But Apple is a public company that has to make its shareholders happy. Launching a whole new and expensive product line based around a media format for which there is no available content is risky.
Which studio created media format fits the iMac or 15" MBP's 2650x1440 resolution or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution or the iPhone's 1136x640 resolution? There is none! Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
Once studios see the potential market for media distribution, Apple will be in a much better position to negotiate and convince studios to support the next step to 4K.
Note that they started supporting far more than 2K (2048 x 1080) in their 2012 MBPs. That's half the pixels of a 4K display in a 15" panel. Going to 4K is only a 50% increase in resolution hence the doubling of the pixels.
Dear Apple Insider,
we've been seeing and reading rumors of an Apple Television set for a long time now (years even).
I think this is the very first post where you haven't posted a photo of this rumored device as a larger iMac or Thunderbolt display.
Thank you for not doing it this time. Really...thanks.
They also stopped posting that iTunes screen with Hugh Laurie's House sucking on a lollipop. His Neanderthal stare was annoying.
Right, lying about people is okay if you're too lazy to do the work required not to¡!
Love the way you ignored my link that proved you were wrong that most Americans do in fact live with data caps. With over 23,000 posts who in their right mind would try and look through all your posts to find the one where you mentioned what Mac you own? Might as well try an find a phone number in a phone book that isn't alphabetized. So why don't you just tell us what Mac(s) you own unless it is a secret. My memory is pretty good and I remember you specifically mentioning you having a Mac Mini in a thread where you were bashing people for wanting an updated Mac Pro as out of touch. Maybe someone else remembers that as well.
Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.
My provider Cox used to have unlimited and I still thought I had that until about 6 months ago when another friend on Cox showed me a data usage meter app on his phone and asked me how much I used. Then when I logged onto my account I was shocked to see it. So far I have never gone over 200GBs in a month but these 4K movie could push me over the limit easily even if they are just 10GB a piece.
My provider Cox used to have unlimited and I still thought I had that until about 6 months ago when another friend on Cox showed me a data usage meter app on his phone and asked me how much I used. Then when I logged onto my account I was shocked to see it. So far I have never gone over 200GBs in a month but these 4K movie could push me over the limit easily even if they are just 10GB a piece.
Oh, and given that every ISP that already owns bandwidth is trying to move away from wired connectivity altogether, it seems that these artificial caps will keep shrinking and be supplemented by throttling, too. I'm reading Verizon and AT&T both want to stop making their networks better…
Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.
Note he mentions his cap and then a stat (unverified) that caps are rampant with an implication that the caps would not allow for a better resolution large screen monitor because of his wildly obscene file sizes for 4K streaming video. It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?
It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?
Oh, no, you know what's really FUD? What I just read about my ISP, which states that there's a cap for all Internet data that comes into your house (because of "high usage" and "being fair" with data distribution) … EXCEPT for their own TV service, which is Internet-based and is the same data moving in the same way.
Oh, no, you know what's really FUD? What I just read about my ISP, which states that there's a cap for all Internet data that comes into your house (because of "high usage" and "being fair" with data distribution) … EXCEPT for their own TV service, which is Internet-based and is the same data moving in the same way. :no:
You lost me there. That sounds reasonable.
Back in the analog cable TV days everything was sent downstream constantly. In fact, to remove channels we used Taps (i.e.: filters) that would block certain frequencies this was usually done right by the home, usually on the house box or yard box. Those boxes are locked but easily removable and the Tap is just an inline component inserted between two pieces of coax. You unscrew it and then reattached the cable and you're good to go.
With Internet this could sometimes cause issues depending on the frequencies you blocked. We usually just removed them because they were a PITA.
I believe each analog channel was 6MHz of bandwidth. With digital you could compress it (with MPEG-2) and put several channels in that 6MHz segment that the digibox can decode.
You data rate is different they also have to support TV working well. You can't have American Idol not working just to call the cable company to have them tell you you any watch TV because your neighbor is downloading a season of Game of Thrones.
PS: note their TV service is IP based but it is not Internet based. They are an ISP to get you to the Internet but are on their private network and they have a lot of buildings to support getting you streaming and on-demand content to you digibox.
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image..
Some of us Do understand the consequences and do it anyway because, for us, the benefits of encompassing more of our field of view outweighs the (to us) comparatively small compromise in image sharpness. Like I said, I find watching a hockey game on a 103" display at 8 feet from the screen immersive even at 1080 -- I haven't noticed the pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.
I think you may be getting comments from others mixed up with mine. I agree with you.I don't think matching source pixels to display pixels one-to-one is critically important. It's nice when possible, but Apple products scale so well that it's much less important than it may once have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.
I have a fast internet connection, 50MB. I had 100 for a while but didn't notice any improvement so I decided to save a several dollars difference in price.
Apple content streams beautifully. YouTube, depends on the day and obviously the source material. Netflix varies somewhat, but only between kinda crappy and meh. It never looks "good."
I don't understand what that means. Can you elaborate?
To my eyes anyway, I can perceive resolution and detail before being able to see individual pixels. On my 92" front projection system, I have to be a couple of feet from the screen to be able to start to make out individual pixels. However, I don't have to be that close to see all the detail that 1080p has to offer. According to the chart I posted, somewhere around 12' is the magic number (which seems to coincide with my own observations).
Which studio created media format fits the iMac or 15" MBP's 2650x1440 resolution or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution or the iPhone's 1136x640 resolution? There is none! Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
Note that they started supporting far more than 2K (2048 x 1080) in their 2012 MBPs. That's half the pixels of a 4K display in a 15" panel. Going to 4K is only a 50% increase in resolution hence the doubling of the pixels.
There's always a risk in everything. The issue of new content vs. new hardware to run it on, is a chicken and egg problem. Studios aren't inclined to release 4k media if there's not much of a market for it, there won't be much of a market for 4k TVs unless there's media for them.
Love the way you ignored my link that proved you were wrong that most Americans do in fact live with data caps. With over 23,000 posts who in their right mind would try and look through all your posts to find the one where you mentioned what Mac you own? Might as well try an find a phone number in a phone book that isn't alphabetized. So why don't you just tell us what Mac(s) you own unless it is a secret. My memory is pretty good and I remember you specifically mentioning you having a Mac Mini in a thread where you were bashing people for wanting an updated Mac Pro as out of touch. Maybe someone else remembers that as well.
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.
I know one person that bumped into his cap, and he basically has Netflix running on his PS3 12+ hours a day, while watching YouTube on his notebook. Which is insane, but he's on disability for special needs. He upgraded to a higher tier and the problem went away.
There's always a risk in everything. The issue of new content vs. new hardware to run it on, is a chicken and egg problem. Studios aren't inclined to release 4k media if there's not much of a market for it, there won't be much of a market for 4k TVs unless there's media for them.
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.
Then HW is the egg and content is chicken (coming at it from a standpoint that the egg predates the chicken by millions of years ).
Seriously though, this doesn't look like a chicken egg v. chicken situation to me. We have many resolutions for displays that have absolutely no content designed to fit pixel-for-pixel with it. The latest MBPs and iPads are great examples. I know there are some anti-Apple trolls that claims that a tablet or notebook only needs to be 1920x1080p with everything else being overkill* but the truth is we don't think of it when it comes to "computer" displays. We play YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, iTS, etc. content and never say "I wish my display had less pixels." The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached. If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.
* Where were they when Amazon and Google were release high PPI displays in tablets last year?
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.
I know they are. Which is what I tried to explain to your fellow mod who told me to just switch to a better ISP even though no viable alternative exists. I don't think I have ever gone over my cap but once movie sizes double, triple, or even quadruple in size that will be an issue for more and more people. At least our caps in the U.S. are far more generous than many countries around the world with 50GB and less.
ISP's by cable companies are terrified of people cutting the cord for cable TV and will do whatever they can to hinder people using Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. instead of keeping their monthly TV subscription. I hope more cities do what Chattanooga was able to do and offer affordable fiber and give the cable companies some competition. Every year we also seem to see price hikes.
Comments
You just love it up there on bullshit mountain.
Do Macs have HDMI?
Which studio created media format fits the iMac or 15" MBP's 2650x1440 resolution or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution or the iPhone's 1136x640 resolution? There is none! Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
Note that they started supporting far more than 2K (2048 x 1080) in their 2012 MBPs. That's half the pixels of a 4K display in a 15" panel. Going to 4K is only a 50% increase in resolution hence the doubling of the pixels.
They also stopped posting that iTunes screen with Hugh Laurie's House sucking on a lollipop. His Neanderthal stare was annoying.
Originally Posted by gwmac
Not that it really matters.
Right, lying about people is okay if you're too lazy to do the work required not to¡!
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Do Macs have HDMI?
Three models of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right, lying about people is okay if you're too lazy to do the work required not to¡!
Love the way you ignored my link that proved you were wrong that most Americans do in fact live with data caps. With over 23,000 posts who in their right mind would try and look through all your posts to find the one where you mentioned what Mac you own? Might as well try an find a phone number in a phone book that isn't alphabetized. So why don't you just tell us what Mac(s) you own unless it is a secret. My memory is pretty good and I remember you specifically mentioning you having a Mac Mini in a thread where you were bashing people for wanting an updated Mac Pro as out of touch. Maybe someone else remembers that as well.
Originally Posted by gwmac
Love the way you ignored my link that proved you were wrong that most Americans do in fact live with data caps.
Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.
My provider Cox used to have unlimited and I still thought I had that until about 6 months ago when another friend on Cox showed me a data usage meter app on his phone and asked me how much I used. Then when I logged onto my account I was shocked to see it. So far I have never gone over 200GBs in a month but these 4K movie could push me over the limit easily even if they are just 10GB a piece.
Originally Posted by gwmac
My provider Cox used to have unlimited and I still thought I had that until about 6 months ago when another friend on Cox showed me a data usage meter app on his phone and asked me how much I used. Then when I logged onto my account I was shocked to see it. So far I have never gone over 200GBs in a month but these 4K movie could push me over the limit easily even if they are just 10GB a piece.
Oh, and given that every ISP that already owns bandwidth is trying to move away from wired connectivity altogether, it seems that these artificial caps will keep shrinking and be supplemented by throttling, too. I'm reading Verizon and AT&T both want to stop making their networks better…
Note he mentions his cap and then a stat (unverified) that caps are rampant with an implication that the caps would not allow for a better resolution large screen monitor because of his wildly obscene file sizes for 4K streaming video. It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?
Oh, no, you know what's really FUD? What I just read about my ISP, which states that there's a cap for all Internet data that comes into your house (because of "high usage" and "being fair" with data distribution) … EXCEPT for their own TV service, which is Internet-based and is the same data moving in the same way.
Back in the analog cable TV days everything was sent downstream constantly. In fact, to remove channels we used Taps (i.e.: filters) that would block certain frequencies this was usually done right by the home, usually on the house box or yard box. Those boxes are locked but easily removable and the Tap is just an inline component inserted between two pieces of coax. You unscrew it and then reattached the cable and you're good to go.
With Internet this could sometimes cause issues depending on the frequencies you blocked. We usually just removed them because they were a PITA.
I believe each analog channel was 6MHz of bandwidth. With digital you could compress it (with MPEG-2) and put several channels in that 6MHz segment that the digibox can decode.
You data rate is different they also have to support TV working well. You can't have American Idol not working just to call the cable company to have them tell you you any watch TV because your neighbor is downloading a season of Game of Thrones.
PS: note their TV service is IP based but it is not Internet based. They are an ISP to get you to the Internet but are on their private network and they have a lot of buildings to support getting you streaming and on-demand content to you digibox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image..
Some of us Do understand the consequences and do it anyway because, for us, the benefits of encompassing more of our field of view outweighs the (to us) comparatively small compromise in image sharpness. Like I said, I find watching a hockey game on a 103" display at 8 feet from the screen immersive even at 1080 -- I haven't noticed the pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.
I think you may be getting comments from others mixed up with mine. I agree with you. I don't think matching source pixels to display pixels one-to-one is critically important. It's nice when possible, but Apple products scale so well that it's much less important than it may once have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.
I have a fast internet connection, 50MB. I had 100 for a while but didn't notice any improvement so I decided to save a several dollars difference in price.
Apple content streams beautifully. YouTube, depends on the day and obviously the source material. Netflix varies somewhat, but only between kinda crappy and meh. It never looks "good."
H.265 sounds exciting, but until it gets here...
Apple not yet officially adopting it is not the same as it not yet being here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I don't understand what that means. Can you elaborate?
To my eyes anyway, I can perceive resolution and detail before being able to see individual pixels. On my 92" front projection system, I have to be a couple of feet from the screen to be able to start to make out individual pixels. However, I don't have to be that close to see all the detail that 1080p has to offer. According to the chart I posted, somewhere around 12' is the magic number (which seems to coincide with my own observations).
There's always a risk in everything. The issue of new content vs. new hardware to run it on, is a chicken and egg problem. Studios aren't inclined to release 4k media if there's not much of a market for it, there won't be much of a market for 4k TVs unless there's media for them.
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.
I know one person that bumped into his cap, and he basically has Netflix running on his PS3 12+ hours a day, while watching YouTube on his notebook. Which is insane, but he's on disability for special needs. He upgraded to a higher tier and the problem went away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
...or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution...
Wow! Where do I get one of those? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Then HW is the egg and content is chicken (coming at it from a standpoint that the egg predates the chicken by millions of years
Seriously though, this doesn't look like a chicken egg v. chicken situation to me. We have many resolutions for displays that have absolutely no content designed to fit pixel-for-pixel with it. The latest MBPs and iPads are great examples. I know there are some anti-Apple trolls that claims that a tablet or notebook only needs to be 1920x1080p with everything else being overkill* but the truth is we don't think of it when it comes to "computer" displays. We play YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, iTS, etc. content and never say "I wish my display had less pixels." The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached. If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.
* Where were they when Amazon and Google were release high PPI displays in tablets last year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.
I know they are. Which is what I tried to explain to your fellow mod who told me to just switch to a better ISP even though no viable alternative exists. I don't think I have ever gone over my cap but once movie sizes double, triple, or even quadruple in size that will be an issue for more and more people. At least our caps in the U.S. are far more generous than many countries around the world with 50GB and less.
ISP's by cable companies are terrified of people cutting the cord for cable TV and will do whatever they can to hinder people using Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. instead of keeping their monthly TV subscription. I hope more cities do what Chattanooga was able to do and offer affordable fiber and give the cable companies some competition. Every year we also seem to see price hikes.
http://chattanoogagig.com