I just don't see the content for these TVs.
Screen tech is allready so far ahead of content that most 1080p TVs don't show content made for it.
With 4K TVs this is just increasing so much that it isn't funny any more.
Fully agree. The world hasn't even 'moved to' HDTV, never mind even higher resolution. Nice for the next generation, but not something that will 'suddenly evolve and be a global thing in a year or two'. With Apple being known for creating end-to-end solutions, they might be selling just those programs that were recorded on 4k, but then we need fiber as DSL won't suffice. Maybe the US has 'fiber everywhere', but that certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world has it too. Check my small country: http://www.eindelijkglasvezel.nl/waar-ligt-al-glasvezel.html
YouTube '4k video' gives me 635k results. 'HDTV video': 2.2M. 'Video' 1.2B ...whatever this pathetic research of mine may mean ¡
The latest rumor regarding Apple's much speculated entry into the living room comes from Digitimes and is therefore probably wrong like 99.7% of the other predictions Digitimes has made.
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.
My dog has a 3D 1080p TV but he doesn't like wearing his 3D doggles.
Sounds stunning. But why? It wouldn't be in Apple's MO to simply a produce a higher res TV; more dots on the screen - wow! - wet-your-pants Nerd Heaven! LG and/or Samesong &c could do that for themselves.
Why not? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that Apple would do - the television market has become saturated and boring. Everyone is bragging about the same things - which mostly don't matter. Few people can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz (and 240 Hz is insane unless you spend the day watching special test images).
If Apple were to offer 4K televisions, they'd be doing the same thing that they did with the phone and tablet markets (or, to a lesser extent, the MacBook Air) - revolutionizing the market.
There was a patent a while back for glasses-free 3D-TV. %u2026 Ah yes, actually 2010's 3D-projector patent
"Apple's patent describes using a special reflective screen with a rippled texture to create an autostereoscopic projection system, meaning one in which different images are projected to each eye without the need for special glasses."
That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.
That doesn't solve the fundamental problems of 3D mentioned below. Besides, it would be treated by the industry as "just another 3D television where Apple is following rather than leading".
By "physiology" I think he's alluding to the fact that while we can simulate three dimensions by delivering a different image to each eye, what we can't "fix" is the fact that the eye handles depth by focusing and refocusing. Regardless of how good the illusion is, it is still being shown on a flat surface, which means the eye will always be in some manner of conflict with the image ("conflict" might be too strong a word...just couldn't think of something more appropriate...maybe "slight tussle"?). When my eye perceives something in the foreground and then shifts focus to the foreground, the shape of my lens changes to bring that into focus. On a TV, no matter how good the technology is, you're still tricking the eye...the eye wants to change the shape of the lens but then discovers it doesn't need to. Yet this happens constantly. As long as "3D" technology isn't a hologram with real depth, there will always be this issue that causes some manner of eye strain.
There's another issue with that. Something like 10% of the US population doesn't have binocular vision for one reason or another. Watching 3D movies give me a headache and adds nothing to the movie. For a personal device, that's not a problem - the people who can't benefit simply don't buy it. But for a device meant to be watched with others, that could be a problem. Even if there were 6 or 8 people in the house, the fact that one finds 3D TV to be painful may mean that the house doesn't get one. So instead of losing 10% of the potential market, you could lose 50 or 60% of the potential market (maybe more).
Why 4k for the home? You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch, 4k is complete overkill.
You should have clarified that statement by citing a screen size or size range. At 11', the full benefit of 1080p can be realized with a 60" screen. The last time I looked, larger and larger screens are become increasingly affordable. And it's not about seeing the pixels, it's about being able to perceive the resolution.
This would be AWESOME if true! Just like HD TV replaced regular tv's, this technology will eventually grow and become more affordable and replace standard HD...and Apple can be right there at the forefront of it!
While Apple's products may carry a premium price tag their recent interest is to get their products to the masses. I can hardly see the masses willing to pay $14,000+ for a TV, even if it is stunning. It's just not in the budget of the ordinary household.
C*cks Cable should be ashamed of the clunky set top box and remote they are providing to their customers. It's straight out of 1994. Just awful.
Ditto for Cablevision at my mom's house. The box is just awful and the GUI, though just updated, is unbearably slow. DirecTV at home is pretty good, but I imagine a user interface by Apple would run circles around the competition.
A 4k TV coming from Apple means that the product will sport a price tag more than what an average consumer will be able to pay, which means than only people with a lot of money will only be able to afford it.
I said it before...70% of the US economy is driven by the consumer. However, 50% of the US economy is driven by the top 10%.
That top 10% will buy the Apple TV. Just like they can drive a Ford for $15K, but rather drive a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche for 4 times the price of a Ford!
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.
Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?
No?
Then anything they do in this regard WILL fail.
Originally Posted by enzos
That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.
The problem with autostereoscopic 3D is that you need twice the pixels of a regular display.
And since 4K's a stopgap in the first place, the only meaningfully better resolution is SHV. So we're talking a monitor with 2x the pixels of SHV. That won't even be POSSIBLE for another decade.
And all this is ignoring the fact that 3D is nothing but a gimmick.
Originally Posted by quamb
You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch
I can. Dear heavens, can I ever.
4k is complete overkill.
I can see the pixels on these newfangled gigantic TVs from about 1.5x their 'recommended' distance. I don't have rooms that long in which to put them. Retina screens will take over everywhere. It's only a matter of time. SHV is retina, but we're two to three decades away from getting that pushed out.
It seems 4k is a convenient way for manufacturers to push the next big thing and keep the consumer wheel ticking along.
Of course. Absolutely. And they want to sell off THIS instead of the real prize—actual retina panels—because they get to sell everything twice over again before it all becomes (finally!) pointless.
They will never have trouble with this company. I hate the name "iTV" due to how inaccurate it is, but at this point I really want them to just rename Apple TV "iTV" (its codename) just to shut up the people who keep complaining about this for a fake product.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Saturated market. Everybody and his dog owns one. Low profits. Too many players. Bottom feeding. Apple's offering would be too expensive. No control over distribution/pipes/content.
It all sounds like a vaguely familiar set of nay-saying. And it is completely wrong, as it was before.
Bingo. We have to hear about the content first. Then people can start whining about their precious panel while Apple slips them a new Apple TV box to change the world.
Originally Posted by christopher126
I believe Apple will produce a TV in the next 12 months regardless if the Content providers and cable companies are on board or not.
So basically a stupid panel with access to no content and which will fail more quickly than the iPod Hi-Fi?
The "digitimes" track record exposés have been beaten to death... The carcass is getting old.... Can we move beyond their "track record"... Speaking of which 99% of analysts, pundits and posters thought the iPad mini was the "stupidest" move Apple could do.... Apparently Cook and team had the CORRECT hindsight a year or so earlier to move that product to market....doh!
So... by your logic, anything we here from analysts, posters and pundits we should expect the opposite. Okay... I guess we should be focusing on the opposite of a 4KHD TV. the iWatch? Heck, I'm starting to think of a 4K 42" iMac with VESA
You need to keep your logic down to one thought per thread. Either Digitimes is right some of the time, or they are part of the 99%.
and I would argue that the 99% was more like 67%. Yes, big names were leaning maintaining the 'big 10 inch" but many others were arguing for 5 and 7.
Gotta remember the big names get more doses of lithium licks than most others.
Personally, It still boils down to infrastructure and guts: Ripping content at 4K means doubling/quading bandwidth), support of cable/OTA capture and display, integrating your 'iTunes/TV/HT/Aux (bluRay)' into one interface (merging iOS's iTV,airplay,remote,into a better appleTV nav). and doing all that in a manner that makes it profitable for Apple, and attractive for those earning less than 100K a year/household.
Building the TV is the easy part;-) In fact, I still argue that Apple will expose the guts of a new AppleTV/Sound system separate from the TV set for something less than $599 (AppleTV with cable input, sound bar/subwoofer, allowances for side and back speakers).... think mac mini, vs an iMac TV+AppleTV in one enclosure.
It only makes sense if Apple can also offer 4K content. Sony had to "lend" the buyers of their 4K 84" $25,000 TV a hard drive with about 20 movies on it.
Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.
But if Apple is secretly signing deals to get true 4K content, especially if it's exclusive for a time and their TV is large enough, I think Apple can change the market again. The difference however between this and iPhone or iPad is that unless Apple has miraculously found a way to lower prices to a point several years ahead of the market, this isn't going to be a mass consumer product like those were.
I've been saying "No! No!" on this rumour for a long time but with 4K prices coming down, Apple already packing over 505 of the pixels into a 15" display for a reasonably priced notebook, and H.265 being readied by the time this is set to launch and offering a 50% reduction in file sizes for the same quality, I think this is a perfect match with the iTS video and a way for Apple to secure a profitable, high-end foothold and strengthen their ecosystem even more.
Still, I'd expect 4k to require double the bitrate of 1080p.
4x the bit rate unless they also support H.265 which would bring it down to 2X. I'm not aware of any silicon with H.265 encode/decode support yet. Not that Apple couldn't be making their own. My current Apple TV would be good enough for awhile if it had an App Store. I just figured out that they let you move the apps like iPhone and iPad. Not sure how I missed that.
This only makes sense if they can also be the first to provide 4K content via iTunes. Great picture if you can find content. You know, like color TV, when Bonanza was the only show in color.
Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.
At 55" a 3840x2160 TV is 80 PPI. You'd have to sit slightly over 3.5 feet (or more) away from the set for it to be Retina. That sounds great to me.
For a 1080p TV that is 55" the PPI is half that, 40 PPI, which then doubles the the distance which puts it just over 7 feet for the minimum for Apple's Retina classification. 7" might be cutting it close, and if you have a smaller HDTV, especially in the 40 inch range you're likely already at the Retina classification.
That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect. Think of 5 years from now, not today, but regardless of what Apple does they are looking at will they think the puck will be.
It only makes sense if Apple can also offer 4K content. Sony had to "lend" the buyers of their 4K 84" $25,000 TV a hard drive with about 20 movies on it.
Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.
Since when has the market been driven by logic? Look at the push to 120 Hz and then 240 Hz. Other than some very carefully selected test images in conditions you won't experience in your home, you can't even detect the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, much less 240 Hz.
Similarly, even displaying 1080p images, there would be a big push to use a 4K screen. This market loves hype.
Not to mention, of course, the value of 'future-proofing' your purchase.
But if Apple is secretly signing deals to get true 4K content, especially if it's exclusive for a time and their TV is large enough, I think Apple can change the market again. The difference however between this and iPhone or iPad is that unless Apple has miraculously found a way to lower prices to a point several years ahead of the market, this isn't going to be a mass consumer product like those were.
Yes, content is important, but it's not the only possible way to sell the product. And I'm not sure price is such an issue. It wasn't that long ago that a good LCD TV was $5 K or so and they're now well under $1 K. If Apple could sell one for a few thousand dollars, it would energize the 'premium' buyers.
Comments
Fully agree. The world hasn't even 'moved to' HDTV, never mind even higher resolution. Nice for the next generation, but not something that will 'suddenly evolve and be a global thing in a year or two'. With Apple being known for creating end-to-end solutions, they might be selling just those programs that were recorded on 4k, but then we need fiber as DSL won't suffice. Maybe the US has 'fiber everywhere', but that certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world has it too. Check my small country:
http://www.eindelijkglasvezel.nl/waar-ligt-al-glasvezel.html
YouTube '4k video' gives me 635k results. 'HDTV video': 2.2M. 'Video' 1.2B ...whatever this pathetic research of mine may mean ¡
82.5% of statistics are made-up
An Apple TV set is the product of the future, and it always will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.
My dog has a 3D 1080p TV but he doesn't like wearing his 3D doggles.
Or simply obvious.
Agreed.
Why not? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that Apple would do - the television market has become saturated and boring. Everyone is bragging about the same things - which mostly don't matter. Few people can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz (and 240 Hz is insane unless you spend the day watching special test images).
If Apple were to offer 4K televisions, they'd be doing the same thing that they did with the phone and tablet markets (or, to a lesser extent, the MacBook Air) - revolutionizing the market.
That doesn't solve the fundamental problems of 3D mentioned below. Besides, it would be treated by the industry as "just another 3D television where Apple is following rather than leading".
There's another issue with that. Something like 10% of the US population doesn't have binocular vision for one reason or another. Watching 3D movies give me a headache and adds nothing to the movie. For a personal device, that's not a problem - the people who can't benefit simply don't buy it. But for a device meant to be watched with others, that could be a problem. Even if there were 6 or 8 people in the house, the fact that one finds 3D TV to be painful may mean that the house doesn't get one. So instead of losing 10% of the potential market, you could lose 50 or 60% of the potential market (maybe more).
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb
Why 4k for the home? You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch, 4k is complete overkill.
You should have clarified that statement by citing a screen size or size range. At 11', the full benefit of 1080p can be realized with a 60" screen. The last time I looked, larger and larger screens are become increasingly affordable. And it's not about seeing the pixels, it's about being able to perceive the resolution.
While Apple's products may carry a premium price tag their recent interest is to get their products to the masses. I can hardly see the masses willing to pay $14,000+ for a TV, even if it is stunning. It's just not in the budget of the ordinary household.
I believe Apple will produce a TV in the next 12 months regardless if the Content providers and cable companies are on board or not.
C*cks Cable should be ashamed of the clunky set top box and remote they are providing to their customers. It's straight out of 1994. Just awful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
C*cks Cable should be ashamed of the clunky set top box and remote they are providing to their customers. It's straight out of 1994. Just awful.
Ditto for Cablevision at my mom's house. The box is just awful and the GUI, though just updated, is unbearably slow. DirecTV at home is pretty good, but I imagine a user interface by Apple would run circles around the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer
A 4k TV coming from Apple means that the product will sport a price tag more than what an average consumer will be able to pay, which means than only people with a lot of money will only be able to afford it.
I said it before...70% of the US economy is driven by the consumer. However, 50% of the US economy is driven by the top 10%.
That top 10% will buy the Apple TV. Just like they can drive a Ford for $15K, but rather drive a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche for 4 times the price of a Ford!
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.
Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?
No?
Then anything they do in this regard WILL fail.
Originally Posted by enzos
That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.
The problem with autostereoscopic 3D is that you need twice the pixels of a regular display.
And since 4K's a stopgap in the first place, the only meaningfully better resolution is SHV. So we're talking a monitor with 2x the pixels of SHV. That won't even be POSSIBLE for another decade.
And all this is ignoring the fact that 3D is nothing but a gimmick.
Originally Posted by quamb
You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch
I can. Dear heavens, can I ever.
4k is complete overkill.
I can see the pixels on these newfangled gigantic TVs from about 1.5x their 'recommended' distance. I don't have rooms that long in which to put them. Retina screens will take over everywhere. It's only a matter of time. SHV is retina, but we're two to three decades away from getting that pushed out.
It seems 4k is a convenient way for manufacturers to push the next big thing and keep the consumer wheel ticking along.
Of course. Absolutely. And they want to sell off THIS instead of the real prize—actual retina panels—because they get to sell everything twice over again before it all becomes (finally!) pointless.
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen
They could have trouble with iTV in the UK - http://www.itv.com
They will never have trouble with this company. I hate the name "iTV" due to how inaccurate it is, but at this point I really want them to just rename Apple TV "iTV" (its codename) just to shut up the people who keep complaining about this for a fake product.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Saturated market. Everybody and his dog owns one. Low profits. Too many players. Bottom feeding. Apple's offering would be too expensive. No control over distribution/pipes/content.
It all sounds like a vaguely familiar set of nay-saying. And it is completely wrong, as it was before.
Bingo. We have to hear about the content first. Then people can start whining about their precious panel while Apple slips them a new Apple TV box to change the world.
Originally Posted by christopher126
I believe Apple will produce a TV in the next 12 months regardless if the Content providers and cable companies are on board or not.
So basically a stupid panel with access to no content and which will fail more quickly than the iPod Hi-Fi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoeinla
The "digitimes" track record exposés have been beaten to death... The carcass is getting old.... Can we move beyond their "track record"... Speaking of which 99% of analysts, pundits and posters thought the iPad mini was the "stupidest" move Apple could do.... Apparently Cook and team had the CORRECT hindsight a year or so earlier to move that product to market....doh!
So... by your logic, anything we here from analysts, posters and pundits we should expect the opposite. Okay... I guess we should be focusing on the opposite of a 4KHD TV. the iWatch? Heck, I'm starting to think of a 4K 42" iMac with VESA
You need to keep your logic down to one thought per thread. Either Digitimes is right some of the time, or they are part of the 99%.
and I would argue that the 99% was more like 67%. Yes, big names were leaning maintaining the 'big 10 inch" but many others were arguing for 5 and 7.
Gotta remember the big names get more doses of lithium licks than most others.
Personally, It still boils down to infrastructure and guts: Ripping content at 4K means doubling/quading bandwidth), support of cable/OTA capture and display, integrating your 'iTunes/TV/HT/Aux (bluRay)' into one interface (merging iOS's iTV,airplay,remote,into a better appleTV nav). and doing all that in a manner that makes it profitable for Apple, and attractive for those earning less than 100K a year/household.
Building the TV is the easy part;-) In fact, I still argue that Apple will expose the guts of a new AppleTV/Sound system separate from the TV set for something less than $599 (AppleTV with cable input, sound bar/subwoofer, allowances for side and back speakers).... think mac mini, vs an iMac TV+AppleTV in one enclosure.
Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.
But if Apple is secretly signing deals to get true 4K content, especially if it's exclusive for a time and their TV is large enough, I think Apple can change the market again. The difference however between this and iPhone or iPad is that unless Apple has miraculously found a way to lower prices to a point several years ahead of the market, this isn't going to be a mass consumer product like those were.
That's what my math comes out to and that seems feasible to me.
4x the bit rate unless they also support H.265 which would bring it down to 2X. I'm not aware of any silicon with H.265 encode/decode support yet. Not that Apple couldn't be making their own. My current Apple TV would be good enough for awhile if it had an App Store. I just figured out that they let you move the apps like iPhone and iPad. Not sure how I missed that.
At 55" a 3840x2160 TV is 80 PPI. You'd have to sit slightly over 3.5 feet (or more) away from the set for it to be Retina. That sounds great to me.
For a 1080p TV that is 55" the PPI is half that, 40 PPI, which then doubles the the distance which puts it just over 7 feet for the minimum for Apple's Retina classification. 7" might be cutting it close, and if you have a smaller HDTV, especially in the 40 inch range you're likely already at the Retina classification.
That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect. Think of 5 years from now, not today, but regardless of what Apple does they are looking at will they think the puck will be.
Since when has the market been driven by logic? Look at the push to 120 Hz and then 240 Hz. Other than some very carefully selected test images in conditions you won't experience in your home, you can't even detect the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, much less 240 Hz.
Similarly, even displaying 1080p images, there would be a big push to use a 4K screen. This market loves hype.
Not to mention, of course, the value of 'future-proofing' your purchase.
Yes, content is important, but it's not the only possible way to sell the product. And I'm not sure price is such an issue. It wasn't that long ago that a good LCD TV was $5 K or so and they're now well under $1 K. If Apple could sell one for a few thousand dollars, it would energize the 'premium' buyers.