact is standard bluray has better picture quality than their 4k service. Hell even OTA 1080p will blow it away.
Wrong. 4k Bluray won't be coming out till 2016 in the USA. The Samsung unit that will come out early in 2016 will be $500. Who knows how expensive the discs will be. At those prices that is not even close to mainstream. And there will definitely not be a ton of 4k bluray content coming out this Christmas.
What you will be enjoying this year and next is not true 4k. In fact its worse than standard Bluray. But go ahead and enjoy.
The only thing you will enjoy this year and next is fake 4k streams that are not even better than 1080p OTA signal. If you are lucky enough to buy a $500 4k bluray player than you will have significantly better picture. But most studios will not release their top movies on 4k Bluray until the user base is large enough. So for this year and next you will only be getting B-list or C-list movies.
I'll wait to buy a 4k projector. My waiting 2 years I'll be able to save close to $10k or more. For me paying $10k for a bunch of B-list movies and fake 4k streaming is not worth it.
This is like people who bought $20k plasma screens that had 720p resolution in the late 90's. But they only had a DVD and standard defintion TV. LOL.
When did Apple start marketing only to the Mainstream?
Not that I agree with you on content availability, but even if all I could watch was the 4K content I created on my own with my Go-Pro, Phantom 3 and iPhone, it would be worth the extra bit of money for a 4K TV.
And so what if the 4K cable service isn't "true 4K"! It will look better than their existing 1080p service!
There's nothing I can do today to prove you're wrong about how quickly content will become available or how good it will look compared to what's available today - but there's also nothing you can do to prove your point!
At the end of the day, with the up converters built in to the 4K TV's, I think that even the existing 1080p content will look better on my 70" 4K kitchen TV. I'm sticking with a good quality 1080p projector for the home theater for now (with 3D but not by choice) and I'll upgrade the projector in a couple of years when the price drops on the 4K ones. I'll count myself lucky that I have the disposable income to take a chance on the new technology and enjoy its benefits (no matter how slight) starting now and that I can upgrade in a couple of years and move the existing 70" to the bedroom.
If people are hell bent on maximizing the value of every last penny, they may want to take your advice and wait - but if they've got any devices that create 4K content and a little bit of disposable income, I recommend they choose 4K for their next TV - especially at the bargain prices you can find today!
How about a friendly wager on when the Apple TV gets 4k capabilities? My claim is that it will get 4K via a software update less than 3 months after release... Will that mean it's "mainstream" because Apple has finally supported it?
But I doubt I would even use the AppleTV for 4k movies. Why? Because bandwidth is not good enough for true 4k. Also streaming still is not using lossless audio that Blurays have been using for a decade.
Hopefully in 2-3 years I'll be able to:
1. Buy a 4k projector for under $3k
2. Buy a 4k disc player for under $200
If I'm going to 4k I don't want any compromises. Streaming video that has a bitrate lower than bluray is NOT acceptable. Streaming 4k that only has Dolby Digital is NOT acceptable.
Till then I will continue to use my 1080p projector and Bluray player that has better overall picture and MUCH BETTER sound than 4k streaming.
Just out of curiosity, what's your current projector?
I just sold my house and included the projector and 70" kitchen TV with the deal...thus the reason I'm currently shopping for replacements for both.
Sounds like we have different criteria for "ideal" but still curious what model projector you have and what AV receiver you use for sound.
I have the Panasonic PT-AE4000 (about 5 years old) and a 70" Sharp Aquos (also about 4-5 years old). Planning to replace them next week when the house deal closes with an Epson 5030ub and a Sharp 70" 4K and an Onkyo TX-RZ800 receiver. Also thinking about picking up a 2nd projector for the bedroom. Do you have any experience with the ones in the $800-1000 price range (Benq / Optoma)? The published specs look similar to the higher priced ones - but there's gotta be something wrong with them if they're half the price - right?
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
I think the new Apple TV also has 2 GB of RAM just like the iPhone 6s, but the CPU is an A8 unlike the A9 in the iPhone. Perhaps it is still enough to decode 4K with the extra gig of RAM, but there is probably a reason they didn't enable 4K with iOS 9 on the iPhone 6 which is also running an A8. Perhaps it was due to not enough RAM, but then again an A8 might not have enough power.
Do so few people use optical out that Apple decided to drop it completely from the new Apple TV? My current Apple TV is hooked up to a soundbar that I have via optical.
If I were to get this new Apple TV, I have to look into other sort of hookup options, and I would have to buy some sort of adapter in addition to the Apple TV.
For now, I'm just going to keep using my current Apple TV. Maybe I'll look into this new Apple TV in the future sometime, after I see how gaming is
going to be on it.
I on the other hand am excited that the new AppleTV supports bluetooth audio.
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
With all of the other verbiage in my post, I'm surprised that you thought I was actually suggesting the 6s should not have included the ability to shoot 4K video.
But - even if that had been my suggestion - I wouldn't call it "over the top" negativity! That in itself is an exaggeration! As wrong as the statement is - that could be a valid opinion held by some people and suitable for discussion in a forum like this. Had it been a real sentiment, it could have/should have prompted a brief rebuttal/enlightenment such as the detail your provided about the video editing benefits. I'm curious why you would label it as "over the top"?
There is no misinterpreting going on. If you imagine any relationship at all between 4k on iPhone and 4k on AppleTV....you're in fantasy land.
The new AppleTV 4 will never do 4k. Ever.
That will be the #1 tentpole feature of the next Apple TV revision.
I on the other hand am excited that the new AppleTV supports bluetooth audio.
Now I can ditch the cables and go wireless.
Im exited about that too...I just hope it works better than just about every other Bluetooth audio solution in the world. They aren't usually very good for A/V sync.
I think the new Apple TV also has 2 GB of RAM just like the iPhone 6s, but the CPU is an A8 unlike the A9 in the iPhone. Perhaps it is still enough to decode 4K with the extra gig of RAM, but there is probably a reason they didn't enable 4K with iOS 9 on the iPhone 6 which is also running an A8. Perhaps it was due to not enough RAM, but then again an A8 might not have enough power.
Let's not kid around here. Hardware limitation there may be, but they were never to going to just "enable it" for older devices. It is a tentpole/bullet point feature of the 6s.
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
With all of the other verbiage in my post, I'm surprised that you thought I was actually suggesting the 6s should not have included the ability to shoot 4K video.
But - even if that had been my suggestion - I wouldn't call it "over the top" negativity! That in itself is an exaggeration! As wrong as the statement is - that could be a valid opinion held by some people and suitable for discussion in a forum like this. Had it been a real sentiment, it could have/should have prompted a brief rebuttal/enlightenment such as the detail your provided about the video editing benefits. I'm curious why you would label it as "over the top"?
Go back and re-read the paragraph I reported, and the sentence I highlighted, and you tell me how I interpreted that wrong. It is *exactly* what you wrote! Maybe people spew out so much they don't even realize what they say half the time.
I think anyone who makes the statement (as you did) - that if Apple didn't include 4k in the Apple TV update that they should have left the feature out of the iPhone 6s - is over the top. It is a ridiculous statement.
Let's not kid around here. Hardware limitation there may be, but they were never to going to just "enable it" for older devices. It is a tentpole/bullet point feature of the 6s.
Apple tends to only enable a feature on an older device if they know it is going to deliver a good user experience. If the experience is going to be marginal they don't provide it, but they do try to keep the current OS running on as many old devices as possible so that they can have security patches, but you don't get all the features of the current devices. That is why I don't agree that they will enable 4K on the new Apple TV with a software update.
I do agree it should have been time for 4K but the new Apple TV looks like it was in the works for a long time and 4K probably wasn't on the road map at the time the design was finalized. This edition seems to be more about Siri, the app store, the remote and new subscription services rather than the box itself.
We are still in an era where the world is NOW 1080. HD is in full effect we still have channels that are just now being changed over to 1080 (or 720). As far as being a "worldwide" device this will fit the bill for a while. And yes it makes a good feature for 5th gen. I'm good. I mean if you haven't noticed Apple is not your 1990 Steve Jobs (NeXt Apple). They may get rid of a cd drive or port, but they don't make a product too far reaching every day. Some projects are curated and cultivated. They don't want a sloppy experience on one of their devices. They have two options they can hear it now from all of the heavy 4K guys saying why why why, or they could add the 4K and hear all the heavy 4K guys go it's too choppy choppy choppy. They would rather listen to a round of guys asking why, why, why, and then release and millions of people are happy with the performance at 1080. Just comes down to what batch of complaining do they want to listen to, either way they are going to get it before or after.
It's a pity Siri doesn't work in all countries. Then again, I only have the option of buying movies and music on the <span style="line-height:1.4em;">?TV. No TV shows yet, no Hulu, Netflix yet, so I definitely am not the target market for this.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'll still get it though!</span>
Oh yes you are the target market.
I don't know where you live but here in New Zealand we have the same issue as you. However with the new AppleTV we do have the potential for TVNZ, TV3, SkyTV, etc to make apps that work with the AppleTV so we can watch that content. I'd still rather purchase TV shows through iTunes but it's a trade off I don't mind having because I haven't had terrestrial TV since the nation went digital TV only.
Stop excusing Apple for not future proofing the latest Apple TV for 4K. Hardware prices for this tech have already plummeted. My par for the course 40Mbs internet connection can already stream 4K with bandwidth to spare. Beginning next year there's going to be a huge push by hardware manufactures and content providers alike to bring 4K to the mainstream. Also as far as I know the A8 is capable of streaming 4K too. There is no reason why Apple couldn't of implemented this considering how close 4K is now to becoming mainstream.
Future proofing a media player? That is just never going to happen. You should get a player that does what you want now and fits in with the direction that you want your digital life to go.
As for the whole 4K thing. There is no content, no standard, etc ... Should we be paying licenses for the h.265 codec when hardly anything uses it? The Netflix argument is odd. You want Apple to increase the price for the Apple TV for the 12 shows that people can watch in UHD on Netflix ( for which they pay a premium $4/month).
The 4K issue should just end now. Buy a Roku 4 if you really need it.
I dont begrudge them charging me a little extra for a premium product.
Well it's almost a 50% increase for more streams and almost no UHD content. Should we be paying more for the Apple TV just so you can watch Blacklist repeatedly?
There are licensing fees for h.265, no standard codec yet for streaming due to those fees, ... It's up in the air. Negotiations over fees are still happening. This whole 4K thing is ridiculous. People seem to get off on bragging rights. It, 4K streaming that is, is not ready and may never be. I'd be happy if my cable provider would get off 720p.
The important thing about the Apple TV is the App Store and content. This whole specs' conversation is just distracting everyone from what really matters.
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
Don't forget the rant about $1 per month for increased iCloud data.
Let's discuss a feature that will actually be in the new Apple TV. I am not a gamer and so I think I can do fine with the 32GB model and don't need 64GB. Or am I missing something?
Finally, a relevant question. I too am not a gamer. I don't really see the need for 64GB. I will be getting the 32GB model.
Well it's almost a 50% increase for more streams and almost no UHD content. Should we be paying more for the Apple TV just so you can watch Blacklist repeatedly?
There are licensing fees for h.265, no standard codec yet for streaming due to those fees, ... It's up in the air. Negotiations over fees are still happening. This whole 4K thing is ridiculous. People seem to get off on bragging rights. It, 4K streaming that is, is not ready and may never be. I'd be happy if my cable provider would get off 720p.
The important thing about the Apple TV is the App Store and content. This whole specs' conversation is just distracting everyone from what really matters.
Well, I guess I'm lucky that The Blacklist is one of my favorite TV shows and it is shot beautifully. The high res presentation is quite nice to look at, sorry sog35.
You know another way to jack up your Netflix bill? Add DVDs to your plan. To raise your cost even further, enable BluRay.
Of course they have an entry level subscription charge. If you want more, it costs more. Eventually the base subscription will include more efficient compression and probably higher bitrate. With 4K streaming tier, they have established a tier where they provide a better stream quality if you are willing to pay more.
I'm sure the AV gurus would prefer to tweak how their particular streams are encoded, like the desire for a high bitrate 1080p stream, but that kind of geek mode is a bit unrealistic to expect of a mass market service like Netflix that my mom and 3 year old niece need to be able to operate without reading a tech dissertation about compression & bitrate. The consumer has been programmed to differentiate HD by resolution. That is the way quality is going to be tiered. For better or worse.
I didn't know that optical doesn't support 7.1, but my soundbar is only 5.1, so it wouldn't make a big difference, at least with my set up at the moment. I just bought that soundbar last year, so I'm not willing to replace it just yet, as it works fine, and sounds ok.
Your soundbar is 2.1 and they use marketing to say it mimics 5.1- which it doesn't. I have a soundbar also in my den (bottom floor of a 2 floor home that isn't pre-wired)- and while they can be good. 5.1 and 7.1, they are not.
I'll buy one on launch day. $149 is a reasonable price for a device I will use and enjoy.
I am quite interested to see the capabilities and what the apps will do. Tim's prediction that the "future of TV is apps" is far more interesting to me than 4k. The screen saver function looks nice, but I'm hoping it (or an app) will allow placing some data on it as well. A clock, perhaps a weather/radar popup, maybe allow an iMessage popup that is customizable?
Games could be interesting, so it will be fun to see what people come up with. I'm not a gamer, but I can see being enticed.
Your soundbar is 2.1 and they use marketing to say it mimics 5.1- which it doesn't. I have a soundbar also in my den (bottom floor of a 2 floor home that isn't pre-wired)- and while they can be good. 5.1 and 7.1, they are not.
Yes, it's not true 5.1 of course, as there are not five separate speakers surrounding me, but I don't agree that it's just a gimmick.
Because I have fed various sources into it, including 2.1, 5.1, and DTS, and I definitely notice a difference when switching between them.
The sound definitely opens up more and becomes much wider when feeding it with a 5.1 signal. I'm not sure if they're using some sort of pseudo 3d surround phasing, but either way, it is better than a regular stereo or 2.1 signal and I always try to watch stuff in 5.1, when I have the opportunity, because it pleases my ears more than 2.1 coming out of the same soundbar.
Comments
By the time 4K is relevant your LG set will probably be broken.
That's just cold.
When did Apple start marketing only to the Mainstream?
Not that I agree with you on content availability, but even if all I could watch was the 4K content I created on my own with my Go-Pro, Phantom 3 and iPhone, it would be worth the extra bit of money for a 4K TV.
And so what if the 4K cable service isn't "true 4K"! It will look better than their existing 1080p service!
There's nothing I can do today to prove you're wrong about how quickly content will become available or how good it will look compared to what's available today - but there's also nothing you can do to prove your point!
At the end of the day, with the up converters built in to the 4K TV's, I think that even the existing 1080p content will look better on my 70" 4K kitchen TV. I'm sticking with a good quality 1080p projector for the home theater for now (with 3D but not by choice) and I'll upgrade the projector in a couple of years when the price drops on the 4K ones. I'll count myself lucky that I have the disposable income to take a chance on the new technology and enjoy its benefits (no matter how slight) starting now and that I can upgrade in a couple of years and move the existing 70" to the bedroom.
If people are hell bent on maximizing the value of every last penny, they may want to take your advice and wait - but if they've got any devices that create 4K content and a little bit of disposable income, I recommend they choose 4K for their next TV - especially at the bargain prices you can find today!
How about a friendly wager on when the Apple TV gets 4k capabilities? My claim is that it will get 4K via a software update less than 3 months after release... Will that mean it's "mainstream" because Apple has finally supported it?
Just out of curiosity, what's your current projector?
I just sold my house and included the projector and 70" kitchen TV with the deal...thus the reason I'm currently shopping for replacements for both.
Sounds like we have different criteria for "ideal" but still curious what model projector you have and what AV receiver you use for sound.
I have the Panasonic PT-AE4000 (about 5 years old) and a 70" Sharp Aquos (also about 4-5 years old). Planning to replace them next week when the house deal closes with an Epson 5030ub and a Sharp 70" 4K and an Onkyo TX-RZ800 receiver. Also thinking about picking up a 2nd projector for the bedroom. Do you have any experience with the ones in the $800-1000 price range (Benq / Optoma)? The published specs look similar to the higher priced ones - but there's gotta be something wrong with them if they're half the price - right?
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
I think the new Apple TV also has 2 GB of RAM just like the iPhone 6s, but the CPU is an A8 unlike the A9 in the iPhone. Perhaps it is still enough to decode 4K with the extra gig of RAM, but there is probably a reason they didn't enable 4K with iOS 9 on the iPhone 6 which is also running an A8. Perhaps it was due to not enough RAM, but then again an A8 might not have enough power.
Do so few people use optical out that Apple decided to drop it completely from the new Apple TV? My current Apple TV is hooked up to a soundbar that I have via optical.
If I were to get this new Apple TV, I have to look into other sort of hookup options, and I would have to buy some sort of adapter in addition to the Apple TV.
For now, I'm just going to keep using my current Apple TV. Maybe I'll look into this new Apple TV in the future sometime, after I see how gaming is
going to be on it.
I on the other hand am excited that the new AppleTV supports bluetooth audio.
Now I can ditch the cables and go wireless.
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
With all of the other verbiage in my post, I'm surprised that you thought I was actually suggesting the 6s should not have included the ability to shoot 4K video.
But - even if that had been my suggestion - I wouldn't call it "over the top" negativity! That in itself is an exaggeration! As wrong as the statement is - that could be a valid opinion held by some people and suitable for discussion in a forum like this. Had it been a real sentiment, it could have/should have prompted a brief rebuttal/enlightenment such as the detail your provided about the video editing benefits. I'm curious why you would label it as "over the top"?
There is no misinterpreting going on. If you imagine any relationship at all between 4k on iPhone and 4k on AppleTV....you're in fantasy land.
The new AppleTV 4 will never do 4k. Ever.
That will be the #1 tentpole feature of the next Apple TV revision.
I on the other hand am excited that the new AppleTV supports bluetooth audio.
Now I can ditch the cables and go wireless.
Im exited about that too...I just hope it works better than just about every other Bluetooth audio solution in the world. They aren't usually very good for A/V sync.
I think the new Apple TV also has 2 GB of RAM just like the iPhone 6s, but the CPU is an A8 unlike the A9 in the iPhone. Perhaps it is still enough to decode 4K with the extra gig of RAM, but there is probably a reason they didn't enable 4K with iOS 9 on the iPhone 6 which is also running an A8. Perhaps it was due to not enough RAM, but then again an A8 might not have enough power.
Let's not kid around here. Hardware limitation there may be, but they were never to going to just "enable it" for older devices. It is a tentpole/bullet point feature of the 6s.
Boy did you ever misinterpret my post! I wasn't suggesting that Apple shouldn't have released the 4K video in the iPhone - I was suggesting that because they did - that's all the evidence I need to tell me that they will be enabling the 4K feature in the Apple TV via a software update in the very near future. You may disagree - and that's your perogative - but I say the Apple TV will be 4K capable in 3 months or less via a software update.
With all of the other verbiage in my post, I'm surprised that you thought I was actually suggesting the 6s should not have included the ability to shoot 4K video.
But - even if that had been my suggestion - I wouldn't call it "over the top" negativity! That in itself is an exaggeration! As wrong as the statement is - that could be a valid opinion held by some people and suitable for discussion in a forum like this. Had it been a real sentiment, it could have/should have prompted a brief rebuttal/enlightenment such as the detail your provided about the video editing benefits. I'm curious why you would label it as "over the top"?
Go back and re-read the paragraph I reported, and the sentence I highlighted, and you tell me how I interpreted that wrong. It is *exactly* what you wrote! Maybe people spew out so much they don't even realize what they say half the time.
I think anyone who makes the statement (as you did) - that if Apple didn't include 4k in the Apple TV update that they should have left the feature out of the iPhone 6s - is over the top. It is a ridiculous statement.
Let's not kid around here. Hardware limitation there may be, but they were never to going to just "enable it" for older devices. It is a tentpole/bullet point feature of the 6s.
Apple tends to only enable a feature on an older device if they know it is going to deliver a good user experience. If the experience is going to be marginal they don't provide it, but they do try to keep the current OS running on as many old devices as possible so that they can have security patches, but you don't get all the features of the current devices. That is why I don't agree that they will enable 4K on the new Apple TV with a software update.
I do agree it should have been time for 4K but the new Apple TV looks like it was in the works for a long time and 4K probably wasn't on the road map at the time the design was finalized. This edition seems to be more about Siri, the app store, the remote and new subscription services rather than the box itself.
Laters...
I don't know where you live but here in New Zealand we have the same issue as you. However with the new AppleTV we do have the potential for TVNZ, TV3, SkyTV, etc to make apps that work with the AppleTV so we can watch that content. I'd still rather purchase TV shows through iTunes but it's a trade off I don't mind having because I haven't had terrestrial TV since the nation went digital TV only.
Future proofing a media player? That is just never going to happen. You should get a player that does what you want now and fits in with the direction that you want your digital life to go.
As for the whole 4K thing. There is no content, no standard, etc ... Should we be paying licenses for the h.265 codec when hardly anything uses it? The Netflix argument is odd. You want Apple to increase the price for the Apple TV for the 12 shows that people can watch in UHD on Netflix ( for which they pay a premium $4/month).
The 4K issue should just end now. Buy a Roku 4 if you really need it.
Well it's almost a 50% increase for more streams and almost no UHD content. Should we be paying more for the Apple TV just so you can watch Blacklist repeatedly?
There are licensing fees for h.265, no standard codec yet for streaming due to those fees, ... It's up in the air. Negotiations over fees are still happening. This whole 4K thing is ridiculous. People seem to get off on bragging rights. It, 4K streaming that is, is not ready and may never be. I'd be happy if my cable provider would get off 720p.
The important thing about the Apple TV is the App Store and content. This whole specs' conversation is just distracting everyone from what really matters.
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
Don't forget the rant about $1 per month for increased iCloud data.
Or GTAT... or AAPL at $110...
Finally, a relevant question. I too am not a gamer. I don't really see the need for 64GB. I will be getting the 32GB model.
Well, I guess I'm lucky that The Blacklist is one of my favorite TV shows and it is shot beautifully. The high res presentation is quite nice to look at, sorry sog35.
You know another way to jack up your Netflix bill? Add DVDs to your plan. To raise your cost even further, enable BluRay.
Of course they have an entry level subscription charge. If you want more, it costs more. Eventually the base subscription will include more efficient compression and probably higher bitrate. With 4K streaming tier, they have established a tier where they provide a better stream quality if you are willing to pay more.
I'm sure the AV gurus would prefer to tweak how their particular streams are encoded, like the desire for a high bitrate 1080p stream, but that kind of geek mode is a bit unrealistic to expect of a mass market service like Netflix that my mom and 3 year old niece need to be able to operate without reading a tech dissertation about compression & bitrate. The consumer has been programmed to differentiate HD by resolution. That is the way quality is going to be tiered. For better or worse.
I didn't know that optical doesn't support 7.1, but my soundbar is only 5.1, so it wouldn't make a big difference, at least with my set up at the moment. I just bought that soundbar last year, so I'm not willing to replace it just yet, as it works fine, and sounds ok.
Your soundbar is 2.1 and they use marketing to say it mimics 5.1- which it doesn't. I have a soundbar also in my den (bottom floor of a 2 floor home that isn't pre-wired)- and while they can be good. 5.1 and 7.1, they are not.
I'll buy one on launch day. $149 is a reasonable price for a device I will use and enjoy.
I am quite interested to see the capabilities and what the apps will do. Tim's prediction that the "future of TV is apps" is far more interesting to me than 4k. The screen saver function looks nice, but I'm hoping it (or an app) will allow placing some data on it as well. A clock, perhaps a weather/radar popup, maybe allow an iMessage popup that is customizable?
Games could be interesting, so it will be fun to see what people come up with. I'm not a gamer, but I can see being enticed.
Your soundbar is 2.1 and they use marketing to say it mimics 5.1- which it doesn't. I have a soundbar also in my den (bottom floor of a 2 floor home that isn't pre-wired)- and while they can be good. 5.1 and 7.1, they are not.
Yes, it's not true 5.1 of course, as there are not five separate speakers surrounding me, but I don't agree that it's just a gimmick.
Because I have fed various sources into it, including 2.1, 5.1, and DTS, and I definitely notice a difference when switching between them.
The sound definitely opens up more and becomes much wider when feeding it with a 5.1 signal. I'm not sure if they're using some sort of pseudo 3d surround phasing, but either way, it is better than a regular stereo or 2.1 signal and I always try to watch stuff in 5.1, when I have the opportunity, because it pleases my ears more than 2.1 coming out of the same soundbar.